Professor Cox:
Below is a paper that I did for another class that I'm taking thi
semester.  I thought you might like to have a copy since it addresses 
some of the issues that we have discussed in your class.

***************************************************
*This document is the intellectual property of the author.  Distribution *
*is restricted to educational and general interest purposes only.        *
*                                                                        
*Author:  William E. Benso <wbenso@osf1.gmu.edu>                         *
**************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------



                             A "CHILD" IN SEARCH
                                 OF GUIDANCE

                                     For
                           Professor Raymond U. Akwule, Ph.D
                  COMM 544 (Telecommunication Policy and Regulation)
                      George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia



                                     By:
                               William E. Benso




                                    Date:
                                April 20, 1995

ABSTRACT

     The Internet is a "child".  An undisciplined immature "child" 
that is trying to walk before it learns to crawl.  The modern
Internet was developed a little over 25 years ago and in the desir
to achieve a decentralized design, fundamental legal issues such as
privacy were either overlooked, not realized, or simply not taken
into consideration
     Today, society is immersed in cyberspace and computer bulleti
boards are everywhere.  Yet these fundamental legal issues ar
still being debated by both the private and public sectors.  The 
government supports this new Information Age and insists on a
degree of regulatory responsibility while certain individuals and
organizations view government involvement simply as an infringemen
upon individual rights.
     The boxing gloves must come off and the finger pointing needs
to stop.  For the cyberspace "child" to develop and flourish, the
public and private sectors must establish a dialogue of cooperation
and set the basic ground rules regarding fundamental civil rights
as they apply to cyberspace.

A "CHILD" IS BOR
     In August 1968, a request from the United States Department of
Defense made its way to Frank Heart, a manager at Bolt Beranek and
Newman, Inc. (a high technology consulting firm in Cambridge,
Massachusetts).  The request was for a proposal to design a
computer network, based on packet switching, that would connec
widely dispersed computers.  Severo Ornstein, also employed at Bolt
Beranek and Newman, Inc., was asked to comment on this proposal and
responded:  'Sure we could build such a thing, but I don't see why
anybody would want it' (Anthes 101).  Given that this proposal
evolved to eventually become the Internet, this proved to be quite
an understatement.  Today's Internet has grown from a 4-node
ARPANET in 1969 to an estimated 992,000 hosts in September 1992 and
the growth rate is over 1,000 hosts per day (Press 21).  The
Internet is actually a network of networks, and NSFNET, the U.S. 
backbone, grew from 164 domestic and 9 foreign networks in July
1988 to 4,112 domestic and 2,273 foreign networks in August 1992 
(Press 22).  Today the Internet connects the cyberspace computers
of millions of people worldwide and the number of new users is
showing no signs of slowing down.
     But in reality, the Internet is still a "child" that needs
room to grow and also rules to live by.  This "child" was initially
designed to withstand a nuclear attack and allow military and other
government agencies to continue to communicate and conduct
research.  To achieve this ability, the resulting product was
designed to have no central command, no specific ownership and no
apparent authority within cyberspace.  Unfortunately, by achievin
this technical goal, many legal and social issues have arisen that
need resolved before the "child" can fully mature.  It is best
stated by Lotus founder Mitch Kapor:  'If you want to compare
cyberspace to television, we haven't even got to 'The Honeymooners'
and 'I Love Lucy' yet' (Goodell 8).
     One of the biggest legal dilemmas centers around the computer
bulletin boards that exist in cyberspace.  But before proceeding,
two definitions are needed here.  One is "cyberspace" and the other
is "computer bulletin board".  A computer bulletin board exists i
cyberspace as a central computer whereby people (via their own
computers and telephone lines) can exchange text messages, data, 
graphic files, etc..  The term "cyberspace" was originally coined
by William Gibson in his 1984 novel Neuromancer.  And one good, bu
rather lengthy, definition of cyberspace comes from Michae
Benedikt, chair of the Department of Architecture at the Universit
of Texas at Austin.  In his Collected Abstracts from the Firs
Conference on Cyberspace, Benedikt described it as follows
'Cyberspace is a globally networked, computer-sustained, computer-
accessed, and computer-generated, multi-dimensional, artificial, o
'virtual' reality.  In this world, onto which every computer screen
is a window, actual, geographical distance is irrelevant.  Objects
seen or heard are neither physical nor, necessarily, presentations
of physical objects, but are rather - in form, character, and
action - made up of data, of pure information.  This information is
derived in part from the operation of the natural, physical world,
but is derived primarily from the immense traffic of symbolic
information, images, sounds, and people, that constitute huma
enterprise in science, art, business, and culture' (Uncapher 9). 
Today there are around 45,000 individual computer bulletin boards
operating in the United States (Goodell 4) and the legal issues
such as copyright, privacy, free speech and search and seizure
continue to be debated in both the private and public sectors (or,
in many cases, private versus the public sector).
     To obtain a good understanding of the issues involved, it is
best to examine some of the numerous legal cases that involve
cyberspace and computer bulletin boards.
YOU CAN'T COPY THAT ... I THINK
     One of the most recent legal cases involved Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) student David LaMacchia.  LaMacchi
was accused of using two of the university's workstations to
distribute commercial software worth more than a million dollars b
encouraging others to copy commercial software onto the servers an
to make copies of software already stored there.  Prosecutors
argued that LaMacchia violated the 1952 federal wire fraud law, but
the U.S. law did not explicitly ban what LaMacchia was accused of
doing.  Defense lawyers argued that the law on wire fraud, which 
was designed to prevent the use of telephone wires in interstate 
fraud schemes, did not apply.  Defense lawyer David Duncan of
Zalkind, Rodrigues, Lunt & Duncan argued that LaMacchia had not
profited from his actions; which is a key element of copyright
violation, and that other media are not subject to such strict
standards.  He stated:  'One example is a public library with Xerox
machines.  It doesn't take much to imagine users are violating
copyright' (Hecht 7).  Mr. Stern, the U.S. prosecuting attorney, 
stated that the government was not interested as to whether
LaMacchia had profited from his actions, but was concerned with
protecting intellectual-property rights.  This government positio
was applauded by the Software Publishers Association.  It i
estimated that software publishers lose an estimated 1.5 billion 
dollars a year (DeLoughry A32) due to illegal duplications of
programs within companies.  But it is impossible to estimate the 
losses attributed to bulletin board systems since, according to
Kenneth Wasch, executive director of the Software Publisher
Association, 'The exponential growth of the Internet allows
exponentially more opportunities for illegal activity' (DeLoughry
A32).
     Many Internet users were concerned that this case could lead
law enforcement officials to prosecute bulletin board operators who
may know nothing about pirated software or other illegal material
posted on their systems.  With regards to the issue of copyright 
and profit, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation made
the following interesting statement:  'It's not true that we all 
pay for software copying.  Lost revenues are not a cost to
publishers.  They're just not as rich as they dream of being'
(Carroll 18:1).
     The LaMacchia case was eventually dropped, but the question as
to copyright within cyberspace and bulletin boards still remains. 
How does one 'own' electronic information (be it software or simply
a message from an individual posted on a bulletin board) that is 
made up of bits and data instead of physical matter?  Is the
electronic record a copyrightable 'writing'?  And if so, by an
individual or a group?  If someone wishes to extract portions and
transmit to another person, would that constitute fair use or
copyright misuse?

NO ONE UNDER 17 ADMITTED WITHOUT PARENT
     Obscenity laws are also being applied to computer bulleti
boards.  Recently, Robert and Carleen Thomas were arrested and
charged with eleven Federal obscenity violations.  The Thomas' ra
the Amateur Action Bulletin Board Services and members were able to
download pornographic photographs, exchange discussion and orde
explicit videotapes.  The Thomas' were convicted, but the crucial
point of this case was that the Thomas' lived in California yet th
charges originated in Tennessee.  This was the first time that a 
bulletin board operator was prosecuted where the obscene material
was received instead of its point of origin.  Defense lawyer Thomas
Nolan indicated that he would file an appeal based on the 1973
Supreme Court ruling that defines obscenity by local community
standards.  Nolan argued that the prosecution had searched for a 
conservative city in which to indict them in order to increase the
chances of a conviction.
     In Munroe Falls, Ohio, police confiscated the computer of Mark
Lehrer charging that minors were able to access explicit material
on Lehrer's bulletin board.  Lehrer claimed that the explicit
material had restricted access, but a filing error put the material
in an unrestricted place.  Lacking legal financial funds, Lehrer 
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of possessing a criminal
tool - his computer.  Critics have argued that confiscating the
computer for misfiled material is akin to seizing a store for a
misfiled copy of Playboy.
     These issues not only deal with obscenity, but raises the
question of where are you when you are in cyberspace?  Cyberspace
does not seem to want to play by the same rules that govern
physical boundaries.

YOUR SECRET IS SAFE WITH ME ... AND THE ENTIRE CYBERSPACE COMMUNITY
     Privacy is one of the hottest topics being debated regarding
cyberspace.  Through credit, phone, cable and other electronic
records most people exist in cyberspace whether they want to o
not.  And the biggest privacy issues seem centered around a
individual's medical and financial records.  Many of the healt
care bills introduced in the last Congress advocated a nationa
medical database which may have enabled law enforcement officers to
access files without having to obtain a search warrant.
     Financial privacy within cyberspace is also of major concern.
Following are a couple of examples of individual financial records
being unknowingly compromised:
     (1).  In July 1994, Senator John Glenn (D-OH) released
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) papers indicating that IRS employees
were using IRS computers to prowl through tax files of family,
friends, celebrities, etc..  According to the IRS, since 1989, th
agency has investigated more than 1,300 of its employees for
unauthorized browsing and more than 400 have been disciplined (Ness
22).
     (2).  Large corporations, such as Equifax Marketing Decision
Systems, can provide marketers with precise profiles of potential
buyers.  One example is when Equifax teamed with Lotus Development
Corporation to offer a product called Lotus Marketplace which wa
a set of optical disks containing data on 80 million households and
more than 120 million individuals (Branscomb 156).  The data neede
to compile such statistics is actually quite easy to obtain.  Any
time a credit card is used to make a purchase, that data can be
used to determine a customer tastes and spending habits.  Something
to think about the next time you have your grocery card scanned.
     Privacy concerns also effect users of computer bulletin
boards.  Electronic messages are quite easy to intercept and
automatically scan for key words or phrases.  An individual expects
a certain degree of privacy with regards to 'paper' mail sent
through the U.S. mail system, but electronic messages may not be 
privy to the same type of handling.
     Cryptography is one method to ensure the privacy of electroni
information and, as with the other legal issues present in
cyberspace, has generated serious debate.  The Clinton
administration (especially Vice President Al Gore) has been a
strong advocate regarding support for cyberspace development.  One
of the government's proposals to resolve the privacy concern was 
the Clipper chip.  Clipper is a computer chip that scrambles a
message using a classified mathematical function.  Users would have
numerical keys to encode and decode messages, but two agencies - 
the Treasury Department and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology - would hold copies of the keys, allowing for governmen
access as needed.  Clipper was the response of law enforcement and
national security officials who fear that powerful computers would
make it easier for criminals and espionage agents to break the law.
     Many cryptographers were concerned that Clipper would not be
secure and would not sufficiently protect privacy.  Since Clipper
was classified and developed by the National Security Agency (NSA),
the keys for every Clipper chip would be available to only 
handful of people and if these people were corrupted, the whole
system could become compromised.  Given their involvement, the NS
might also have built in unknown computer code which would allow i
special access.  The involvement of the NSA was even criticized by
the Office of Technology Assessment concluding it was 'part of 
long-term control strategy intended to retard the general
availability of unbreakable or hard-to-break cryptography within 
the United States' (Ness 26).  Clipper has essentially bee
abandoned for data encryption, but it represents the ongoing
efforts by government authorities to protect their eavesdroppin
rights.  In May 1994, FBI Director Louis Freeh stated:  'If you
think crime is bad now, just wait and see what happens if the FBI
one day is no longer able to conduct court-approved electronic
surveillance' (Ness 26).  This warning was made soon after the
reintroduction of the Digital Telephony bill.   This bill, approve
by Congress, requires telephone companies to help law-enforcement
officers, with the appropriate court order, to eavesdrop on phone
conversations and also makes transactional data (who's calling
whom) more easily available to law enforcement officers.
     Private citizens have also been attempting to provide
encryption technology to computer users.  One of the most recent 
tools to protect electronic data is PGP (Pretty Good Privacy)
released in 1991 by Phillip Zimmermann.  Zimmermann was concerned
for American's privacy rights in cyberspace and decided to release
PGP freely because Congress was considering banning it, though no
law was ever passed.  Since its release, PGP and Zimmermann have 
been targets of law enforcement and intelligence officials. 
According to one U.S. intelligence official:  'The ability of just
about anybody to encrypt their messages is rapidly outrunning our
ability to decode them' (Sussman:  Bulletin Board).
     An investigation is currently being conducted by the U.S.
Customs Service and the Justice Department as to whether to indict
Zimmermann for violating a federal weapons export law.  According
to Zimmermann, PGP was initially given to friends and that it was
only to be distributed in the United States.  Even though PGP
carriers disclaimers such as 'IF YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES, DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS FILE', PGP has crossed
international boundaries and is now widely available outside the 
United States.  For example, when the attempted coup took plac
against Russian leader Boris Yeltsin, Zimmermann received this
electronic message from Latvia:  'Phil I wish you to know:  Let it
never be, but if dictatorship takes over Russia, your PGP is
widespread from the Baltic to Far East now and will help democratic
people if necessary.  Thanks' (Ness 27).  The investigation is
being led by Silicon Valley Assistant U.S. Attorney William P.
Keane and, if convicted, Zimmermann could face a three to five year
jail sentence and a one million dollar fine.
     This situation raises even more interesting questions
regarding computer bulletin boards.  First, Zimmermann didn't
actually distribute PGP to foreign citizens, the Internet and
computer bulletin boards did.  And since PGP was released free o
charge, there are no copyright violations.  Lastly, since PGP is 
not illegal in the United States, how would charges be filed?

SEARCH AND SEIZURE - CYBERSPACE STYLE
     Regarding search and seizure in cyberspace, the case of Steve
Jackson Games is one example to explore.  The Fourth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable
searches and seizures and states that a warrant must 'particularly
(describe) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized' (Uncapher 14).  On March 1, 1990, Secret Service agents,
armed with a search warrant, raided Steve Jackson Games and
confiscated all material related to the soon to be published game
"GURPS Cyberpunk, High Tech Low Life".  The Secret Service charge
that this game was basically a manual in computer crime.  Stev
Jackson Games filed a counter-suit against the Justice Department
contending that the government seized an electronic bulletin board
and read the private electronic messages of 300 people, none o
whom was a target in the investigation.  Other examples of this
type of search and seizure are evident in the 'Operation Sundevil'
raids that were conducted by the Secret Service on May 7-8, 1990.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN'T SAY THAT?
     Copyright, obscenity, privacy and search and seizure are all
critical legal issues that are being debated as they apply to
cyberspace and computer bulletin boards.  But the most pressing
issue has to do with First Amendment rights of free speech.
     The three main on-line computer service companies in the
United States, Prodigy, CompuServe and America On-Line, each have
a different policy regarding free speech on their bulletin boards
Prodigy stated that it has no First Amendment obligation to carr
every message its subscribers wish and automatically screens an
rejects messages with curse words and/or racial slurs.  Prodigy
rejects the common carrier stance which would require it to carry
all messages just as a telephone company must transmit every call.
CompuServe totally disavows any responsibility for the accuracy of
any bulletin board information.  America On-Line's approach is
similar to Prodigy's in that it assumes no liability for
inaccuracies.  But America On-Line will terminate memberships of 
those subscribers who post inaccurate messages or chain letters. 
The Sausalito, California based THE WELL (the Whole Earth
'Lectronic Link) bulletin board, which imposes virtually no
restriction on their users, summed up their position by statin
that 'what people say is their responsibility, not our
responsibility' (Moore 748).
     There are obviously different corporate policies regarding
these bulletin boards and no definitive regulation.  In October
1991, these electronic bulletin board operators won a key victory
in Cubby versus CompuServe Information Service.  Judge Peter K.
Leisure of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York ruled that CompuServe could not be held responsible fo
alleged libelous material.  Judge Leisure wrote:  'While CompuServe
may decline to carry a given publication altogether, in reality
once it does decide to carry a publication, it will impose little
or no editorial control over the publication's contents' (Moore
749).
     But individual free speech rights in cyberspace are still
being contested.  In August 1993, Michael Elansky, who ran the Ware
House bulletin board in West Hartford, Connecticut, was arrested 
when police found files on his bulletin board explaining in detail
the construction of several explosive devices.  The files wer
written using constitutionally protected information ranging from
chemistry textbooks to The Anarchist Cookbook
     One possible answer to the electronic freedom of speech debat
may be the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
The court ruled 'that no speech should be subject to prior
restraint or criminal prosecution unless it is intended to incite
and is likely to cause imminent lawless action' (Kapor 164).

WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE?
     Copyright violations, privacy issues, obscenity laws, illegal
search and seizure concerns, first amendment rights to freedom of
speech.  Quite a number of social and legal concerns are present 
regarding computer bulletin boards and cyberspace.  With all these
legal issues, who is responsible for enforcing the law?  Given the
secretive nature of intelligence and national security matters, it
is difficult to determine who exactly has jurisdiction.
     The Secret Service clearly plays a role in the policing of
cyberspace (examples are Steve Jackson Games and Operatio
Sundevil).  The Secret Service basis its authority on Title 18 USC
1029 1030 (Access Device Fraud).  This title was part of the 1984
Comprehensive Crime Control Act which allows the Secret Service t
investigate any misuse of financial networks.  The laws goal was to
deter credit card and computer fraud.  But the Secret Service
interpreted this law to mean not just an internal computer network
in a particular financial institution but anything on any computer
network that might be construed as having a financial interest.
     The National Security Agency also has a role in the policing
of cyberspace (recall their involvement in the development of the
Clipper chip).  In 1984, President Reagan signed the National
Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 145 which put the NSA 'in charg
of computer security' (Uncapher 12).  In 1987 Congress passed the
Computer Security Act which transferred the responsibility for
federal computers to the National Institute for Standards and
Technology.  But in 1990, President Bush issued the classified
revised NSDD-145 which reassigned computer security oversight
responsibility back to the National Security Agency.
     The legal future of cyberspace bulletin boards is unknown, but
one pending congressional initiative is worthy of discussion - the
Communications Decency Act of 1995 (Senate 314 & House of
Representatives 1004).  This proposal, introduced by Senators Exon
(D-Nebraska) and Gorton (R-Washington), is intended to place
substantial criminal liability on telecommunications carriers
including traditional telephone networks, Internet service
providers, commercial on-line bulletin board services and
independent bulletin board operators whenever their networks ar
used to transmit material deemed harassing or indecent.  In effect
this legislation would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act
and restrict freedom of speech, halt the free flow of information
on the Internet, and require all telecommunications carriers to
screen public and private communications.  The proposal is
currently pending before the Senate Commerce Committee chaired by
Senator Pressler (R-South Dakota) and may be included in the Senate
telecommunications reform legislation.  This proposal really
examines the fundamental question as to what extent the government
has regarding the control of content on communication networks.  
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the 
Electronic Frontier Foundation have already voiced their objection
to these initiatives and have conducted a wide spread campaign
urging citizens to make their objections known to Congress.
     The future of this proposal is uncertain.  According to
Michael Godwin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation:  'Nobody
wants to pass the Exon Amendment' because it is unworkable and
probably unconstitutional.  'But if it goes to a vote, they'll pass
it' to avoid appearing in favor of pornography (Wallich 43).
     Even though most cyberspace organizations oppose the Exon
Amendment, the debate over government regulation continues.  Severo
Ornstein, the same individual quoted earlier wondering why anyone
would want a computer system like the Internet, recently stated: 
'The government is clearly going to have to step in in some
regulatory fashion.  If it's timid regulation, as in television, 
it's not going to be very effective.  If the government addresses
it more as it does telephone communications, then it can be more in
the public interest.  If not the Federal Communications Commission,
some equivalent kind of organization could help impose some order
in the public interest, rather than turning it into a free-for-all
in the open market' (Anthes 105).  On the other hand, some
individuals are concerned that government regulation would be 
hindrance.  Ben Barker, designer of ARPANET hardware interfaces i
1969 stated:  'The absence of regulation has been a key reason fo
the creative energy and rapid advancement which has characterized
the Internet.  If the government moves in to regulate it i
response to the competitive environment brought on by the success
of the Internet, this dynamic energy will be lost' (Anthes 105).

THE "CHILD" MUST LEARN TO CRAWL BEFORE IT CAN WALK
     The United States Constitution was written approxiamately two
hundred years ago and we, as American citizens, have come to expec
certain privileges such as freedom of speech and safeguards against
illegal search and seizure.  Now a new age has emerged that has
been called by many names such as the Information Superhighway, the
Internet, the Information Age, the Electronic Frontier, etc..  I
is composed of data bits of information that don't seem to want to
play by the same rules that were widely accepted prior to the 196
ARPANET project.  The Clinton Administration (especially Vic
President Al Gore) has a strong interest in promoting the
Information Age, but a high federal debt has led the administration
to favor allowing the private sector to lead the way in developing
this Information Superhighway.  This suits well with those
individuals that see any type of government regulation as 
handicap, but clearly law enforcement and intelligence agencies
have a legitimate role regarding cyberspace and computer bulleti
boards.  And the private sector also sees the benefits of certain
government involvement that would establish basic guidelines.  So
where do we go from here?  The first step must be to define th
fundamental legal issues, such as freedom of speech, as they apply
to the electronic age of cyberspace.  Until that is done, other
initiatives either by both the public or private sector are merely
sideshows that bypass the big picture.  Unfortunately, this is
easier said than done.  Technology is advancing so quickly and most
people are simply not aware of the pressing legal issues that seem
to have been overlooked.  There are about 800,000 lawyers in the 
United States (Frum 56) and according to Mikki Barry (attorney a
InterCon Systems Corporation and one of the founders of the
Internet Business Association):  'Judges and juries have no clue 
what's going on - they still think the information superhighway is
about 500-channel cable TV systems' (Wallich 44).
     Society must not bury it's head in the sand and hope that
these fundamental issues will work themselves out.  The cyberspac
"child" was born through the efforts of both the private and public
sectors.  And now these sectors must cooperate to raise this
"child" by resolving not only technical and national security
matters; but more importantly, the fundamental legal issues that 
define our society
WORKS CITED

Anthes, Gary H.  "The History of the Future." Computerworl
     (October 3, 1994):  101-105.

Branscomb, Anne W.  "Common Law for the Electronic Frontier."    
     Scientific American (September 1991):  154-158.

Carroll, John.  "Hard Line on Software." Boston Globe (January 9,
     1995):  18:1.
DeLoughry, Thomas J.  "2 Students are Arrested for Software      
     Privacy." Chronicle of Higher Education (April 20, 1994):   
     A32.

Frum, David.  "Lawyers in cyberspace."  Forbes (October 25, 1993): 
     56.

Goodell, Jeffrey.  "Civilizing Cyberspace."  Rolling Stone (June
     10, 1993):  SS3-SS11.

Hecht, Jeff:  "Internet 'Pirate' Charged in US." New Scientis
     (April 23, 1994):  7.

Kapor, Mitchell.  "Civil Liberties in Cyberspace."  Scientific   
     American (September 1991):  158-164.

Moore, John.  "Taming Cyberspace."  National Journal (March 1992)
     745-749
Ness, Erik.  "BigBrother@cyberspace." Progressive (December 1994)
     22-27.

Press, Larry.  "The Net:  Progress and Opportunity." Communications
     of the ACM (December 1992):  21-25.

Sussman, Vic.  "Lost in Kafka Territory."  U.S. News & World Report
     (April 3, 1995):  Bulletin Board.

Uncapher, Willard.  "Trouble in Cyberspace." Humanist (September
     1991):  5-14.

Wallich, Paul.  "Watch Your Electronic Mouth."  Scientific American
     (December 1994):  43-44
OTHER SOURCES

Associated Press.  "Jail for Couple Over Computer Pornography." 
     New York Times (December 3, 1994):  A, 9:3
Barringer, Felicity.  "Electronic Bulletin Boards Need Editing.  N
     They Don't." New York Times (March 11, 1990):  4.  4:1.
Burstyn, Harold L.  "Computer Whiz Guilty."  ABA Journal (April  
     1990):  20.

Charney, Scott.  "What's wrong with the computer crime statute?" 
     Computerworld (February 1992):  33.

Daly, James.  "Update fraud law, G-man says."  Computerworld     
     (November 1992):  15
Giese, William.  "Dumber & Dumber."  Kiplinger's Personal Finance
     Magazine (March 1995):  88-92.

Guidoboni, Thomas A.  "What's wrong with the computer crime      
     statute?"  Computerworld (February 1992):  33.

Jenkins, Jolyon:  "Hacked to Pieces."  New Statesman & Society   
     (February 1990):  27.

Nobile, Robert J.  "Keeping Posted on Bulletin Boards."  Personnel
     (June 1990):  12-14.

Schwartz, John.  "Chipping In to Curb Computer Crime."  The      
     Washington Post (February 19, 1995):  A-1, A-10, A-11.

Spears, Gregory.  "Cops and Robbers on the Net."  Kiplinger's    
     Personal Finance Magazine (February 1995):  56-61
Srodes, James:  "Business Class in Cyberspace."  Financial World
     (October 25, 1994):  16.

Voters Telecommunications Watch.  "Coalition forms to oppose Exon
     "decency" bill." Computer bulletin board (March 3, 1995)
Wilke, John R.  "Protecting Privacy in Computer Media." Wall Street
     Journal (November 9, 1990):  B, 1:1.

**************************************************
*This document is the intellectual property of the author.  Distribution *
*is restricted to educational and general interest purposes only.        *
*                                                                        
*Author:  William E. Benso <wbenso@osf1.gmu.edu>                         *
***************************************************