Re: Injunction issued against 'cphack,' disengages porn filter (3/17/2000)

[John Ioannidis]

 Pardon me for being dense, but since when can a U.S. Federal Judge
 issue orders to foreign nationals in foreign countries?

It can probably prevent them from ever entering the country (assuming
they care).

/ji

PS: Isn't British Columbia a county in Washington State? :-)

--
 /\  ASCII ribbon  |  John Ioannidis * Secure Systems Research Department
 \/campaign|  ATT Labs - Research * Florham Park, NJ 07932
 /\against |  "Intellectuals trying to out-intellectual
/  \  HTML email.  |   other intellectuals" (Fritz the Cat)

Re: injunction issued against cphack

[David G. Koontz]

"Steven M. Bellovin" wrote:
 
 The AP reports that a U.S. judge has issued an injunction against the
 Canadian and Swedish authors of cphack, the program that unlocks and
 displays the blocked site list from CyberPatrol.  The order extends to
 distribution by others as well, including -- according to the plaintiff's
 attorney -- all mirror sites.
 
 Even without questions of the reach of U.S. law, this is a preposterous
 ruling.  If you add them in, it's insane.

Right up there with a grade school class voting on the sex of a
hamster, then being surprised by little boy hampsters having
babies.  (Hey, it ain't Shakespeare, but it has a certain
democratic flavor to it.)

I've seen conflicting reports on who the injunction affects.
Is this a bit of FUD on the part of the attorney, or perhaps
a misquote?  I was also under the impression you had to be named
in an injunction to be bound by it. 

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35038,00.html

-- 
remove "no_spam_" from Reply-to address

Re: injunction issued against cphack

[Peter D. Junger]

"Steven M. Bellovin" writes:

: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "David G. Koontz" writes:
: 
: I've seen conflicting reports on who the injunction affects.
: Is this a bit of FUD on the part of the attorney, or perhaps
: a misquote?  I was also under the impression you had to be named
: in an injunction to be bound by it. 
: 
: Well, the AP story had a different quote from the attorney, so it may be 
: reporter perception.
: 
: As for "being named" -- well, back around 1970 or 1972, when injunctions 
: against students occupying campus buildings were a favorite weapon, I asked 
: some lawyers about this.  I was told that no, you did not have to be named 
: specifically to be bound by the injunction, and the injunction could legally 
: be served by someone standing outside the occupied building with a bullhorn..

I helped a client get one of those injunctions that you were talking about,
although no students were involved in the particular case.  We had to
give names to the parties we did not know---names like John Doe One,
John Doe Two, etc.---and we had to describe them (as being the persons
occupying a certain building).  The rule, however, is that an injunction
(in an ordinary sort of civil action like this) is binding only on the
parties, their agents, employees, and those acting in concert with them.
The John Does in my case were parties; in this case the only parties
are the two named authors and the two named ISP's.  So they, and their
agents are the only ones who can be bound by the temporary restraining
order.

It is also correct that notice of the injunction can be given by any 
effective means, including bullhorns and internet mail.

There is, of course, a real problem of how an injunction can be enforced
against parties outside the jurisdiction.  On the other hand, one might
expect an ISP to take the site down, rather than contest or ignore the
injunction.  Which probably explains why the Swedish site is down now.

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu   
NOTE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] no longer exists

Re: injunction issued against cphack

[John Ioannidis]

I hope I won't be giving anyone any ideas, but can a USA judge order
USA ISPs (either explicitely-named ISPs, or all ISPs operating in the
USA) to not carry traffic with particular IP addresses?  How about
congress?  How about the President?

/ji

--
 /\  ASCII ribbon  |  John Ioannidis * Secure Systems Research Department
 \/campaign|  ATT Labs - Research * Florham Park, NJ 07932
 /\against |  "Intellectuals trying to out-intellectual
/  \  HTML email.  |   other intellectuals" (Fritz the Cat)

Re: injunction issued against cphack

[Declan McCullagh]

At 11:07 3/18/2000 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote (on whether the TRO 
applies to non-defendants):
Well, the AP story had a different quote from the attorney, so it may be
reporter perception.

It applies to the four (2 ISP, 2 individual) defendants and those acting in 
concert with them. It seems a stretch to me to say it covers non-defendants 
who have never been to Massachusetts and have never even exchanged email 
with the authors of the cphack utility, which is why I didn't buy the spin 
in my article I wrote yesterday.

But here it is, if you wanna see what they're saying...

I'll have more stuff up at http://www.politechbot.com/cyberpatrol/ soon.

-Declan


From: "Sydney Rubin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:32:27 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300

Here's the release we issued at 2:30 today that quotes from the injunction 
and shows that the restraining order applies to the mirrored sites, as 
well as the original four defendants -- Skala, Jansson, Scandanvia Online 
and Islandnet.   Use of the words "agents" and "those persons in active 
concert or participation with them" in the ruling applies to the mirrored 
sites.




 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:  Sydney Rubin
 Ignition Strategic 
Communications
 202/244-1200


FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTS COMPANY IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION AGAINST HACKERS WHO 
VIOLATED U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW

Judge Agrees Hackers' Actions Likely Violate Intellectual Property Rights 
of Microsystems Software and Undermine Parents' Ability to Protect Children


FRAMINGHAM, MASS. (March 17, 2000)  A Federal Judge in Boston today issued 
a temporary restraining order against two hackers prohibiting them from 
distributing code that undermines the ability of parents using Cyber Patrol 
to protect children from inappropriate content online.

U.S. District Judge Edward F. Harrington ordered that the "defendants, 
their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in 
active concert or participation with them, shall discontinue publishing 
defendant's Cyber Patrol bypass code and binaries (known as "CP4break.zip" 
or "cphack.exe" or any derivative thereof)."

The ruling prohibits further distribution over the Internet into the United 
States of the bypass code and binaries published by the hackers and 
"mirrored," or copied, on other sites throughout the World Wide Web.

"The ruling means that the defendants and those redistributing the 
defendants' illegal work product will be in violation of a U.S. Federal 
Court order if they distribute the material into the United States," said 
Irwin B. Schwartz, a partner in the Boston law firm of Schwartz and 
Nystrom, LLC, which represents Microsystems.

The ruling also granted the company expedited discovery into who had 
downloaded the illegal material derived from the copyright violations.

Microsystems Software, maker of the Internet filtering software Cyber 
Patrol, filed for the temporary restraining order on Wednesday 
Massachusetts Federal District Court.

The complaint was against two hackers in Canada and Sweden, Matthew Skala 
and Eddy L.O Jansson, as well as the two Internet Service Providers hosting 
the hackers' Web sites, Islandnet.Com in Canada and Scandinavia Online AB 
in Sweden.

The complaint alleged the hackers violated copyright law by reverse 
engineering Cyber Patrol software and then using the illegally-obtained 
source code to develop an executable program that allows users to bypass 
the software.  The hackers then posted pieces of the Cyber Patrol source 
code and their executable program on the Internet and publicized their work 
via e-mailed press releases.

The pair also published portions of the proprietary Cyber Patrol list of 
filtered sites, but this was not part of the complaint filed by the company.

Judge Harrington gave the company permission to serve notice of the 
immediate injunction via email to the defendants and "their agents."   The 
company was serving the electronic notices immediately.   Violating a 
Federal Court Order is punishable by a fine or prison.  The willful and 
knowing violation of U.S. Copyright Law can carry sanctions of up to 
$100,000 per violation.

Defendants receiving the notices are ordered by the court to "preserve 
inviolate the software and information that makes up all such Web sites, 
source or object code and documents relating to Cyber Patrol, as well as 
all records which reflect the identity or number of persons who downloaded 
CP4break.zip or cphack.exe from the Web sites."

Cyber Patrol is the world's most widely-used Internet filtering 
software.  Microsystems' technology is used by America Online for its 
parental controls and hundreds of thousands of families have purchased 
Cyber Patrol software to help protect children from Web