From: jya@pipeline.com (John Young)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:38:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Co$ Buys EFF
Message-ID: <199609061043.KAA16012@pipe1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   The New York Times, September 6, 1996, p. D2. 
 
 
   Behind an Internet Message Service's Close 
 
      Pressure From Church of Scientology Is Blamed for the 
      Shutdown. A Finnish judge says different rules apply to 
      E-mail. 
 
   By Peter H. Lewis 
 
 
   Pressure from the Church of Scientology International was 
   at least partly responsible for the recent shutdown of a 
   well-known Internet messaging service based in Helsinki, 
   according to the Finnish operator of the service. 
 
   The service, known by its Internet address, anon.penet.fi, 
   was used by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide to 
   send and receive electronic messages without divulging 
   their true identities. It was the best known of a small, 
   global network of special computers known as remailers, 
   whose legitimate users include political dissidents, people 
   with medical or drug ailments and others who want to 
   communicate anonymously. 
 
   Although previous news accounts had reported that the 
   service was shut down because of accusations that it was a 
   primary conduit for child pornography transmitted on the 
   Internet, police investigators in Helsinki dismissed those 
   accusations as groundless. 
 
   The real reason for terminating the service, according to 
   its founder and operator, Johan Helsingius, was a recent 
   Helsinki court ruling that ordered him to reveal the true 
   name of one of his system's users to the Church of 
   Scientology. The judge held that under Finland's current 
   telecommunications laws, Internet electronic mail does not 
   carry the same privacy protections enjoyed by postal mail 
   or telephone calls. 
 
   The church, which in recent years has been trying to 
   protect its copyrighted scriptures by trying to block their 
   dissemination over computer networks, said an unknown 
   person or persons had used the anon.penet.fi computer to 
   illegally publish copyrighted church documents on Usenet, 
   the global electronic bulletin board. 
 
   Mr. Helsingius, a 35-year-old computer networking expert, 
   has not yet revealed the name sought by the Scientologists, 
   and said he planned to appeal the court ruling. But he said 
   the court ruling opened the door for future subpoenas 
   seeking the real names of anon.penet.fi users, and that he 
   would rather close the system than spend all his time in 
   court. 
 
   Mr. Helsingius has operated anon.penet.fi for more than 3 
   years, handling over 7,000 messages a day. 
 
   "In a sense I've done my pioneer work and it is now up to 
   others to carry on," Mr. Helsingius said. 
 
   Helena Kobrin, a Church of Scientology official, said the 
   complaint against anon.penet.fi was just one of several 
   actions the church had taken against the operators of 
   remailer computers in Europe and the United States. She 
   said the church has five lawsuits pending in the United 
   States against remailer operators and users of remailers. 
 
   "We have actively been in communication with various 
   remailers about postings that have gone through their 
   systems," said Ms. Kobrin, general counsel for the 
   Religious Technology Center in Los Angeles, which is 
   responsible for protecting the copyrights and trade secrets 
   of unpublished Scientology scriptures. 
 
   Earlier this year, another remailer, known as hacktic.nl, 
   in the Netherlands, was shut down under pressure from the 
   Scientologists. 
 
   Unlike many other churches, the Church of Scientology, 
   founded nearly 40 years ago by the science fiction author 
   L. Ron Hubbard, regards its gospel as copyrighted material 
   and a trade secret. Several courts have upheld the validity 
   of the copyrights. 
 
   Foes and critics of the church have used the Internet to 
   publish the church documents, as well as other documents 
   the church contends were stolen from its computers. 
 
   The Religious Technology Center has also unsuccessfully 
   attempted to put a stop to the forum on Usenet,  
   alt.religion.scientology, where many of the copyrighted 
   documents are published. 
 
   A series of recent news articles in The Observer of London 
   among others had linked the anon.penet.fi computer to 
   accusations it was a conduit for child pornography. 
 
   Mr. Helsingius, who has denied that his system is a conduit 
   for child pornography, declined to speculate on the motives 
   of the accusers. The accusations of child pornography first 
   appeared several days after Mr. Helsingius declined to turn 
   over to the court the name sought by the Scientologists. 
 
   The Observer quoted Toby Tyler, identified as an adviser to 
   the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as saying 
   anon.penet.fi was the source for up to 90 percent of the 
   child pornography on the Internet. 
 
   But Richard P. (Toby) Tyler, a sergeant in the San 
   Bernardino, Calif., County Sheriff's Department who said 
   his involvement with the F.B.I. was minimal, said he was 
   misquoted by the newspaper. Mr. Tyler, who has investigated 
   pornography trafficking in cyberspace, said that most child 
   pornography on the Internet did not pass through remailers. 
   He did say, however, that of the small portion that does, 
   70 percent to 90 percent passes through anon.penet.fi. 
 
   "I think that's a shame," Sergeant Tyler said upon learning 
   that anon.penet.fi was closed. "I personally view its 
   closing as a loss of freedom. I did not like the abuse of 
   the remailer for child pornography, but I felt it served a 
   necessary political purpose in this world." 
 
   Ms. Kobrin of the Religious Technology Center said that 
   despite its legal actions, the Church of Scientology does 
   not oppose the operation of remailers, which are also known 
   as anonymous servers. 
 
   "We were not opposing the existence of his server," Ms. 
   Kobrin said. "We have no opposition to there being 
   anonymity for private, consensual communications. What we 
   oppose is using anonymous servers for the purpose of 
   permitting criminal or other unlawful acts. There has to be 
   responsibility and accountability." 
 
   [End]