But you can't control something you call technology because you can't find it to control.
Part of what I try to do in the book is to just demonstrate what a range of technologies
are all around us, are in our lives, are in the world.
They're part of how we understand the world.
They're part of how we live ourselves.
And some parts of them seem terribly new and unfamiliar, but we are augmented animals.
With vaccines in our veins and eyeglasses on our noses and telephones and radios
that we communicate with each other across the country with.
As Stuart Brand says, we better get used to using it.
Or rather, get good at using it.
We've got to wrap. That's it.
We'll have a lot more to say about technology, folks.
So, see you tonight at the We the People Center if you're in the Bay Area.
Thank you very much, Jim Bennett and Tom Whalen and Walter Truett Anderson, author of Evolution Isn't What It Used to Be.
Good night.
Well, if the idea of technology excites you, well, you're in the right place,
because this is WBAI in New York, and it's just about 8 o'clock.
Stay tuned. Off the Hook is coming up right after this important announcement.
What if you found out that those fresh fruits and vegetables everyone keeps telling you to eat more of might kill you?
And what if we told you that everyone knows this?
The government, the farmers, even the supermarkets where you buy them.
The fact is, if you buy fresh peas, peppers, squash, strawberries, apples, pears, or even canned baby food,
you may have put toxic pesticides on your table and not even known it.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency,
over 50 ingredients found in toxic pesticides in use today are suspected of causing cancer in humans.
And Congress wants to weaken the current regulations.
Regulations which already allow cancer-causing pesticides into our food supply.
So, if you want to stop eating toxic pesticides, you're going to have to take action.
Tell your supermarket manager you're opposed to having toxic pesticides in the foods you eat,
and you don't like shopping in stores that carry them.
We're Food and Water Incorporated.
For more information, call us at 1-800-EAT-SAFE.
It's a free call.
That's 1-800-E-A-T-S-A-F-E.
It's 8 o'clock. Time for Off the Hook.
1-800-EAT-SAFE.
All right.
And a good evening to everybody.
This is Off the Hook, the weekly program that comes to you and talks about all kinds
of neat things like the internet, the phone company, the growing mergers of all the huge
corporations in the world, and the advances of Big Brother and how we are all doomed.
But we're not doomed yet, and we can have a lot of fun along the way.
We're not always that pessimistic, but sometimes you have to wonder, you know.
You see all these censorship issues occurring.
You see all these ways of controlling people being implemented.
And you just have to wonder, where is it all going to end?
We have some interesting bits of news, updates, theories, and things like that.
We should be hearing from Bernie S. in a little while.
Well, interesting editorial today in today's New York Times called Censorship in Cyberspace.
Yeah, the New York Times.
How about that?
Congress acted without thinking when it decided three months ago to censor the growing web of
computer networks in the name of protecting children.
It held no hearings and made no effort to learn how the internet actually works.
Had it done so, it would have discovered that the Communications Decency Act was an unconstitutional
and wholly unnecessary infringement on free speech.
It's what we've been saying all along.
Now the New York Times is saying it.
Not surprisingly, the law was quickly challenged.
A panel of three federal judges will soon hear closing arguments.
It's a landmark case that will help determine how the First Amendment and 18th century creation
will apply to the communication technologies of the 21st century.
However, however it rules, the panel has been far better informed about these technologies
than Congress was.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition including the
American Library Association, journalism and publishing groups, and online service companies.
The law makes it a felony to knowingly transmit indecent or patently offensive sexual material
over networks where children may see it.
In other words, just about anything could be considered illegal because indecency is something
that's very vaguely defined and it's what keeps things like radio and television in such a tight vice.
That's why the worlds you see on TV don't even reflect any kind of world that exists today.
But the reason for that is because people like this are able to control it, to make it so
that the slightest reference to something that they consider to be objectionable is just
stricken, won't be mentioned at all.
It's really something.
In February, continuing with the editorial, in February, one of the three judges issued a
preliminary ruling that the provision barring indecent material was unconstitutionally vague.
But the judge declined to rule against other portions of the law that also imposed standards
of speech on the internet and other computer-based communications networks more restrictive than
those imposed on books, newspapers, or other printed material.
Should these provisions survive, there is concern that libraries could face criminal sanctions
for making their collections available online and that the reporting of news stories could
at some future time be chilled as newspapers and magazines increasingly offer online versions.
That would be a ridiculous outcome.
There is simply no legal or practical justification for this dichotomy, which would have the effect
of reducing the otherwise lawful material available on the internet to a level judged appropriate
for children, something the Supreme Court has already said should not be done.
At hearings just concluded, in Philadelphia, the judges were given a crash course on how the internet
actually works.
They learned that while on radio and television children can stumble across inappropriately
explicit materials simply by turning the set on, computer users must actively seek out
the material they want to view.
The judges were also given a demonstration of readily available and rapidly improving software
that parents can now use to block transmissions they do not want their children to see.
And that is a far better solution, practically and constitutionally, than punishing those who
transmit explicit material.
The critical task now for the newly educated three-judge panel is to recognize the large
threat to free speech the statute poses, and to develop an approach to speech on the internet
that gives maximum room for the free exchange of ideas.
You know, what's amazing is that people on all sides seem to be saying the same thing.
You know, I was listening to that guy on the way into the station tonight, that guy that
got kicked off the other radio station and is now on this other station.
It's Bob Grandperson.
And he's going crazy about how the liberals are trying to censor everybody.
And, you know, the liberals are going crazy about how the conservatives are trying to
censor everybody.
Everybody is saying censorship is a bad thing.
So who are all these censors?
Who are the censors?
Are they liberals?
Are they conservatives?
Are they just a bunch of stupid people that, you know, nobody can seem to control or rein in?
I don't know.
But everyone seems to have different views on it, and we seem to agree on other matters.
I don't know why it's so hard to get these views out and to actually keep these unpleasant
things from happening all the time.
A couple other things that have been thrown my way.
This is an article, actually, that appeared last month in the Wall Street Journal, and
it just, it reads in such a way that it's kind of something I think we all should know about.
Consumer rights advocates are sounding alarms about a new law giving the Federal Bureau
of Investigation easier access to credit report information.
The little-noticed law, enacted in January as part of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1996, has an ominous ring to it, doesn't it?
The Intelligence Authorization Act of 1996 allows FBI officials to obtain key information from a person's credit file without seeking a judge's permission.
Investigators still need a court order or a federal grand jury subpoena to view someone's
full credit report, but they can get basic information with only written authorization from
the head of the FBI or his designee if there's reason to suspect a person is a spy or terrorist
or has had contact with one, with 1,500 terrorist groups operating in the United States, according
to various sources.
Who knows?
The basic information available under the new law includes a person's employment history,
addresses, and a list of lenders and other financial institutions with which the person has or had relationships.
And, to avoid tipping off suspects to an investigation, the new law also requires credit bureaus to keep secret any FBI request to review a credit report.
Unbelievable.
And, we have this report in from some magazine.
You know what this is?
Okay.
Somehow I wound up on the Michigan Militia mailing list.
I don't know how this happened.
I didn't do it myself.
One of you probably did it.
But, I do get some very interesting bits of news sometimes from that particular neck
of the woods.
But, I also get some other weird stuff that I'll also share with you that they send out.
Few people would dispute that the United States is among the freest nations in the world.
Okay.
But, that could change overnight.
If several pilot projects funded by a federal grant prove to be as effective as some law enforcement officials expect.
Police, I think this is Redwood City, unless there's a place called Pedwood City, but police
somewhere in California recently began using sophisticated hidden listening devices to patrol
high crime areas where gunfire has become all too common.
Have you heard about this?
They actually are monitoring for certain sounds.
They're so sensitive that gunfire can be traced to within 10 yards of its place of origin.
Ain't that something?
10 yards of its place of origin.
In addition, authorities are installing cameras capable of monitoring areas as large as 16 city blocks. 
16 city blocks.
And, that will be on a 24-hour-a-day basis, high above the streets.
Similar setups are being considered in other cities and may soon appear in the nation's
capital, which is a notorious center of violence and illicit drug activity.
And, if the devices enhance police effectiveness, other cities may be outfitted with similar equipment.
Imagine, a seeing-eye camera looming overhead every day on the streets of your town.
Through the use of such audio and video devices, police will be able to compile a round-the-clock
record of nearly every event that transpires on the streets, on the sidewalks, and in the alleys in a wired neighborhood.
Some equipment is capable of peeking inside windows and detecting such things as small marijuana farms flourishing under artificial lights.
Many citizens believe their lives will be safer as a result of the surveillance cameras and listening devices, but their use inevitably raises privacy concerns, especially if the authorities probe outside a public space.
Police concede, for example, that they would have the capability to listen in on conversations in private homes.
It makes things safer.
Is that so much to give up?
Already, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver has ventured into the legal quagmire that may result.
It ruled that police can't use an imager to scan homes without first obtaining search warrants.
The thing with search warrants, though, is usually you know when they've been served, you
know, because all these, like, you know, men come into your house and rummage about.
But here they'll just be sort of scanning you, and unless you have a long-range scan detector
installed in your house, I don't think you're going to know that they're doing this.
Other courts have held that using the imagers do not infringe upon Fourth Amendment protection
against unreasonable search and seizure.
Interesting point of view they have over there.
Randall Coyne, a professor of law at the University of Oklahoma and a specialist in privacy issues,
said in an interview that such devices in and of themselves constitute an illegal search.
Placing cameras and listening devices in high-crime areas won't resolve problems of violence
and drugs, he said.
Dealers will simply scatter to less crowded areas, away from hangouts known to police.
An upper Chichester, Pennsylvania housewife said she thinks the equipment represents an
invasion of her privacy.
If I lived in a high-crime area, I think I would look at it differently.
I don't think I'd want to be monitored every time I walked out of my house.
The all-seeing camera would see me whether I liked it or not.
I'm not sure I could get used to that sort of thing.
In Camden, New Jersey, 23-year-old Carlos Rodriguez, who works in a fast food restaurant,
looked at the surveillance equipment in a different way.
I'm glad to hear about it.
It sounds just like what we need in Camden.
Guys are shooting up the place every day.
Drug deals go down day and night.
Nobody's safe here.
The police can't solve our problems, so we need something like cameras on the street.
Then, the law would see just who's perpetrating these crimes that leave our people dead.
I hope they bring the equipment to Camden, and I hope they do it soon.
Well, you know, I don't know how much stock to place in this article because, as I said,
it came from a militia group, but I think the concerns are pretty much the same.
The concerns are the same as far as privacy.
But, you know, you've got to look at this a little bit carefully because they also included
a bunch of definitions along with this story, which I think some of which should be read
only so that you can see where this particular group is coming from.
For instance, they define the word racist as disagreeing with such racist programs as
affirmative action and quotas, anti-Semitic, disagreeing with the Israeli lobby, especially
on its claim to the U.S. Treasury.
Fascist is anyone disagreeing with socialism.
Bigotry is belief in the Judeo-Christian morality.
Isolationist, someone who believes American armed forces should defend America and American
interests.
And, you know, it goes on.
Anti-environment is a belief in property rights.
A homophobic disagreeing with any part of the homosexual political agenda.
Sexist, disagreeing with any part of the feminist agenda.
So, obviously, these people are, like, you know, somewhere, you know, in their own little
world over there.
But the concerns when it comes to privacy things, if they can alert us to certain ways that
our privacy is being invaded, they may be the first ones to hear about it.
Unfortunately, the way reading over their material, it just appears that they're most concerned
with things that affect them, and not things that affect others who may not agree with
them at all.
And that's what I think the difference with what we do here is, because we try and see
how other people's rights will be violated, even if they have nothing in common with us
at all, because eventually it will have something to do with us.
And that's what we all have to be concerned with.
Okay, let's see if we can get Bernie S. on the phone.
Not sure if he's calling in yet, but let's give it a try.
Good evening.
You know, I could tell by the way that hung out that that was Bernie S. No, I could, because
that phone system in the prison over there in Pennsylvania has a certain way of reacting
to my voice, and it hangs up at just a particular moment in just a particular manner.
Oh, I know.
212-279-3400 is our phone number.
Don't call that yet, though, because we're not taking phone calls just yet.
We will be in a few minutes, but write that number down.
Good evening.
AT&T has a collect call from Bernie S.
at the Bucks County Correctional Facility.
To refuse this call, hang up.
If you accept this call, do not use three-way or call waiting features, or you will be disconnected.
To accept this call, dial one now.
Thank you.
Well, good evening, Bernie S.
Hi.
I see we have the same problems getting through to you tonight.
Well, actually, we just got hung up on once, so it wasn't that big a deal.
Oh, it's improving.
Actually, it was choreographed very well, because we had just finished with a certain story,
and you called in just like that, almost as if you were in the studio, and we cued you
to call at just that moment.
Amazing.
Yeah.
Well, I've got some good news for you, actually, and sort of a story behind something that
we did this weekend.
We had a bit of an adventure.
We set out to get Bernie S. a television set.
Yes, and that was really exciting, because we thought that it would be a little bit difficult.
You know, we didn't think it would be as difficult as it turned out being.
Bernie, perhaps you could tell us a little bit about what it takes to get a TV set sent in there.
Well, apparently, it's not as simple as one might think.
According to the rules of the Bucks County Correctional Facility, the TVs must be sent
in from an outside store.
In other words, an individual can't just send a TV set.
Apparently, the prison is afraid people will conceal contraband inside the TV set, like drugs
or weapons or something like that.
So it has to be sent in from the store itself.
And once it's here, it has to be engraved with my name and inmate number.
And then I have to sign a special contract agreeing not to modify it in any way.
If it's found in my possession, missing a knob or something, that it's confiscated as contraband.
That's right.
And you know, the interesting thing, I have the rules right here, actually.
When it's confiscated as contraband, it's donated to charity.
So they take contraband and they give it to charity.
Did you know that?
They're choosing.
Yeah, I don't know what they have going there, but obviously there's something happening.
Okay, this is it.
Agreement regarding television purchases.
This is the piece of paper that we had to go around to various stores and show them.
I agree.
This is something that I guess you would fill out, Bernie S.
I agree to the following guidelines regarding the outside purchase by a relative or friend
of a television and its use at the Bucks County Correctional Facility.
Number one, the television must be purchased at an easily identifiable vendor such as Kmart,
JCPenney, Best, Ports, Bradley's, Circuit City, Walmart, American Appliance, Plavin, etc.
You know, I've never heard of half of these.
Plavin?
Has anyone in the room heard of Plavin?
You ever heard of Plavin, Bernie?
No, he's speechless.
Probably some business locally owned by the wardens.
Okay, that's probably true.
Okay, now this is what they underline here.
Rule number two, this is very important.
The television must be sent directly from the store.
It must be unopened and shipped directly to the Bucks County Correctional Facility.
It may not be personally delivered here to the facility.
It must be clearly marked for the inmate.
Otherwise, it will be returned.
Number three, the television must meet strict specifications.
Diagonally measured 12-inch black and white or 13-inch color model only, no larger or smaller.
Bernie, do you have any idea why they only allow 12-inch black and whites
and 13-inch colors and no variation?
Well, I can see their concern in not wanting one of these 60-inch widescreen TVs sent in
because you might have trouble fitting it through the door to your cell.
Bernie, can I just break in for a second?
I hear sirens.
You're in a prison.
What kind of sirens?
Well, actually, some inmates are watching a cops and robbers show.
That seems to be one of the favorite programs here.
Okay.
Sirens in a prison are always something to be, you know, concerned with.
I don't see what their objection is to having one of these small portable TV sets,
but I think that would make more sense because it takes up less space.
But I guess they want consistency.
That's right.
Well, okay.
Continuing with the rules here.
They did just say that, but they said it twice.
I guess that's the most important thing.
No detachable speakers.
Maybe they want to make sure you didn't misunderstand it.
You couldn't have a left speaker and a right speaker, maybe.
I don't know.
Yeah, one's for the left, one's for the right.
Any other models will be returned.
Any attachments, such as remote controls, if included by the manufacturer,
will be removed by the commissary officer and placed in your personal property.
Every seat will be generated and delivered to you.
Number four, the inmate will be inspected by security before being labeled with the inmate's name.
Removal of the identification shall require the confiscation of the television as contraband.
Any warranty and or repairs are the responsibility of the inmate.
All repairs will go to the commissary officer for packing and shipping.
So I guess they stick your name on the thing.
They engrave it with a special engraving tool.
They engrave it?
Wow.
On top of the set, apparently.
I have some interesting news about why they don't allow the remote controls in here.
One of the other inmates explained to me why, and that is the prison administration is concerned that inmates could use the remote controls for the TV sets
to also control the electrically operated door locks located throughout the prison and use it to escape.
That's something I never would have thought of.
Well, they think of everything here.
One inmate got a television station.
It didn't have a front panel on it.
You had to program it from the remote.
Once you did that, you could then step through the channels.
But in any case, they sent two guards in, armed with clubs, batons, escorting this remote control into this particular inmate
and stood in his cell watching him program it, and then when he was done programming it, he took it back out of the prison.
So they were very, very, very cautious about making sure that remote control was not used, you know, for escape purposes.
Wow.
That's something.
Continuing.
Number five.
Reception varies within the institution.
We will not be responsible for poor reception.
Number six.
The television may never leave the cell of the owner.
Number seven.
The television may not be lent, given, sold, or in any other way be transferred to other inmate for any reason.
Number eight.
If the television is found outside the cell of the owner and in the possession of another inmate,
both the owner and the person who has it will be held responsible and the TV will be confiscated as contraband.
Both inmates will receive a misconduct report and will not be permitted to purchase a television for the remainder of this incarceration.
Pretty, pretty harsh there just for lending a TV set out.
Well, if you lend your TV set out, you would go to the hole for three days, and the person you lent it to would go to the hole for three days, too.
It's a place where they just don't feed you very much, and you're locked, locked up 24 hours a day, and it's generally very unpleasant.
It's that primordial, you know, prison place that everybody has nightmares about being in, cold and...
I have good news and some bad news about that TV set.
And by the way, thank you very much for your generosity.
Well, no, I don't want to give away too much, because you've sort of hinted that we succeeded,
but there's a whole big story behind this, which I haven't even started yet.
I was trying to get into these rules a little bit more.
There's nothing really major left, I don't think, that I've left out.
So, if a television is located that has not been removed from the institution by the owner
and is in the possession of another inmate, disciplinary action will be taken on that inmate,
and the item will be confiscated as contraband.
Same thing if any wires are altered or knobs are missing.
Items confiscated as contraband will not be returned, but will be donated to an accredited charity of our choice.
I wonder if that includes drugs and things like that.
Okay, that's basically it as far as the whole TV rules and regulations.
Now, we went to a couple of places.
We went to J&R, and guess what?
They told us that they have a policy of not sending to prisons.
It's like, you know, they're the opposite of your bureaucracy.
They're sort of meant to counter and wipe into nothingness anything that you try to do.
So, while the prison says it has to be sent by a manufacturer,
the manufacturer says, we do not send to prisons.
So, there doesn't seem to be a way around it, at least with J&R.
We went to the Wiz.
We had one all picked out.
The guy said there was no problem until he talked to somebody in the central Wiz office,
which I guess is somewhere in New Jersey, and they said it was just a corporate policy.
And what corporate policy means is that there's no way you can ever, ever question it.
You know, I mean, I was watching these guys at the Wiz.
They're really, they've got like whips and chains over them.
To make a phone call, they have to go to the front of the store and get the security guard to give them a line.
You know, the security guy that checks everything on the way out.
And they can't even make a phone call without him pressing the button and dialing for them.
It's like, it's almost like they're in prison themselves.
You'd think they'd understand, but no, they don't.
So, then we went to Caldor's.
All right, Caldor's is just this other department store.
We thought maybe a department store wouldn't be, you know, as privy to all these rules and regulations.
And they would just say, yeah, you want to pay for something, you want to buy it, fine, we'll send it wherever you want.
Because, you know, when we were at the Wiz and J&R, we were waving money at them, saying, look, here is money.
We're giving you money.
Just send it here.
That's all we're asking.
And they wouldn't do it.
So, we went to Caldor's, found another TV set.
This is our third TV set now.
We said, okay, now, here's the thing.
Can you send that to a prison?
And they said, yeah, I don't see why not.
Where's the prison?
And then we said, the prison's in Pennsylvania.
And they said, well, you know, the thing is, we ship with a special local company.
And you pay by the mile outside a 10-mile range.
So, and this is the manager talking to us, you'd be paying out the butt for this thing, whatever that means.
I guess it's like a Caldor type of euphemism.
And so, he said, you know, basically, you should probably go to someplace like Service Merchandise.
Because I used to work there, and they recognized an opportunity to make money, which is what no one else seemed to be able to do.
So, we went down to Service Merchandise and went through the whole big thing all over again.
And guess what?
We got to the point where they agreed to send it everywhere.
And then they, apparently, they used the same local delivery people, and they would be charging us by the mile as well.
They suggested that we contact their mail order place instead, and not use the local store.
So, we went to Service Merchandise for no reason at all, but we wound up calling the Service Merchandise mail order place from the store itself.
And that's where we actually got them to agree to send it out.
Now, the interesting thing is, while standing there in Service Merchandise, they have a bunch of computer terminals there.
And the purpose of these terminals is to add you to the mailing list, so that if you just can't wait, you know, for your next visit to Service Merchandise,
and you want to have a catalog sent to you, you can just type in your info right then and there.
Now, the funny thing about this is, if you're already on their mailing list, they don't want to have to send it to you again.
So, they ask you for your phone number.
And if you enter your phone number, and you're already on their mailing list, they greet you by name.
And this works for anywhere in the country.
You just enter someone's phone number, and it says,
Hello, Wallace, how are you today?
Or whatever the name might happen to be.
Hello, Beatrice, or, you know, whatnot.
It's a great way to check to see if you have the right phone number for somebody.
You don't get the last name, but you do get the first name.
It's kind of funny how people just go in there, and they give their unlisted phone numbers to Service Merchandise
without thinking anything of it, and give their first name as well.
You might want to try this. You might want to check it out.
And also, of course, you can change whatever gets sent out to these people.
The really odd thing about it, though, is we couldn't figure out a way to get out of the system when we were in it.
We'd hit the Cancel button, and what the Cancel button did was it inserted the letters C-A-N, you know, for Cancel, on every field.
So we had someone whose first name was Can, last name Can, address Can, city Can, state Can,
and then it got to the zip code, and it didn't accept Can because it only accepted numbers for that.
There was absolutely nothing we can do.
We wound up changing about 14 people's names to Can.
And so if you ever get something in the mail addressed that way, that's why.
The software is not exactly optimal, in my view.
So that was our Service Merchandise adventure, but I think eventually we wound up sending you a TV set.
Now, you said there's good news and bad news. What does that mean?
Well, the good news is a guard approached me this morning and said,
Cummings, your television has arrived.
Oh, good. How do I get it?
He said, all you have to do is fill out one of these contract agreements and send it up to the wards' office,
and then they will brave the set and bring it to you.
I said, okay, well, how do I get one of those forms?
He said, it should be in the storage room here.
So we went to the storage room and there were no forms.
So I said, well, how can I get one?
He said, well, talk to the lieutenant.
So at lunchtime, when I got to see the lieutenant, I spoke with him and he said, oh, those forms.
Well, we're out of those forms. There aren't any more right now.
There aren't any forms.
You can't have your TV set until you fill out one of these forms.
Have they ever heard of a Xerox machine?
Out of them.
Out of forms.
It's not like food, you know? You can just copy it and make new ones.
Well, I said, you know, isn't there an original somewhere?
And they said, well, you're just going to have to wait until we make more copies.
I said, well, when will that be?
He said, I can't tell you. It's just as soon as we get around to it.
I said, well, my TV is here, and all I want to do is sign this form so I can get my set.
He said, you're just going to have to wait for these forms available.
It may be tomorrow. It might be next week. It might be next month.
So the TV is here, but until I have this form to sign, I think you're the one holding a copy of one right there.
Maybe you could mail me a copy of that form, and then hopefully they won't confiscate it.
Then I can fill it out and then get the TV set.
I don't believe this. I have the form you need, and you can't get a hold of it.
I'll send a copy to you. I don't want to get you in trouble or something by sending this copy of this dot matrix form that they sent out.
That's the status of it. The TV is here, but it's in storage now because I can't sign a form that they don't have.
Okay. Well, listen. Update me on this in a couple of days ahead, and if the situation hasn't changed, then we'll have to do that, obviously.
Okay. Thanks again for your effort.
Oh, yeah. It's a never-ending saga, I guess.
And, of course, the thing probably won't work when you turn it on, and that's going to start a whole...
I was really concerned that a knob might break off or something, and then it would be classified as contraband.
Uh-huh.
Now, just inadvertently, you know, sometimes that happens, knobs break off of things,
and then it's changed from its original state, and then it can be confiscated and given away to the charity of their choosing.
So I hope it arrived intact.
What kind of charity would need knobs? I don't know.
All right. I was going to take some phone calls.
We're going to take some phone calls here. 212-279-3400.
We're talking about various privacy issues and other developments.
I have some interesting news about computer privacy issues.
Okay. What do you have?
Next Friday, you may have already mentioned this, I don't know, but next Friday, May 10th,
the Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Philadelphia will begin hearing oral arguments for and against the Communications Decency Act,
provision of the Communications Act in 1995.
The ACLU, EPIC, and I think the EFF will argue next Friday in Philadelphia that the term indecent is unconstitutionally vague,
and it's also, the Act also goes against the First Amendment.
It's the same void for vagueness doctrine that I'm using in my federal appeal,
only the vagueness in my case pertains to different words.
But in any case, next Friday at 6th and Market Street in Philadelphia, the oral arguments will occur.
I spoke with someone with EPIC last week.
He told me, and he's going to be, one of his partners will be giving oral arguments next Friday.
He said they expect a challenge from the government if they win, and at that point it will go to the Supreme Court.
So it should be interesting.
If anybody's in the Philadelphia area or wants to go to Philadelphia next Friday to 6th and Market Street to hear the fight,
it should be interesting.
Okay, it's not this Friday coming up, it's the one after that, right?
Right, May 10th.
Okay, yeah, we mentioned it, we just didn't have the exact date, but that's pretty helpful information to have,
and something I hope the media will be following closely.
And, you know, if, let me ask you your view on this, actually.
The whole indecency thing, as it applies to radio and television,
if they are able to, I mean, they already have passed this little V-chip thing,
once that is installed, will there be anything preventing TV and radio,
or I guess just TV, since it's for TV,
anything preventing television from actually airing programs that are somewhat normal as far as language
and, you know, and things that they show?
Like, it won't have to be geared towards some farmer in Idaho someplace that might get offended.
Do you think having a V-chip that you can turn off certain bits of, I don't know, objectionable material,
do you think that will have an effect on that?
Do you think it will actually do something good?
In a way, I do know that the television programming industry was looking forward to this whole V-chip legislation going through,
because they were always worried about blanket restrictions,
and so now the restrictions apparently will be specialized,
and they can let out material in different, you know,
different levels of violence or sexual orientation or whatever else is going to be censored by the V-chip.
Although there hasn't been any other proposed legislation I know of to lessen the existing regulations as far as what can be aired,
but it certainly would give one a logical argument to say,
well, let's program something that's, you know, more in line with movies that you see in a movie theater
than the television code that exists now.
Well, I mean, the thing is, if they were able to rule that indecency,
that the indecency standard is unconstitutional,
would it not apply then that the way the indecency standard is applied to television and radio,
that also is unconstitutional?
Sure, but that's been tried in the Supreme Court and tested,
and the Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to have the FCC regulate the type of material that gets broadcast.
Right, but at the time there was no way to block it out,
and now that they've insisted on having this way of blocking out quote-unquote objectionable material,
I see no reason why this can't be overturned.
I agree with you. I think it'll be interesting to see.
Once they're available widely, I think next year they go into effect,
or they have to, do you know when that is, when they have to put the chips in?
I think it's the beginning of 1997.
Yeah, that's what I believe.
Yeah, I know it's already required that all the sets have to have closed-caption decoders for hearing-impaired people.
So I guess I'll just add some extra software to the computer circuitry that's already in there to do these V-chip functions.
I think they should have a whole section of other codes, censorship codes,
not just a V-chip, but like a P-chip to block out annoying politicians,
or whatever other kind of initials you can come up with to block things that you don't want to hear,
or how about like a G-chip to block out Geraldo Rivera?
There you go, or an H-chip to block out home shopping.
That's my personal favorite.
All right, let's take some phone calls.
212-279-3400 is our phone number.
The program is off the hook.
Good evening. You are our first caller.
Manuel Goldstein?
That's me, and you are on the air.
I'd like to bring up a certain point here.
Okay, go right ahead.
What would happen if this TV monitoring of our street,
what happens if someone manages to tap these phone lines,
these television lines?
Mm-hmm.
Then in theory, wouldn't that person, whoever managed to get a hold of this thing,
have access to people, what people are doing inside their homes, everyone else?
Okay, you're referring to what we were talking about a little earlier,
where there's certain local police departments that are experimenting with devices
that can actually pinpoint the location of a gunshot
and also could be used to monitor things that are going on inside a house.
And you're asking if somebody is able to sort of piggyback onto that,
would they not have the same access?
Yes, of course, if they were able to do that.
I don't know what the technical possibilities are concerning that,
but anyone that has access to that technology will be able to invade your privacy easily.
And then a second thing with the Information Decency Act,
or whatever it was.
Communications Decency Act.
Yes.
I forgot the name of it.
Now, I think eventually the censorship will get to the point where
certain four-letter words will be banned from the Internet entirely.
Right.
That seems to be the goal of some people, but it seems to be...
I mean, while you can control radio and television
because you have to go through this elaborate bureaucracy to, like, even air something,
the Internet is not like that.
The Internet is decentralized and it's run by individuals.
There is no broadcasting center.
Everybody has the same power.
And that's why it's impossible to actually regulate what somebody says.
Because I don't...
The only people that could come up with something like this
are people that have absolutely no understanding of what the Internet is all about.
And also, do you know that certain portions of the human body,
for anatomy, for, let's say, the sciences,
cannot be posted on the Internet any longer because of that?
They're officially banned.
Well, yeah.
I mean, that's sort of what the law is saying.
There was a point where talk of abortion was also something that was not allowed,
but that, I think, has been successfully thrown out of that bill
or at least not taken seriously.
It just goes to show what certain mentalities desire
and why it's important for us to, you know,
to not let a small group of people take control of something.
What online service was that banned the word,
the use of the word breast on their chat room?
There's America Online.
Yeah, there's America Online.
And some women's group who was using,
had a special interest group talking about,
or a chat room talking about breast cancer.
They weren't able to talk about their subject.
Yeah, and that made a few headlines.
And I think a lot of people realize this.
You know, you see the advertisements for Internet access today
and no censorship is always one of the primary things.
People realize that it's important not to be censored.
And like I said before, you know, nobody says they are a censor.
Every time you, every political group thinks that censors are out to get them.
And what we have to realize is that censors are out to get virtually everybody.
And we have to realize, you know, who the censors are within us
and on the other side, too.
You know, there's censors everywhere.
It's not a left-right thing.
Okay, does that answer your question?
Um, yes, and, um...
Oh, have you ever heard of that program called AOL?
Uh, yeah, the program that allows you to get free access to America Online.
I don't know what you would do with it.
But, yeah, apparently it's very popular.
I don't think it works anymore, though.
I'm sorry?
I think America Online should find the source code for this product
and incorporate certain features of it, like blocking out certain words,
blocking out viewing certain people's messages.
Mm-hmm.
I think where someone who decided to make utilities like that
for online services could make quite a deal of money.
Mm-hmm.
I mean, why doesn't America Online?
So there's things that some 15-year-old in the middle of nowhere,
maybe living in New York City or whatever,
can design programs to do things that America Online can't.
Well, I think you hit the nail on the head.
America Online is a big lumbering corporation
that doesn't have much in the way of ingenuity,
just like, you know, most big lumbering corporations do not have.
I don't know.
You know, we're talking about America Online here.
It's not really the Internet.
The Internet is something a lot more elaborate
than, you know, one company's version of electronic access.
Anyway, thanks for the call.
Thanks for the questions.
Let's move on to another call.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hi, I'm Andy.
Well, a few things.
Yes.
Is Bernie still there?
I hope so.
Yes, I am.
Bernie, I'm just curious.
Are you monitored or charged for electricity use
and or are you limited in terms of what you can watch
and the hours you can watch?
No, that's not the case at this prison.
And the prison where I was formerly, before I was transferred here,
it was Northampton County Prison in eastern Pennsylvania.
They did shut off the electrical power to the cells at 1130 each night,
so you weren't permitted to watch anything after that date.
But it wasn't restricted as far as what programming you could watch.
I mean, it was just regular broadcast television.
Aren't they afraid, not necessarily you,
but some of the MAs will just stay up all night watching TV
and then not be able to perform their duties during the day?
That's why they shut things off at 1130 at night
and turned them back on again at 630.
The outlets that you plug your TV into, set into up there,
were all shut off.
And they're not afraid, like,
you're going to try and short out the electrical system
or do something with the electricity?
Well, that has happened.
People have tried to make what are things called stingers.
It's like a device that heats up water
so they can make hot tea or coffee in their cells,
which is considered a big offense in that prison.
And you go to the hole if you make one of those.
But occasionally somebody would make one the wrong way
and it would short out the electrical outlet.
And then they could usually trace back to see which outlet it shorted out.
And that person would go to the hole for a few days.
Well, let me try and picture this.
Your cell is just like a regular room,
but instead of a wall,
it's like the iron transparent bars
and, like, guards are, like, you know,
check you out every few minutes or something?
Well, up in Northampton County Prison,
we were just talking about it,
it was plate steel on all three walls
and the ceiling were plate steel,
like a battleship would be made out of,
with these huge rivets folded together.
And the front wall of it was bars
with a sliding gate made of bars.
So you felt like you were in a,
not unlike a cage in a zoo, exactly.
It was five feet by eight feet
and maybe, I think, about a nine-foot ceiling.
Well, it's still better than, like, concrete,
I would assume, right?
Actually, no.
The steel was very cold.
So if you leaned up against it,
it was pretty chilly.
Concrete was probably a little better.
I'm just curious.
What shows are you going to watch
or what's broadcast TV like where you're at?
Do you have the three networks?
I'm just outside of Philadelphia,
so I imagine I can pick up the network affiliates, PBS.
What about radio?
I do have a radio now.
Some other supporters are very kind enough
to send me a few dollars to buy a radio.
So now I'm very happily listening to NPR.
Unfortunately, I can't pick up Pacifica here.
This is sort of an esoteric question,
but there was someone who used to be on BAI
who has a kiddie show in Philly.
I don't know if you ever tuned her in.
Who's that?
Kathy O'Connell.
Oh, yeah.
I know Kathy.
Oh, you know?
Yeah, we're all friends.
Okay, two other things.
Emmanuel, did you receive my letter last week
because you didn't acknowledge or read it on the air?
It was sort of the humorous letter
signed somewhere, man.
Well, we receive hundreds of letters every week,
and about 20 of those might be considered humorous.
Oh, I didn't know.
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
I mean, we have to have a staff of people
monitoring things here,
but what was the gist of your letter?
Well, it was just like some humorous stuff.
I had a question for Fiber
why there aren't any female counterparts
in real life or on the show
like with exotic names like his
and just some one-liners.
I had an idea for it.
That might have gone into Fiber's possession.
Unfortunately, he is away on assignment this week,
and so we won't be hearing from him right now,
but I'll direct the question to him,
and perhaps he can comment on it.
My last thought before I make room
for the next creature of the night,
wasn't it the late visionary and hemp farmer
Thomas Jefferson who once said
that security at the expense of liberty
will result in neither?
Yes.
So my ninth grade social studies...
He should have written rap songs, Ed.
Thomas J.
Yeah, he really had it down
as far as that kind of thing.
All right, Don.
Thanks for sending me the magazines.
I appreciate it.
Okay, Bernie, take care.
You're like part of my regular routine,
and any words yet,
like if you're going to get early release or anything?
Well, there was another snag.
Last week I went to find out
what the latest chance of getting released is,
and apparently I should be eligible
to go into a minimum security facility
and possibly get work release,
but then this prison counselor told me
there was a problem.
When he pulled out my file,
he said you can't be approved
for work release or minimum security
because it shows here
you have four outstanding arrest warrants
for child support
or lack of child support.
And I looked at the guy and said,
how can this be?
I don't have any children.
And he said,
well, it says it right here
on the computer for now
that you have four outstanding arrest warrants
for child support.
I'm like, there's got to be a mistake.
Oh, boy.
I don't have any children.
He said, are you sure?
You don't have any children?
I said, yes, I'm sure.
So he said he'd try to take care of it.
So right now we're waiting
to get that resolved somehow.
Do you think that's a hacker
or someone from the Secret Service?
Yeah, it's got to be a hacker.
Whenever something like this happens,
it's a hacker, you know.
Anyway, please blame the hackers.
Take care and don't get involved
in any of that good God,
bad God politics.
And take care of Manuel.
All right.
Thanks for calling.
Bernie, that is amazing.
I mean, now they're coming up
with these phantom children
that they say that
you're responsible for somehow.
I mean, it's really funny.
I mean, you see the humor
in this now, right?
I do.
It's hard for me to laugh sometimes.
Yeah, I know.
When I know it affects my freedom.
At the time, I was speechless
when I first heard it.
And it took me a few seconds
to respond.
It can't be.
It's impossible.
I don't have any children.
And I never cleared up
whether it's four separate
child support warrants
for four different children
or one for four children
or two for two children
or whatever.
But if I get saddled
with these kids,
at least I hope
they'll be good kids.
Although they're probably pretty...
I never paid any child support.
Well, now, do you think
that it's possible
that the judge
thought that you were
this person that had
four outstanding arrest warrants
for child support?
I have no idea, Emmanuel.
Anything is possible
in this crazy system.
Because maybe that could account
for why he, you know,
sentenced you so harshly.
Well, he didn't say
anything about that.
But who knows?
I mean, that's a possibility.
It appears that someone else's
records got mixed up
with mine here at this prison.
But the council here
is trying to get that resolved.
It hasn't been done yet.
But I'm hoping
by the end of the week,
I will no longer have
hungry children to feed
that aren't mine.
I'd like to know, you know,
how do you mix up
someone's records in a prison?
I mean, you'd think
that they would be careful
about that.
You would.
But if you spend
any time here, Emmanuel,
you begin to realize
how simple it could happen.
It's just the bureaucracy
is rampant.
And the place is a model
of inefficiency.
All right.
212-279-3400.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hello?
Yes, it's you.
Go ahead.
Yes, I have a question.
Where I could complain
against a long-distance company
to what authorities?
Well, probably the
Federal Communications
Commission Common Carrier Bureau,
which is located
in Washington, D.C.
What kind of problem
are you having?
Well, I use Unidial,
and they are in Atlanta, Georgia.
And they charge me
on MasterCard.
However, they never
send me a statement
about my long-distance
connections.
So they never sent you
an itemized bill.
They just billed you
MasterCard.
No, and I keep
calling them.
They say, oh,
tomorrow, tomorrow,
and it never comes.
Uh-huh.
It's really frustrating.
Well, now,
have you contacted
MasterCard?
I will contact them
and tell them
that they shouldn't
allow them to charge me.
Okay, yeah,
that's what you have to do.
Call MasterCard,
say the charges
have not been substantiated,
and they will take it
off your bill
until any kind of proof
is given.
And if they don't
give any proof,
then it'll stay
off your bill.
Uh-huh.
All right, fine.
All right, good luck.
Thank you very much.
Bye-bye.
212-279-3400.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Uh-huh.
Go ahead.
All right, good luck.
That's good sound quality, too.
But it's also
seven seconds ago,
so let's join us
in the present.
Hello.
Hello?
Yes, go ahead.
All right, excellent.
Okay.
I just wanted to
call about
several different issues,
but the one that
got my attention
the most
was the V-chip thing.
Uh-huh.
And the various,
the point that you
were coming from
or the perspective
that you were coming from
that it actually
was a good thing
and all that,
I have a little bit
of a counterpoint
to that based on
an article I read
a couple months ago
in an Adweek magazine,
and the point
that they were making
is that in one respect
this is going to
stifle the creativity
of the kinds of shows
that they put
on television
because of the fact
that in order
for the V-chip to work
they'll now have to
rate every single show,
and the ones
that get the
most violent rating
will not be getting
any type of
sponsorship
for advertising
because of the fact
that once
a television show
has been rated,
those companies
that advertise
on the shows now
will have nowhere
to turn
if they get accused
of patronizing
what could be considered
such a horrible
television program,
and before,
when there was
no rating system,
they could always say,
well, we never watched it,
we never knew
what was really on it,
but now,
if it's got that rating,
the advertisers
are going to have
to know
what that rating is
before they're ever
plunked down
their first dime,
and as a result
of that,
a lot of them
are not going to
because of a bad name
or whatever,
and as a result,
a lot of those shows
that might actually
be just realistic
in depicting life
probably will not be
on television, really.
Yeah, it's a good point,
it's a chilling effect
of having something
categorized,
like the warning stickers
on CDs,
the R rating
in movies,
and just, you know,
self-censorship
that we impose
upon ourselves
to avoid being
categorized in a certain
way, but you know,
it's a very complex
thing, you have to
wonder, how is this
going to translate
to things like
syndication, you know,
you have something
that's rated in a
certain way,
and advertisers pay
to be on that
particular program,
like, let's say
NYPD Blue,
even though that show
is, I don't even
consider that to be
in the slightest bit
objectionable,
but you have a
program like that,
okay, you have
advertisers that pay
to be on there,
and they know about
the program,
now what happens
when that show
becomes syndicated,
you know, local
TV stations are
inserting their own
local ads there,
and, you know,
the sponsors aren't
necessarily privy to
what it is exactly
that they're being
aired during,
and so it's a lot
different when it
goes down to a
local advertiser,
I mean, we have a
phenomenal amount
of ratings that are
about to be made
here on these,
on all these
different shows,
I don't know how
it's going to
translate over the
years.
The rating scheme
hasn't really been
developed yet,
I'd love to see
how that pans out.
But also,
all the expense
involved with
rating these
programs,
and keeping
track of what's
rated and what,
so the advertisers,
you know,
this program is
rated,
all that's going
to cost a lot
of money,
apparently,
and the consumers
are going to end
up having to pay
for that with
higher advertising,
higher prices,
because the
advertising costs
are higher.
Yeah, and on
another point,
I wanted to get
in, like,
the last couple
of weeks,
but you did not
mention this on
your program,
and I wanted to
know if you
were aware of
it, on April
6th of this
year, in the
newspaper for
New Jersey,
the Star-Ledger,
there was a
whole-page article
on these two
hackers out in
California that
were sentenced
for stealing
credit card numbers
off of Tower
Records'
computer system,
and I was just
wondering, were
you aware of
this happening
to begin with?
Well, let me
just ask you,
are you quoting
the newspaper
article that
called those
people hackers,
or is there
something else
about this
story?
No, well,
actually, yes,
I'm quoting
them, they used
the term hackers,
but in a way,
they were hackers
in the sense that
they originally
broke into
Tower Records'
computer system,
the way the
story goes,
and they've
gotten fairly
in-depth with
it, is that
they originally
broke into
the Tower
Records'
computer system
to be able
to rent
videos from
a Tower
Records video
rental store
near them,
and they
originally used
it for that.
They stayed
in there for
like, playing
around in the
system for
like, several
months, and
not several
months, but
about a month,
and Tower
Records officials
immediately called
the Secret
Service, and
the Secret
Service said
that instead
of plugging
their security
loopholes to
wait and see
what they would
wind up doing,
so what they
did then was
cataloged every
single keystroke
that they made,
every time they
broke in, it
said that Tower
Records system
administrators'
pagers went
off, and
after a period
of time, they
came upon a
file that wound
up having credit
card numbers in
it.
They downloaded
the file, I
guess, to look
at it, and
when they found
out what it
was, they
said that the
two individuals
involved, who
are actually
fairly young, I
think they're
21 and 19,
said they were
going to take
it to the
DEFCON
convention in
Las Vegas with
them, and they
wound up leaving
it, though, at
their house.
They wound up
not taking it
with them, and
while they went
to the DEFCON
convention, the
federal government
issued a search
warrant to
search their
house, they
both were
planning to
attend the
University of
California, one
of the campuses, I
don't remember
right now.
Well, let me
just ask you a
question, did
they actually use
the card numbers?
No, they didn't
use the card
numbers, but they
felt that it was a
criminal possession
of individual credit
card numbers because
they had sorted
them by expiration
date, which means
that they were
planning to do
something bad with
them, which is
totally fallacious
as far as I'm
concerned, but they
wound up both
being charged with
felony counts of
credit card fraud
because of the fact
that they had 1,500
credit card numbers
altogether, and in
legal parlance, each
credit card number
is supposedly worth
$100, and therefore
that made their
thing $15,000.
Well, you know,
it's interesting that
the Secret Service
would allow all that
valuable information
to be so vulnerable
for so long a period
of time.
They took no
precautions to lock
it up or anything
like that.
They knew they were
at risk, yet they
just left it out
there for somebody
else to find and
copy and do God
knows what with.
But, you know, I
mean, it's a stupid
thing to do to mess
around with credit
card numbers and,
you know, to mess
around anything that's
financial in nature,
but if these guys
didn't actually make
any purchases with
the credit card
numbers, you can't
treat it like they
did, you know?
It's a different
thing.
You have to, when
someone makes that
transition to
actually stealing
stuff, hey, that's
a crime, it's
easily recognizable.
But if you just
think that they
had intent to do
that, it's a far
different thing
because they
haven't actually
done anything yet.
We're just about
out of time.
Bernie, did you
have any comment
on that?
And then we've
got to hit the
ring.
I just can say
those kids are
looking to a
scary ordeal
ahead of them.
They're going to
probably be looking
at a serious
amount of federal
prison time.
The possession
of each credit
card can amount
to a year or more
in prison.
They're going to
do some time.
It's unfortunate.
And if they
turned out not to
have done anything
with those credit
card numbers, it's
even more
unfortunate that
they're going to
be in prison for
a while.
Okay, Bernie,
ask quickly your
address so that
people can write
you.
Anyone wanting to
send me books or
magazines or
letters of support,
I'd appreciate it.
It keeps me going
every day here.
You can send it
to Ed Cummings,
C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S,
at Bucks, B-U-C-K-S,
County Prison.
The address is
1730 South Easton,
that's E-A-S-T-O-N,
Road, number D13.
That's D as in
David.
That's my cell
number.
And that's in
Doylestown, D-O-Y-L-E-S-T-O-W-N,
P-A-1-8-9-0-1.
And thank you,
everyone,
who's mailed me
books, magazines,
cards, et cetera.
It really keeps me
going.
I appreciate it.
And if you want
to send Bernie S
email, the address
is bernys at
2600.com, and if
you want him to
reply, attach your
regular mail address
to that, and he
will try to reply
as is possible.
Okay, that's going
to pretty much do
it for us here
tonight.
This is another
edition of Off
the Hook coming
to an end.
We'll be back
again next week
from 8 to 9
o'clock with the
latest in the
world of privacy
technology, phone
companies, computers,
and things like
that.
Until then,
this is Emmanuel
Goldstein.
Have a good
night.
Have a good
night.
The telephone
keeps ringing, so
I ripped it off
the wall.
I cut myself
while shaving, now
I can't make a
call.
It couldn't get
much worse, but
if they could, they
would.
One diddley
bomb was the best
to stay for work.
I hope that's
understood.
One diddley
load.