Tag: Internet

Alles over het ontstaan & de ontwikkeling van internet. Aanvankelijk legde ik vooral uit wat internet deed & betekende, tegenwoordig gaan mijn stukken vaker over politiek en internet.

Analysis of incoming cyberangels.nl mail

[I was on the board of Spamvrij.nl, a Dutch foundation that fought spam: we documented Dutch spam runs and tried to educate Dutch companies about the proper use of e-mail as an advertisement medium. Mid 2003, we developed a strong hunch that the biggest Dutch spam house, Cyberangels, was actually run by Martijn Bevelander, owner of the Dutch ISP Megaprovider. On July 3 2003, the owner of Cyberangels.nl dumped the domain, and we were able to re-register it ourselves. Suddenly, spam fighters owned a spammer’s domain name – and we got their mail. I analysed Cyberangel’s incoming mail. The original article is here; on Cyberangels.nl you can read more about the case.]

The story in a nutshell

Cyberangels are major spammers and spam facilitators. Amongst others, they facilitated Superzonda, who in themselves are responsible for an estimated 20 to 30 million spams per day. Initially, it wasn’t clear who was running Cyberangels; the contact information provided in SIDN’s database – SIDN is the Dutch domain registrar – was of course faked. Nevertheless, slowly information started to trickle out or was delved up. Cyberangels was owned by Megaprovider, a company in turn owned by Martijn Bevelander. Bevelander himself had previously gained some notoriety for being a domain hijacker. In March 2002, Bevelander’s company Bevelander Internet Services went bankrupt.

When the first big story about possible connections between Bevelander and Cyberangels was published, things speeded up fast. Bevelander denied most and admitted some; later on, he denied everything. Currently, he claims that he merely registered cyberangels.nl and Cyberangels.be when he was a domain hijacker. Predictably, he is also threatening to sue.

Meanwhile, several other Dutch ISPs have decided to no longer peer with Bevelander’s Megaprovider. Finally, Megaprovider requested Prenames to please discontinue the domain cyberangels.nl, which Spamvrij.nl registered twenty minutes later, in order to use the old spamming domain as a means to collect more information about Cyberangels.

Since MX-records for cyberangels.nl now point to spamvrij.nl too, we get all their mail: bounces, spam complaints and what have you. Have a peek: what kind of mail does a major spammer receive in the course of a day? By now, we have a very precise answer: 6305 mails. Here is the breakdown of those mails.

Introduction: 6305 mails in (basically) one day

Twenty minutes after Megaprovider asked its registrar to drop the cyberangels.nl domain on Thursday, 03 Juli 2003, Spamvrij.nl (a Dutch anti-spam foundation) obtained it. We wanted to make a website logging the affair, but most of all we wanted to prevent the spammers from ever getting the domain back again.

As a bonus, mail started pouring in Friday morning, when the NL-zonefiles were updated: the MX-records of cyberangels.nl were now pointing to us. (We made a catch-all for all addresses.) The first few hours, literally thousands of mails reached us: 5919 mails, most of them forwarded bounces. By now, the avalanche has dwindled to a trickle. What we receive now is mostly complaints.

Until now – 06-07-2003, 23:00 GMT+1 – we have received a grand total of 6305 mails. The oldest is dated Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:10:17 GMT+1, and the bulk of the mail was sent between 01 July and 04 July 2003.

We received 5880 bounces and forwards

Apparently, Cyberangels – or one of their buddies hosting a website on their servers – sent a number of spam runs purporting to be from e-mail addresses not within their domain. Some of these addresses may have been real, others may not ever have existed.

Of course, the bounces of the spam run started arriving at these addresses. Either the people involved or their providers created .forwards, so that all these bounces ended up being redirected to ba@cyberangels.nl. For two accounts (@redick.de and @bitten.de) all other spam received on them seems to have been forwarded to ba@cyberangels.nl.

Only one postmaster forwarded non-deliverable spam for his @actis.ca addresses straight to ripe-contact@cyberangels.nl. Those spam mails, incidentally, looked like they were sent by frederickatingle_up@freemail.nl.

Here’s a short breakdown of what these abused addresses forwarded. We suspect that they must have received many more bounces on behalf of Cyberangels, and we offer this breakdown as an example of the abuse that spammers create:

abused provider abused account e-mails between
mediaweb.nl rjnr 3059   24-06 / 04-07-2003
mediaweb.nl 0005644986 2240   29-06 / 04-07-2003
mediaweb.nl livenlearn13 527   29-06 / 04-07-2003
redick.de@email.an 20   30-06 / 07-07-2003
bitten.de@vater.unser 20   01-07 / 05-07-2003
freemail.nl frederickatingle_up 6   02-07-2003

Additionally, and as a further annoyance, these addresses were now
in quite some people’s mail folders. Thus, they received some
virii when a spammee was infected. Those got forwarded, too:

abused account viruses
rjnr@freemail.nl 4  
0005644986@mediaweb.nl 2  
livenlearn13@mediaweb.nl 1  
email.an@redick.de 1  

If in one day ba@cyberangels receives almost 6000 mails from people who are smart enough to figure that they get bounces because their addresses have been abused by a spammer and who then proceed to redirect those bounces, you can begin to image the volume of bounces that spam runs create, the sheer volume of those spam runs themselves, and the that traffic spam creates for decent providers.

We received 12 spams for @cyberangels

Both ba@cyberangels and ripe-contact@cyberangels received some spam themselves:

  • Mr. RASHEED BELLO sent ba@ six Nigerian scams;
  • @yahoo.com.cn spammed four times with something rather illegible;
  • Mr. Ken Titoh was hoping to assist Mr. RASHEED BELLO;
  • Somebody believed that a Cyberangels’ dick was too small.

We received 40 attempts to annoy Cyberangels

Some people tried to vent their annoyance at getting spam. We received:

  • 2 attempts to subscribe ba@cyberangels to a gay magazine;
  • 6 spams by hostmaster@canube123.com about autoresponders, with a 1,3 Mb file called ‘rules.zip’ attached (5 of these were sent to ripe-contact@, 1 to ba@cyberangels.nl);
  • 14 messages informing Cyberangels that somebody had been ‘spamming’ in Cyberangels’ name. We received received 14 ‘address incorrect’ e-mails, bouncing to the ‘original’ sender ba@cyberangels.nl;
  • 18 ‘autoresponder’ messages purporting to be sent from ba@ to support@, containing a link to a ‘spamming is baaaaaad’ page.

We received 371 complaints about Cyberangels

… In reply to which we have sent 132 letters explaining the new situation. We received two positive replies to that, and five bounces – apparently, some people decided that our reply was spam.

146 of these complaints were not about spam but about (repeated) port scans. Some people complained about having been port scanned for weeks, or referred to previous complaints that they had filed with Cyberangels.

We received 2 business mails

  • 1 announcing that a request to cancel the cyberangels.nl domain has been received by cyberangels.nl’s registrar;
  • 1 other mail, enquiring about hosting services and addressed to martijn@cyberangels.nl.

Girotel en de gemene deler

Na een halve dag geklooid te hebben met Girotel – alles lukte, behalve overschrijvingen uitvoeren, en dat is nu precies waarvoor je Girotel gebruikt – gaf ik me gewonnen. De meneer aan de andere kant van de lijn beval me alles te doen wat ik allang had gedaan. Na nog eens drie uur klooien, nu onder supervisie, gaf hij me gelijk: het werkte niet. Hee, wat gek… Hij raadpleegde iets. Pas toen ging hem een licht op. ‘Oh ja, we hebben iets veranderd, Girotel werkt nu in principe niet meer met Windows NT’. U moet maar upgraden naar Windows XP.’

Over mijn lijk. Waarom zou ik mijn hele computer op de kop moeten zetten omdat ik wil girotellen, een dienst waar ik nota bene voor betaal? Waarom denkt de Postbank dat zij kan eisen dat ik overstap op een compleet nieuw besturingssysteem dat ik niet wil – want upgaden betekent: drie dagen lang je computer opnieuw inrichten en allerlei verse (lees: dure) licenties moeten aanschaffen – alleen om dat het haar gerieft haar systeem te veranderen? Sinds wanneer kan een bank uitmaken met wat voor computersysteem ik werk?

Ik was niet de enige die boos werd. Er is inmiddels een hausse aan boze Girotel-gebruikers: allemaal mensen die – nota bene tegen betaling – zelf hun transacties geautomatiseerd aanleveren, wat de Postbank op haar beurt een hoop werk en kosten scheelt. Maar de Postbank heeft iets veranderd en haar standaard antwoord is: ‘Dan moet u maar upgraden naar XP en Internet Explorer gaan gebruiken.’

Het klinkt overtuigend. Aangezien het gros der computergebruikers Windows heeft geïnstalleerd, lijkt het logisch om je software op die gebruikers te richten. De grootste gemene deler, immers, en je kunt moeilijk rekening gaan houden met allerlei obscure besturingssystemen.

Fout. Als negentig procent van de internetgebruikers IE gebruikt, moet je je nog steeds op de algemene standaarden voor webbrowsers richten. IE is weliswaar de populairste browser, maar hij heeft een aantal eigenaardigheden. Sommige daarvan werken uitsluitend binnen IE, niet met andere browsers. Wie zijn programma’s en webpagina’s geheel op zo’n browser afstemt – zoals de Postbank thans doet – sluit andere gebruikers uit. Geen punt, zult u zeggen, dan moeten zij maar overschakelen op Explorer.

De ellende is echter dat die grapjes niet standaard zijn, en dat ook IE zich ontwikkelt. Websites met trucjes die binnen IE 4 geweldig werkten (maar niet met andere browsers) raakten compleet vernaggeld toen versie 5 uitkwam. IE had namelijk eindelijk besloten zich aan een aantal algemeen erkende standaarden te gaan houden en schafte daarmee een deel van haar eerdere trucjes af. Exit al die sites die zeiden dat zij de meerderheid vertegenwoordigden: ze werkten niet goed meer. Sites die zich aan de standaarden hadden gehouden, bleven het echter netjes doen.

Daar zijn nu juist die algemene standaarden voor: om te zorgen dat je niet afhankelijk bent van een specifiek programma of een specifieke versie daarvan, en dat een website of transactie even goed werkt met IE als met Mozilla of Opera. Anders gezegd: ze dienen om te zorgen dat gegevens onafhankelijk van programmatuur of besturingssystemen kunnen worden overgedragen.

En het is zo makkelijk. De Nederlandse Spoorwegen kondigden een paar jaar terug met veel fanfare een nieuwe site aan waar je treintijden kon opzoeken. Die werkte alleen met IE. Nee, daar was helaas niks aan te doen zei de NS, de site was heel duur geweest en wat de site moest doen kon heus alleen met IE, het speet ze bijzonder maar het was niet anders. Een clubje slimme programmeurs wist in drie dagen een alternatief te programmeren: een website die alle functionaliteit van de NS-site had en die voor alle browsers en besturingssystemen toegankelijk was. Waarmee ze zowel de NS als die dure website-bouwers grandioos in hun hemd zetten.

Inmiddels heeft zo’n zelfde slimme club een patch voor Girotel ontwikkeld, een simpele pleister die maakt dat het programma in elk geval ook voor Linuxgebruikers werkt. Hij staat op gt.streeflandnl. De Postbank weet ervan maar doet of haar neus bloedt. Girotel toegankelijk maken voor alle (betalende) abonnees is echt te moeilijk. Zeggen ze, liegend dat ze barsten.

Intussen heeft minister Zalm aangekondigd te willen eisen dat iedereen zijn belastingaangifte voortaan per diskette moet inleveren. Er zijn geen belastingprogramma’s voor Linux, wel steeds meer Linuxgebruikers. (En er zijn zat mensen zónder computer. Wat wou Zalm daarmee?)

Ik weet nog wel een clubje programmeurs voor Zalm. Maar beter kan hij eerst de Postbank tot de orde roepen. En hard na gaan denken over open standaarden. Je hebt tenslotte ook geen Linux-euro naast een MS-euro.

OSCE / FOM, May 7 2003

Interview about media freedom and internet censorship on the occasion of the OSCE/FOM internet conference in Amsterdam, June 2003. ‘Censorship on the net does not merely copy censorship of the classic or traditional media: it is more diffuse, less centralised, more wide-spread, and far less tangible than older forms of censorship.’

» Article FOM: ‘Censorship on the internet’

Virus alert!

DE VIRUSSEN SPRINGEN je momenteel in het gezicht zodra je je e-mail ophaalt, een griepepidemie is er niets bij. Krijg ik er normaal zo’n vijf per dag, de laatste dagen zijn vijftig tot zestig virussen per etmaal niet ongewoon. Meestal is er sprake van een besmette computer die volautomatisch virussen rondpompt aan alle mail-adressen die hij maar kan vinden. Er waart momenteel zelfs een virus rond dat zichzelf begint te spammen. («Spam» is het ongevraagd rondsturen van steeds dezelfde mail aan willekeurige mensen). Een paar dagen geleden kreeg ik op die manier in tien uur tijd veertig keer hetzelfde virus van dezelfde internetgebruiker. Hem vriendelijk terugmailen met steeds dringender wordende waarschuwingen hielp niet. Op het laatst heb ik zijn provider maar ingeschakeld.

Mailen met iemand die besmet is, is als praten met iemand die ernstig depressief is: je krijgt als toehoorder telkens hetzelfde probleem voorgeschoteld, er zit geen schot in, en op het laatst zie je er zelf ook geen gat meer in. Dan zijn hardere maatregelen geboden, denk je in je buitenstaanderswanhoop. Blokkades instellen. Automatische antwoorden versturen. Klachten indienen bij providers, die zo iemand dan hopelijk tijdelijk afsluiten.

Maar dat helpt die gebruiker allemaal niet, het helpt alleen om de besmetting in te perken en het gevoel te houden dat je van buitenaf tenminste nog i­ets verstandigs hebt kunnen doen. Het enige waar een besmette gebruiker echt iets aan heeft is een goede virusscanner en een antibioticum om het virus te verwijderen. En aangezien zijn computer op hol is geslagen kun je hem dat niet meer per e-mail vertellen. Ondertussen maakt iedereen waarmee hij contact heeft gehad overuren.

Het rare is dat mensen doorgaans nogal bozig reageren als je ze waarschuwt dat ze besmet zijn, zo ongeveer alsof je ze op iets vies hebt betrapt. Maar meestal doen ze er gegeneerd het zwijgen toe. In de maanden dat BadTrans heerste heb ik circa vierhonderd mensen gewaarschuwd dat ze me dat virus hadden opgestuurd. Ongeveer een procent daarvan heeft me vriendelijk bedankt. De rest zweeg – voor een deel hadden ze hadden natuurlijk wel iets beters te doen: hun computer op orde brengen bijvoorbeeld – of werd boos: hoe ik durfde te veronderstellen dat zij, die toch zo netjes waren, etc. Een hedendaagse Freud zou daar vast iets zinnigs over kunnen zeggen. Iets met schuldgevoel omdat ze jou hebben blootgesteld, maar ja, jij was juist beveiligd zodat jij nergens last van had zodat jij ze kon waarschuwen, waarna zijzelf zich de mindere voelen, en dan boos werden uit compensatie. Of zoiets.

Je vraagt je soms af wat de schade moet zijn die al die virussen aanrichten. Veel mensen zijn dagenlang in de weer om hun computer opnieuw te installeren, en al doende raken ze vaak belangrijke documenten en mail kwijt (Natuurlijk is het dom geen backup te hebben, maar toch gebeurt het. Sterker: juist het meemaken van zulke persoonlijke rampen overtuigt mensen van de noodzaak hun bestanden elders veilig te stellen. Wie eens besmet is geweest, of bestanden heeft verloren, neemt voortaan wel zijn maatregelen.)

Providers en bedrijven worden bij zulke epidemieën hard getroffen. Helpdesks weten zich geen raad met de vloed van paniekerige telefoontjes en hele systemen lopen vast omdat er plots zes keer zoveel mail rondgaat als normaal, en het bovendien overal klachten regent. De arbeidsuren die ermee gemoeid zijn, moeten onvoorstelbaar zijn.

Je kunt de virusmakers daarvoor vervolgen, zoals tegenwoordig gebeurt. Je kunt ook overwegen om mensen het gebruik van bijzonder virusgevoelige software af te raden – Mcrosofts Outlook en Outlook Express zijn notoire voorbeelden, beide programma’s zijn zo lek als en mandje. Je kunt ook overwegen die economische schade te verhalen op de makers van virusgevoelige software. Zeker als die lekke software als onontkoombaar onderdeel van een besturingssysteem wordt geïnstalleerd.

In de Verenigde Staten zijn diverse processen gaande tegen Microsoft. Het bedrijf heeft sterk monopolistische neigingen. Hun eigen (niet bepaald virusresistente) mail- en webbrowserprogramma’s zijn ingebouwd in de operating systems die zij leveren, en (veiliger) software van andere bedrijven is daardoor soms lastig te installeren. Zo krijgt Microsoft een oneigenlijke voorsprong op bedrijven, ook als die iets anders doen dan besturingssystemen aanbieden. En tegelijkertijd wordt het gebruik van doorgaans wrakke software als Outlook en Outlook Express daardoor sterk bevorderd, met alle persoonlijke en economische repercussies van dien.

De mensen waarvan ik virussen heb ontvangen, zijn vrijwel zonder uitzondering mensen die Microsoft mailprogramma’s gebruiken. Tel uit je winst.

Freedom of the internet, our new challenge

New medium, same old problems – plus a few new ones

[Essay written for the Yearbook 2001/2002 of the Freedom of the Media office of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE / FOM).]

The internet is a medium unlike any other. While it embodies aspects of different more old-fashioned media, it not only combines them but also adds features, inherent to its digital nature. E-mail for instance can be compared with postal mail, but has the capacity to send carbon copies of letters to many people at once, and the added bonuses of (almost) instantaneous delivery and of mail programs automatically archiving all correspondence, making it searchable on top. Internet Relay Chats (IRC), I Seek You (ICQ) and other protocols for chat boxes on the other hand are more comparable to telephones: they allow a realtime conversation with a person or a group and can log that conversation for private perusal. Usenet – the collective newsgroups – resembles a huge public bulletin board, subdivided by subject, where people can post messages which are accessible to everyone, but it is also archived, meaning that the discussions are automatically stored for future reference.

The world wide web (WWW) is best compared to the printed press and the broadcasting media. One person or group is usually responsible for the published content. But unlike the traditional media, web sites are accessible from all over the world, can be browsed by anybody on the planet, and they are usually free. Publishing on the web is not only quicker and cheaper than via traditional printing and broadcasting; it can at any level combine texts with moving images and sound. And while some subjects never get covered by the traditional media – because the designated audience is too small or the material is too vast to be incorporated in an article or a book – the net offers plenty of (cheap) space and web site owners often excel in providing niche information. The information on these myriad web sites is divulged via search engines which, through the creation of huge indices, guarantee that everything becomes retrievable and accessible. The most localised, obscure or specific information is suddenly available to everyone, everywhere.

These shared and new characteristics have brought all known problems pertaining to old technologies into the net, and a few new ones, too. Government censorship and the classical inaccessibility of information to the poorest masses are there, but now we have also the novelty of censorship performed by companies and of violation of privacy by governments on a scale that was previously unheard of and would have been impossible – if only for practical reasons – in the classical communication media.

Filtering as a means to censorship

A measure that many censor-minded countries deploy, is the use of restrictive proxies. A proxy is basically a web server at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level that fetches all pages requested by the users for them. By keeping local copies of pages that are visited frequently, the proxy is able to serve them faster and with less long-distance traffic. But proxies can also be used to block user requests for sites, based on an automatic check on their name, location and/or content. These restrictive proxies prevent internet users from visiting forbidden sites and, in some instances, are even equipped with a tool that warns the police that someone has tried to access banned material. Singapore uses nationwide proxies in order to prevent access to certain web sites, mostly those discussing religion or politics or depicting sex. 1 Information for the home is seen to be of a less critical nature so censorship of such information is regarded to have not as deleterious an effect. Second, materials for the young are more heavily censored than those for adults. This is an admittedly paternalistic principle of protecting the weaker members of society from the possible harm of the materials in question. [..] Third, materials for public consumption are more heavily censored than those for private consumption. This is a corollary of the second principle as it is assumed that the public includes those who are “weaker.” [..] It should be noted that private consumption of censorship materials is still policed in that those found in private possession of censored materials can be convicted in court. Finally, materials deemed to have artistic and educational merit are less heavily censored.” See Dr. Peng Hwa Ang and Ms. Berlinda Nadarajan, Censorship and Internet: a Singapore Perspective.] This government-imposed ban is not completely efficient: with some technical knowledge, the mandatory proxy can be circumvented. 2

Dubai on the other hand uses a very strict proxy, imposed upon the country in the beginning of 1997. Whenever a net user attempts to visit a site that the government has ruled out, he gets the following message on his screen: “Emirates Internet Control List: access to this site is denied.” 3 This nationwide proxy disallows Dubai citizens from visiting most newsgroups and blocks “selected sites on the Internet which negate local moral values”. 4 The only sure way to circumvent such a proxy, is by dial-up to a provider in a different country, which often is not a viable recourse.

It is not only dubious democracies that restrain the use of the net. Australia does the same, although to a much lesser degree. Citizens can report pages that they deem to be containing ‘explicit nudity’ or to be in ‘poor taste’ to a government authority, which then investigates the page and can order all national ISPs to block access to that particular page via their proxies. Electronic Frontier Australia (EFA), a group that protects and promotes online civil liberties, has complained about the poor accountability of said government authority regarding the handling of such complaints. 5 The United States of America have previously tried to do something similar via their 1995 Communications Decency Act, which prohibited the publishing of “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent” material on the internet. Fortunately, in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled the CDA to be unconstitutional. 6 it unquestionably silences some speakers whose messages would be entitled to constitutional protection.”]

Germany has tried to block specific material from their citizens as well. In 1995, the magazine Radikal was put online in the Netherlands after it got banned in Germany. 7 In 1996 and 1997, the German government forced German providers to block all pages hosted by that particular Dutch ISP, XS4all, thereby making thousands and thousands of undisputed pages of XS4all’s other users inaccessible as well. Because mirrors of the disputed pages sprang up everywhere, the blockade turned out to be futile and was canceled after a month in both instances.

New attempts at filtering information keep being made. In the USA, publicly funded schools and libraries were at one point obliged to use rating and filtering systems that block content based on sexual content and/or graphical depicting of violence. Many people argued that these filtering systems curtail free speech and block many more pages than they promise to do, 8 and a Virginia library taking precisely that stance successfully fought the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in court. 9 However, recently a new bill was passed in the USA, again imposing mandatory filtering on schools and libraries that get public funds. 10 This bill is currently being fought too, this time by the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union. 11 Undoubtedly, if the ACLU wins, the US Congress will come up with yet another filtering bill.

Since most Eastern-European governments are not yet very familiar with the internet – and since curtailing societies tend to be more aware of and monitor middle-tech communication more effectively than either the high-tech or the low-tech variants, there have been some instances of internet being used as a excellent device to circumvent government censorship. A famous example is B92, the independent Belgrade radio station that was forced off the air in 1999. The Dutch ISP XS4all used a direct cable connection between Belgrade and Amsterdam, inviting people in Belgrade to upload their audio files over the Internet and broadcasting them from Amsterdam over the net in a realtime format that could be listened to or stored. In turn, many Serbs – especially those working at universities and international companies – captured and copied what they heard over the net and distributed these radio programmes via audio cassettes, thus spreading the high-tech internet broadcasts via low-tech means. There wasn’t much that the Milosevic government could do: since B92 digitally broadcasted from the Netherlands, B92 could not be stopped at the source and Yugoslavia lacked the infrastructure to impose proxies upon its citizens.

Whose constitution, whose jurisdiction?

Looking at laws being passed and jurisprudence and practice developing in Western European countries, one can attempt to foresee the future of freedom on the internet. At this moment, the future doesn’t look too bright. While once the internet was regarded as a way to route around censorship, by now, censoring and monitoring authorities are using the net to route around national borders.

For one, we have Echelon: the joint USA/Canada/UK/Australia/New Zealand venture that monitors all digital communications passing the Atlantic, be it via fax, telephone or e-mail. The countries involved have long denied the existence of Echelon, but by now the European Assembly has investigated the rumours and has established its existence. Interestingly, the main complaint of the European Assembly is that the US, through Echelon, could be engaging itself in industrial espionage and thus gain an economic advantage over European companies. The European Assembly hardly complained about the monitoring of European citizens as such. 12 And what is the use of having a constitution safeguarding your right to private communications when it is another government preying on you? Then there is Carnivore: a US based system that intercepts e-mail and checks it automatically for words and terms deemed to be related to terrorism. Nobody knows the scope of Carnivore interceptions, nor is the list of ‘dangerous’ terms public. The only thing known about Carnivore is its unprecedented and massive capacity to monitor and store private communications.

Secondly, various states have tried to curtail citizens’ access to foreign sites because they clash with their national laws, even while those sites are perfectly legal in their country of publication. In France, a group of antiracism activists started a lawsuit against the US provider Yahoo for auctioning Nazi memorabilia on its pages. Yahoo got sued in France for what was perfectly legal within US law and for pages that they served from the US. Nevertheless, Yahoo lost the case: judge Jean-Jacques Gomez, in an appeal ruling issued in November 2000, re-affirmed that Yahoo had to prevent French web surfers from accessing those pages and basically ordered Yahoo to start country-by-country filters. 13

As the UK based organization Internet Freedom wrote about the case: “If courts deem material on Web sites hosted in other countries to be unacceptable to their citizens and block them from viewing it [..] they will have to take into account the mores and legislation of every country. Any number of filtering regimes will have to be initiated to enable them to comply with whatever restrictions and legislation they are faced with. This will make running what are already complex operations an almost impossible task. This case sets a precedent in that a court has decided to apply its national law to a Web site based in another country. The decision challenges the Net as a universal, borderless medium. It paves the way for a Net that will be regulated to the lowest common denominator in order for content providers to avoid the possibility of legal action. A global communications medium now faces the distinct possibility of decisions about what can be placed on it decided by the most reactionary of regimes. Center for Democracy and Technology analyst Ari Schwartz said: ‘If (US Web sites) have to follow 200 country laws, then (they) would have to follow the one that allows the least (freedom of) speech. What if Saudi Arabia said it was concerned about people posting pictures of women with their heads uncovered?'”. 14

After this appeal ruling, Yahoo wisened up and started procedures of its own in the US. In November 2001, a US District Court ruled that the French court order regarding internet content is unenforceable in the US because it violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The court granted broad protection to US web sites engaged in constitutionally protected activity, but stated that web site operators may nevertheless for practical reasons decide to comply with conflicting foreign law requirements. It further stated that only treaties and other international legal mechanisms lay the ground for the resolution of conflicts between different legal regimes applicable to the Internet.

But this is precisely what will start happening. The Cybercrime Convention that came into being in November 2001 – and which has been signed by, amongst others, the US, Canada, Japan and many European countries, “formalises the notion of extraterritorial action by a party in one country objecting to content on a Web site based in another country. Article 23 of the convention creates supranational reach for each signatory state. Even if a signatory state’s legal system does not have the procedure to apply a request made by another signatory, under article 27 this is not seen as sufficient grounds to refuse that request. The consequence of this is that signatory states can be forced to act beyond their means and in contradiction to their own legal system.” 15

Meanwhile, in March 2001 a German court had already announced that it would not prosecute Yahoo over a similar complaint filed against it in that country. However, that was not because Germany respects the fact that it has no jurisdiction over foreign sites; the court merely reasoned that “while Germany has some of the strongest laws against hate literature in the world, the German court reportedly recognized Yahoo! as an Internet service provider and, as such, [it] ruled [that] the company should not be held liable for the content of its auction Web sites.” 16

This policy of the courts does not necessarily match that of the country or its federal states, and – as we just saw – the new Cybercrime Conventtion does allow for different local laws being applied on web pages. 17. Comments and criticisms are, amongst others, at www.privacyinternational.org/issues/cybercrime/.] And indeed, in March 2002, the German federal state of Nordrein-Westfalen decided that two right wing extremist sites hosted in the United States – www.stormfront.org and – www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com – must be blocked, and ordered some 80 ISPs and universities to block access to those sites. Many computer literate people in Germany fear that this censorship will not stop there:

“Fighting right wing extremist ideologies reaches a broad consensus in Germany; however in this case it is used to gain acceptance for the establishment of a nationwide centralized filtering and blocking system,” wrote a protesting committee. “Future plans contain blocking of content to protect minors, copyrights and consumer rights, including search engines that fail accordance with corresponding national guidelines and laws. Together with corporate partners, Northrhine-Westfalia administration is developing a high capacity filtering system that is currently tested at the university of Dortmund. Intention is to create an architecture with centrally controlled blocking mechanisms that should be installed on gateway machines to the ‘foreign internet’.” 18

The main questions are however not dealt with by filtering. Why should people be prevented from seeing sites like this in the first place? Will racism stop simply because you cannot read hate sites? Is it better to block such sites than to argue their content?

Legal sites and economic profit

While individual internet users are starting to suffer from countries trying to impose their national laws upon one another, a new problem has arisen: upstream providers pulling the plug on ISPs because of legal but disputed material.

All ISPs have an upstream provider, who sells them bandwidth. Companies which provide co-location – either in the form of rented web space or in the form of web servers located there – have upstream providers, too. And upstream providers often have their own upstream providers. Currently, at the top of the chain there is only a handful of US backbone providers, plus one or two single players.

Flashback was both a magazine and a small provider in Sweden. The magazine was known for its freespeech stance. Flashback started its provider services in 1996, just before the big internet craze hit the country. Users got both free web space and a free e-mail address after subscribing to the magazine. Among the more than 50.000 sites hosted on Flashback was one containing Nazi propaganda, carefully phrased so as to not violate Swedish law. That particular page was nevertheless reported to the prosecutor, who after investigation decided that it was indeed well within the boundaries of Swedish law. There simply was no case against Flashback, nor against that user.

In the course of 2000, Björn Fries – an alderman of the Swedish city Karlskrona, and a prominent anti-nazi fighter – started a campaign against Flashback because of this right-wing user page. Flashback insisted on its free speech policy and refused to remove pages that had already been deemed legal. Fries then turned to Flashback’s upstream provider, Air2Net, which in turn was a subsidiary of the us company MCI/Worldcom. Fries managed to rally other downstream providers of both Air2Net and MCI/Worldcom against those pages. Fearing a commercial setback, MCI/Worldcom decided that Flashback had either to pull those pages, or they would pull the plug on both Flashback and on Air2Net, which of course vastly increased the pressure on Flashback. Flashback however kept its stance and was then disconnected: thousands of users suddenly lost their homepages and their e-mail account, simply because a US company didn’t want to lose customers over a disputed but legal page. 19 Flashback tried several other upstream providers, but as it turned out, all of them were dependent upon MCI/Worldcom.

In a case like this, what does your constitutional right to not be censored entail? European national laws allow people their day in court: every citizen is given the opportunity to put his publication before a judge and let the court decide. But here, no court was invoked; actually, the prosecutor had stated that these pages were provocative but solidly within legal limits. It was a US based multinational who decided what you can publish in Sweden and what not.

Something similar happened in The Netherlands. Xtended Internet, a small Dutch provider, hosts a web site which is under attack by Scientology. 20 At the end of 2001, Xtended Internet’s upstream provider, Cignal, received a complaint about that web site. It was from Scientology, claiming copyright infringement on www.xenu.net’s pages. Xtended Internet and the maintainer of www.xenu.net refuted the complaint, but despite that, Xtdended Internet was notified that Cignal’s own upstream provider, the US based company Priority Telecom, had booted Xtended Internet. Again, a whole provider went down over a page that appeared to be perfectly legal. 21

As Paul Wouters of Xtended Internet put it: “We were disconnected even after proving that disconnecting or censoring our customer would violate Dutch case law. We voluntarily agreed to follow the DMCA, 22 so as to make it easier for Cignal to get out of this conflict, even though US law, and thus the DMCA, didn’t apply to us. Yet, Cignal choose the easy way out. Obviously we were not worth the money that Scientology’s lawyers could cost them. And maybe that is what frightens me most. Not that they don’t care about freedom of speech issues, but that they have censored us solely based on commercial reasons. Censorship has become a profitable business and the freedoms that are granted to us by the Dutch constitution are revoked at the stroke of a pen by American corporate lawyers.”

Old media versus new media

In Italy, a remarkable fight developed between ‘traditional’ journalists and internet journalism. Shortly after World War II, in 1948, Italy introduced a national law on the press. According to that law, all published periodicals have to give to the Tribunal (the local district court) the name of an ‘responsible director’, who in turn has to be member of the National Order of Journalists. Registration costs about 200 dollars. Additionally, all periodicals are obliged to print the name and address of their editor and printer.

The National Order of Journalists – which poses quite a powerful body in Italy – was rather suspicious of internet journalism developing, and undertook a lobby for internet publications to be brought under the scope of the existing law. The new law was adopted in April 2001. The NJO lobby forced big portals (such as Kataweb-Repubblica, Rai.it, Supereva, etc) to recognize the digital “journalist profession” and, subsequently, to financially compensate hundreds of people who work as their colleagues, but with less guarantees.

What started as an attempt to extend state subsidies to internet media, basically brought those publications under the 1948 press law. And the new law itself is, as Interlex – an Italian web magazine about law, technology and information – put it, “confused and confusing [..] the law is shameful, its rules absurd”. A strict interpretation of the law defines “every Italian web site geared to transmit information towards the public” as an “editorial product” and subjects it to the regulations of the law. 23

And more fundamentally, the law is impossible to live up to, due to technical flaws, amongst others the obligation to state the name and address of the printer, while there are no printers on the net and people usually do not know on which server their pages are hosted, least of all where that server is physically. Additionally, the law claims jurisdiction over internet publications that are hosted on foreign servers

While it seems unlikely that web sites that are not producing regular news and information will be forced to register, it is highly possible that web sites like Indymedia will, and will have to give the name of a ‘responsible director’ and a ‘printer’. Many people fear that this law will indeed be used to weed out publications that do stand outside the currently accepted frame.

Turkey is currently debating a similar law.

Spain is on the verge of approving one too, in May 2002. The bill for the “Law of Information Society Services and Electronic Commerce” (Ley de Servicios de la Sociedad de la Informacion y de Comercio Electronico, known by its Spanish acronym LSSI) plans to force web sites to register with the government and require web hosting companies to police content by reporting suspected illicit activity. 24 Apart from that, the upcoming law will allow a “competent administrative authority” in government to shut down web sites unilaterally; a power that now requires court approval. In Spain, only a judge can ban printed press editions from the news stands, but under the LSSI, an official could ‘provisionally’ ban the edition of an online publication if it “outrages or could outrage” values protected by the law, while the paper version of the same publication still enjoys constitutional protection. 25

If any such measures would be imposed on other media, people would be outraged. With the net, these kind of measures are often accepted without questioning. Civil liberties organisations fear that limiting internet publication freedoms is only a first step towards curtailing other media; after all, once a measure is accepted in one area, it is difficult to stop it in another.

Conclusion

Seeing the amount of effort that Western countries are taking to filter content on the web, it is only a matter of time before other countries catch up. What we are seeing meanwhile is that more and more countries put internet publications and private communications under greater scrutiny, and pass laws that restrict digital publications more than analogue ones – in part, because they fear the anarchy that the net once was, and in part, because it suddenly has become technologically feasible to do so.

Networked computers allow for novel uses, unthinkable of in the analogue world. They can be used to circumvent censorship and monitoring. But the internet can also be used to scrutinise publications and communication to a degree that goes way beyond Orwell’s wildest imaginations.

Notes:

Show 25 footnotes

  1. “First, materials going into the home are more heavily censored than those going into the corporate world. [.. ↩
  2. See Defeating Singapore Internet Censorship – How to. ↩
  3. See George d’Arnaud, Internetbeperkingen in Dubai, November 10 1997, in the newsgroup xsS4all.general, message-ID <34698854.1990690@news.xs4all.nl>. The ensuing discussion proved that it was rather difficult – and took quite some technical knowledge – to circumvent this national censorship rule. ↩
  4. Quote from “New service to censor Internet”, The Gulf Today, January 25 1997. ↩
  5. Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc., Media Release of September 7 2000: Government Net Censorship Reports – Facts or Fallacies? ↩
  6. Amongst others, the CDA limited access to the King James bible, Tarantino film scripts, lyrics by many pop groups, information about safe sex and breast cancer, and pictures of Michelangelo’s David. The Supreme Court’s ruling warned about the CDA’s “obvious chilling effect on free speech [.. ↩
  7. Radikal was put online at http://www.XS4all.nl/~tank/radikal/. The index page also contains a brief history of the German efforts to censor these pages. Unfortunately, many links to press releases and newspaper articles do no longer work. ↩
  8. For an overview of the debate regarding mandatory filtering systems, see the compilation provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the news and resources provided by the Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA) ↩
  9. See Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, November 23, 1998. The COPA is currently being brought to the Supreme Court by the ACLU, on the grounds that it is against the US First Amendment. ↩
  10. US Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act on December 15, 2000. The full text of the act is at IFEA. ↩
  11. Complaint filed in Philadelphia, March 20 2001. ↩
  12. European Parliament resolution on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system), (2001/2098(INI)), released on June 9 2001. ↩
  13. or a concise article about the case, see “Court to Yahoo: Use Nazi Filter” in Wired, November 20, 2000. ↩
  14. Dave Amis: “The Net now has a national court: this month it’s French!”, Internet Freedom, January 9 2001. ↩
  15. Dave Amis, op. cit. ↩
  16. Jay Lyman, “German Court Rules Yahoo! Not Liable For Nazi Auctions”, in NewsFactor Network, March 28 2002. ↩
  17. The Cybercrime Convention (Draft convention on cybercrime and explanatory memorandum related thereto) as accepted by the Council of Europe can be found at www.privacyinternational.org/issues/[.. ↩
  18. Joint press release from the Chaos Computer Club and ODEM.org. See ODEM.org and and Alexander J. Kleinjung, “Vom DatenHighway auf die Strasse”, in the German edition of C’T, 2002/9. ↩
  19. Flashback is currently up again, but now only as a news agency. ↩
  20. www.xenu.net. While Scientology has repeatedly threatened Andreas Heldal-Lund, the owner of the web site, they have at the same time abstained from undertaking any legal action against him. Instead, Scientology chose to threaten providers hosting the site, and their upstream providers. ↩
  21. The history of Xtended Internet’s contracts and correspondence with Cygnal is documented here. ↩
  22. The DMCA is a US law that deals with digital copyright infringement. Scientology invoked this US law, even while Xtdended Internet is Dutch and the maintainer of ww.xenu.net is Norwegian. Hence, the DMCA doesn’t even apply in this case. ↩
  23. Manlio Cammarata, “Qui succede un ‘quarantotto'”, Interlex, April 4 2001. ↩
  24. Julia Scheeres, “Fears of a Website Inquisition”, in Wired, May 29 2001. ↩
  25. Steve Kettmann, “Spanish Web Law Sparks Debate”, in Wired, May 1 2002. ↩

De blik van de dader

AL EEN JAAR OF ZES lees ik mee in de Internetgroepen over zelfmoord, de laatste maanden uitgebreider dan anders vanwege een boek waaraan ik werk. In de loop der jaren heb ik de meest akelige verhalen mijn scherm zien passeren en heb ik een aantal mensen enigszins leren kennen; ik schrik niet meer zo snel (waarbij ik in het midden laat of dat nu een goede zaak is of een slechte).

Waar ik maar niet aan kan wennen, is dit: de hoeveelheid mensen die suïcidaal is geworden vanwege misbruik en mishandeling die ze in hun jeugd hebben doorstaan. De verhalen zijn hemelschreiend. Je leest over vaders die hun dochter wekelijks verkrachtten en haar hebben afgericht om zich als een hond te gedragen. Over kinderen die vrijwel dagelijks door klasgenootjes in elkaar werden geslagen, en ouders die koeltjes zeiden dat ze dan maar beter voor zichzelf op moesten komen. Over kinderen die zich op twaalfjarige leeftijd al zo ongewenst en ongelukkig voelden dat ze zich steeds weer van de trap af gooiden, in de hoop dood te gaan of naar het ziekenhuis te mogen, omdat het ziekenhuis ze voorkwam als een paradijselijk respijt van hun ‘gewone’ leven.

Een groot deel van de gruwel van zulke verhalen is de harde wetenschap dat er mensen zijn die kinderen zo vreselijk in de steek kunnen laten en – in hun onnadenkendheid of in hun nietsontziend egoïsme – zo ernstig kunnen benadelen. Maar erger nog is het besef van de effecten van zulk gedrag. Veel van deze kinderen zijn opgegroeid tot kapotte volwassenen, mensen die ervan overtuigd zijn dat ze geen geluk verdienen en geen goed kunnen doen. Diep in hun hart zijn veel van hen gaan geloven dat zijzelf niet deugen, dat ze geen liefde waard zijn en dat ze die behandeling van vroeger eigenlijk verdiend hebben.

Hun tragiek is dat ze de blik van hun daders hebben overgenomen. Diep in hun hart blijft er een stem dooretteren die telkens maar herhaalt dat het hun eigen schuld is, een stem die de stem van de agressor is, en die stem vernielt hun zelfvertrouwen. Ze begrijpen wel waarom ze mishandeld werden, want ze wáren thuis inderdaad ongezeglijk of vielen uit de pas op school… ze verdienden slaag. Pappa kon er niet veel aan doen dat hij ze nam, dat gebeurde nu eenmaal zo en het was vooral hun fout dat ze het niet konden verdragen, ze hadden liever moeten zijn voor pappa. Ze werden terecht gestraft, want ze waren geen goede hond, ze morsten immers altijd bij het slobberen uit hun eetbakjes en maakten zo de vloer vies.

Je hart krimpt samen als je het leest.

De grenzeloze tragiek is dat veel van deze kinderen, toen en nu, hun angst en woede tegen zichzelf richten. Ze razen en tieren niet op de daders, maar kleineren in plaats daarvan zichzelf. Ze schreeuwen het niet uit over het onrecht hun aangedaan, maar snijden in hun eigen armen. Ze willen de boosdoeners van toen niet de kop inslaan, maar bedenken hoe ze zichzelf van kant kunnen maken. In plaats van de agressors van toen te haten, minachten ze zichzelf.

En toch, tegen de keer in, zie je regelmatig hoe gul en goed van vertrouwen zo iemand kan zijn. Hoe verrast als iemand ze echt aardig vindt, hoe vol van ongeloof als iemand moeite voor ze doet. Ze haken en hunkeren naar liefde, naar onvoorwaardelijke liefde, ze hebben een gat niet te stelpen zo groot.

Twee van deze mensen ken ik inmiddels vrij goed. Chris, die het eigenlijk een nieuwe mamma wil, en Sandra, die iemand nodig heeft die haar ditmaal niet in de steek laat. Sandra heeft vandaag een reis ondernomen om bij Chris op bezoek te gaan. Ze trilden allebei als een espenblad bij de gedachte de ander te zien en zijn als de dood dat ze elkaar tegenvallen. De verwachtingen zijn niet eens zo hoog gespannen: ze willen allebei vooral iemand die ze vasthoudt, die een beschermende arm om ze heenslaat, ze over hun hoofd streelt en zegt:”ik help wel op je te passen.”

Ik kan de gedachte aan Chris en Sandra vandaag niet van me afzetten. Ik zou wensen dat hun vertrouwen in elkaar de blik van de dader weg krijgt. Makkelijk is dat niet – ze proberen dat al hun hele leven.

(Bovenstaande column is in bewerkte vorm opgenomen in mijn boek De dood in doordrukstrip. Chris pleegde een paar dagen na deze ontmoeting zelfmoord.)

Automatische luistervinken

DEZE WEEK IS DE TAPWET op internet van kracht geworden: alle providers moeten hun klanten aftappen indien justitie daartoe opdracht geeft. Providers moeten een tapdoos hebben (of lenen) die een goedgekeurd aftapbevel automatisch verwerkt en uitvoert. Elke keer dat zo’n gebruiker contact maakt met zijn provider, begint de tapdoos zijn werk. Alle gegevens die een bepaalde gebruiker genereert (met wie mailt hij, wat staat er in die mail, naar welke sites gaat hij, aan welke chats doet hij mee, wat zegt hij daar, welke bestanden downloadt of verstuurt hij, welke nieuwsgroepen en webfora bezoekt hij) worden vier weken lang bijgehouden en dan aan justitie overgedragen. Zulke gegevens bevatten een schat aan informatie. Niet alleen is de daadwerkelijke inhoud van de communicatie ermee te achterhalen; ook de netwerken die iemand onderhoudt of waarvan hij deel uitmaakt worden zo in kaart gebracht.

Justitie heeft ondertussen een stuwmeer aan aftapbevelen opgespaard: welingelichte kringen spreken over meer dan honderd. Waarschijnlijk worden die deze week en masse aan de providers overhandigd. Maar niemand weet om hoeveel gebruikers het precies gaat. Sterker: niemand kan dat nagaan, want de bevelen zijn geautomatiseerd: de machines die bij providers gestald worden, verwerken de orders zonder menselijke tussenkomt: de machines kijken of de order authentiek is (door een digitale handtekening te controleren) en zo ja, dan begint de tap. Geldt zo’n geautomatiseerd bevel een enkel individu? Stelt het bevel een tap op meer mensen in werking?

Evenmin is helder wie precies tot tappen kunnen worden verplicht. Providers, ja, zoveel is duidelijk: alle instanties die openbare internetdiensten aan het publiek bieden vallen onder de nieuwe tapwet. Maar moet een clubhuis dat haar bezoekers internettoegang biedt, tapbaar worden? Moeten bedrijven die webruimte verkopen (hosting providers) hun systemen ook aftapbaar maken? Experts denken van wel, maar niemand heeft die hosting providers verteld of ook zij hun systemen toegankelijk moeten maken. De wet lijkt nu bovendien te eisen dat al het verkeer van een verdachte op elk punt van de reis aftapbaar moet zijn. Waarom zouden tien providers onderweg dezelfde gegevens moeten onderscheppen? Dat verhoogt de kosten van hun bedrijfsvoering enorm, en daarmee die voor alle eindgebruikers.

Hoever strekt zo’n taporder precies? Ook dat is niet duidelijk. Bij een tap op een GSM is helder wat er gebeurt: al het verkeer van en naar dat ene mobieltje wordt bijgehouden. Maar je e-mail adres, dat kun je overal gebruiken, en je hebt er geen Nederlandse provider voor nodig noch een eigen computer: je kunt in de bibliotheek surfen en chatten, of in een internetcafé. Je kunt je hotmail-berichten bij je vrienden ophalen. Als een verdachte bij een vriend thuis zit te internetten, worden de gegevens van die vriend dan ook meegenomen, bewaard en geanalyseerd? Mag Justitie eisen dat een bedrijf waar een verdachte werkt hem gaat tappen, als zijn werk de enige plek is waar die verdachte internettoegang heeft?

Het meest ondoorzichtige is wel dat niemand weet hoeveel Nederland nu al tapt. Gegevens over telefoontaps zijn uitermate summier beschikbaar. Vroeger stonden ze netjes in de begroting van Justitie, maar dat departement stelt nu dat ze zulke getallen helemaal niet meer bijhoudt, en weert op die manier verzoeken tot inzage in tapcijfers via de Wet Openbaarheid Bestuur grondig af: wat je niet hebt kun je immers ook niet afstaan. In brieven van het politieoverleg worden soms echter wel aantallen genoemd. Daaruit blijkt dat er in 1994 circa 3000 telefoons werden afgetapt. In de jaren daarna namen taps explosief in aantal toe: in 1998 waren er al 10.000 telefoontaps.

De verwachting is dat het aantal internettaps nog sneller zal groeien: al was het maar omdat deze taps veel handiger zijn dan telefoontaps. Van telefoongesprekken moet je transcripten maken: de banden moeten afgeluisterd en uitgetypt worden. Bij internettaps hoeft dat niet: al het verkeer is immers al door de internetgebruiker zelf uitgeschreven: Justitie krijgt kant-en-klare kopieën van alle e-mail. En zulke digitale correspondentie is bovendien makkelijk te doorzoeken.

Opmerkelijk is tenslotte dat er op internet geen grens wordt gesteld aan de aftapcapaciteit, terwijl voor het aftappen van analoge telefonie, GSM, semafoons en satelliettelefoon wel een bovengrens geldt. Telefoonaanbieders moeten hun apparatuur zo inrichten dat een vast percentage van het maximaal aantal mogelijke verbindingen aftapbaar is: voor analoge telefonie geldt een grens van 0,1 promille (1 op 10.000 verbindingen) en voor GSM 1,5 promille (15 op 10.000 actieve SIM-kaarten). Voor internettaps is geen plafond afgesproken. Dat betekent vrijwel zeker ongebreidelde groei van zulke taps. Het kan nu per slot van rekening automatisch.

Bronnen:

Panoussis vs Scientology, dag 7/8

Water naar de zee dragen

Stockholm, 26 januari, Amsterdam 27 januari 2001

[Vorige afevering: Onaanvaardbare waarheden.]

WANNEER ZENON EN IK ‘s morgens aankomen bij het gerechtshof, stappen er twee vrouwen uit een wachtende auto. Een van hen blijkt de deurwaarder te zijn die indertijd de leiding had over de inbeslagneming van Zenon’s harde schijf. Ze overhandigt hem een dwangbevel: hij moet een oude belastingschuld voldoen. Ze praten even, en dan lopen we door naar binnen. Daar schiet een man op ons af. Hij toont kort een badge, stopt hem weg voordat Zenon het ding kan zien, en begint boos te praten. Even denk ik dat dit een agent is en dat Zenon ter plekke ingerekend zal worden – Scientology doet dat wel vaker met critici: valse aanklachten indienen in de hoop dat ze gearresteerd worden – maar dan blijkt dat ook dit een deurwaarder is. Zenons studielening.

Kijk eens aan. Scientology heeft aan allerlei touwtjes getrokken en stuurt iedereen op Zenon af die ze te pakken kunnen krijgen. Dit is hun wraak voor het feit dat we McShane op meineed hebben betrapt…

*

EENMAAL IN DE RECHTSZAAL informeert Zenon de rechtbank over zijn nieuwe bewijs, waarmee hij McShanes getuigenis van dinsdag kan loochenstraffen. Magnusson is vanzelfsprekend furieus en wil van geen getuigen weten. Hoe durft Panoussis aan de eerbiedwaardigheid van zijn cliënt te tornen! Dit gaat alle perken te buiten, het grenst simpelweg aan laster.

In Zenon zie ik witte woede opwellen. Met ijzige stem legt hij de rechtbank uit dat hij tot nu toe drie getuigen op pertinente leugens en fouten heeft betrapt – Thomas Small, die niet heeft verteld dat hij in dienst was van RTC terwijl hij zijn ‘historische’ uitleg gaf van de licentiecontracten tussen RTC en de erven Hubbard; de notaris met haar ‘steekproef’, en Nyström, de computerexpert die eerder zei dat Usenet postings nauwelijks te vervalsen waren en die nu moest toegeven dat duizenden, nee tienduizenden sysadmins bovenop het vuur zitten – en nu bovendien drie mensen bereid heeft gevonden om onder ede te verklaren dat McShane in zijn getuigenis van dinsdag heeft gelogen. Zenon begrijpt dat nieuwe getuigen oproepen in dit stadium van de zaak de procedure geheel in de war schopt, maar aangezien McShane onder ede heeft gelogen heeft Zenon een absoluut recht dat te bewijzen.

De rechtbank is niet ongenegen Zenon de ruimte te geven, maar is zelf ook benauwd over het te volgen schema. Nieuwe getuigen horen betekent dat de zaak tot volgende week verdaagd moet worden, eigenlijk is daar geen tijd voor. Ze stellen Zenon voor om McShane zelf opnieuw te horen, en afhankelijk van de resultaten daarvan te bepalen of hij alsnog behoefte heeft aan zijn drie nieuwe getuigen. Zenon gaat akkoord, en Magnusson kan niet anders doen dan toegeven.

Wanneer McShane opnieuw in het getuigenbankje plaatsneemt, is de spanning in de zaal tastbaar. Iedereen is doodstil en McShane schuifelt met zijn voeten. Zenon is gruwelijk precies in zijn vragen, en McShane kan er niet onderuit, hier is geen draaien meer aan: ja, er bestaat zoiets als de Freeloader’s Debt; ja, dat is een uitgestelde rekening voor de studie van de NOTs, ja, iedereen die de NOTs bestudeert krijgt zo’n rekening, ja, als je de Sea Org verlaat, het elitecorps van Scientology, word je geacht die rekening te betalen. Of wanneer je je Sea Org contract verbreekt. Gotcha! Dinsdag zei McShane nog dat Scientology niets in rekening brengt voor het bestuderen van de NOTs.

Zenon gaat door. Hij wil weten of enig onderdeel van de NOTs in andere cursussen is gebruikt. McShane hield eerder immers bij hoog en bij laag vol dat alleen Class IX Auditors de NOTs te zien krijgen, en dat zijn slechts zo’n 400 mensen. Zenon heeft nu gedetailleerde informatie in handen waaruit blijkt dat mensen die OT6 en OT7 doen (en dat zijn er duizenden geweest) grote delen van de NOTs te bestuderen krijgen, bij elkaar zo’n tachtig procent van de NOTs.

Zenon: “Is enig deel van de internet NOTs ooit – dat wil zeggen: hetzij vroeger, hetzij nu – onderdeel geweest van enige andere cursus dan de Class IX Auditors Course?”
McShane is lang stil. Dan zegt hij aarzelend: “Delen ervan worden in OT6 gebruikt.” zegt hij.

“En in OT7?” vraagt Zenon.
McShane aarzelt weer. “Nee,” zegt hij dan.

Zenon slaat terug: “Maandag heb ik u gevraagd welk niveau u zelf heeft behaald; u antwoordde dat u OT6 was, en u antwoordde bevestigend dat dit betekende dat u alleen persoonlijke kennis had van het materiaal tot aan OT6, en niet hoger.”
McShane wordt nerveuzer. “Ik kan me die vraag, ehm, dat antwoord, niet herinneren.”

Zenons stem wordt nu donderend. “Worden of werden de NOTs, in hun geheel of gedeeltelijk, op enig moment gebruikt in enige andere cursus dan de Class IX Auditors Course?”
McShane: “Eh, delen van de NOTs worden gebruikt in OT6 en OT7. Maar ik heb je lijst gezien waarin je beweert dat een stuk of twintig, dertig individuele NOTs worden gebruikt in OT6 en OT7, en dat is niet waar.”

Gotcha again.

Zenon: “En hoeveel mensen precies hebben OT6 en OT7 gedaan?”
McShane: “… eh, … eh, ik schat zo’n vijf- tot zevenduizend.”

Zenon heeft genoeg. Hij hoeft zijn nieuwe getuigen niet meer op te roepen.

*

MAGNUSSON MAG NU EEN poging doen de aangerichte schade te repareren. McShane, die tijdens zijn verhoor door Zenon zo nerveus was dat zijn benen onbeheersbaar trilden, ontspant zich eindelijk: zijn beproeving is voorbij. En uit pure opluchting begint hij te ratelen: hij gooit er nogmaals uit wat Zenon wilde horen, maar ditmaal uit vrije wil.

Magnusson: “Die betalingen, die rekeningen voor de Class IX auditors, zijn die pro forma?”

McShane: “Ja, die zijn pro forma. U moet weten, de opleiding voor Class IX Auditors is lang, en al die tijd krijgen ze gratis supervisie, gratis kost en inwoning, en medische hulp van de kerk, en we willen niet dat mensen meteen na het afsluiten van de cursus weg gaan, dat zou betekenen dat ze het materiaal voor niets kunnen bestuderen. We investeren veel in deze mensen, en dat willen we er natuurlijk uithalen. Zij moeten later de gewone leden auditeren. Daarom hebben we deze pro forma rekening ontworpen.”

Bingo. Onder de Zweedse wet staat alles waarvoor je een tegenprestatie verwacht, elke “ruil” waaraan een verplichting vastzit, gelijk aan een betaling. En McShane legt hier uit dat deze mensen moeten werken, dat de kerk profijt heeft van hun prestatie (het auditeren van gewone leden) en dat ze hun “gratis” kost en inwoning moeten terugverdienen. Done. McShane heeft de verhalen van Zenons getuigen bevestigd.

*

DAN WORDEN ALSNOG de slotpleidooien gehouden. Magnusson is kort en saai. Hij somt voor de zoveelste keer al Zenons vermeende fouten en inbreuken op, maar beargumenteert niets. De man mist overtuiging, inspiratie en bovendien de creativiteit om alle gaten die Zenon in zijn standpunten en getuigen heeft geschoten, te repareren.

Zelfs ik, met mijn wrakke Zweeds, hoor het verschil tussen hem en Zenon. Zenon spreekt bevlogen, hij argumenteert, hij bouwt redeneringen op, maakt afwegingen, trekt conclusies, bespreekt conflicten en wijst op consequenties. Hij wist de rechtbank erop dat hij hier degene is die het auteursrecht verdedigt en Magnusson degene is die het ondermijnt.

Magnusson claimt immers dat er geen publicatie plaatsvindt als 25.000 mensen een auteursrechtelijk beschermd stuk bestuderen, zelfs niet als zij ervoor betalen: het enige dat je hoeft te doen is geheimhouding van ze te vergen en een lidmaatschapsysteem te ontwerpen. Nu, als de rechtbank dat principe overneemt, dan liggen prachtige tijden in het verschiet voor Zenons eigen Vrije Scientology Kerk! En niet alleen voor hem: ook anderen kunnen in “besloten” kring vrijelijk DVDs, video’s, boeken en computerprogramma’s tegen betaling verspreiden, zolang ze maar eisen stellen aan het lidmaatschap van de “besloten” kring. De rechtbank luistert aandachtig.

Zenon beweert dat de OTs en NOTs wel als gepubliceerd moeten worden beschouwd, en dat auteursrechtbescherming niet zonder verplichtingen komt: de plicht om toe te staan dat mensen kopieën voor eigen gebruik te maken, de plicht te aanvaarden dat er publiekelijk uit wordt geciteerd of dat stukken worden geparafraseerd. Hij ontleedt vervolgens Scientology’s resterende argumenten en hakt ze aan mootjes.

EINDE RECHTSZAAK. De voorzitter deelt mee dat de uitspraak op 9 maart aanstaande beschikbaar zal zijn, vanaf 11 uur.

*

DE VOLGENDE DAG reizen we terug. De vlucht verloopt prettig, we krijgen zelfs nepkaviaar geserveerd.

Dan, op Schiphol, gaat het mis. We laten onze paspoorten bij de douane zien en worden doorgewuifd. Zodra Zenon doorloopt, komt er een man in burgerkleding op hem af. “Douane, opiumwet. Wilt u alstublieft meekomen?” Zenon wordt naar en zijkamertje gebracht en ook ik moet mee. Daar wachten nog vier douanebeambten ons op, allemaal in burgerkledij. Al onze bagage – twee gewone tassen, de Samsonite met 25 kilo dossiers, de kartonnen doos van The Total Litigation Company van tien kilo, mijn computertas, mijn handtas – wordt op tafels gelegd en geopend voor een uitgebreide controle. De man die de Samsonite doorzoekt verbaast zich over de grote hoeveelheid mappen. “Wij zijn alletwee in rechtszaken met Scientology verwikkeld,” leggen we uit. “Sterker, we komen juist van zo’n rechtszaak terug.” Zenon pakt een krant die tussen de rechtbankstukken zit en toont hem: er staat een paginagroot artikel over deze zaak in.

We zien een verandering op de strenge gezichten van de vijf ambtenaren. Ze ronden hun onderzoek af en we mogen weg.

Eenmaal thuis plegen we een paar telefoontjes en schakelen wat mensen in. Binnen de kortste keren wordt duidelijk wat er aan de hand was: de Nederlandse douane kreeg eerder die middag twee verschillende tips, “onafhankelijk” van elkaar, waarin Zenon en ik in groot detail werden beschreven, met vluchtnummer en al, en waarin werd meegedeeld dat wij cocaïne van Zweden naar Nederland zouden smokkelen. En uiteraard is de douane gehouden om elke tip die zij krijgt te onderzoeken, zelfs al vonden zijzelf deze tips nogal vreemd. (Dat zou ik ook denken. Cocaïne van Stockholm naar Amsterdam smokkelen? Dat is water naar de zee dragen – vanuit de woestijn.)

Zenon en ik leren een belangrijke les. Het niveau van lastigvallerij en gepest is de laatste week dramatisch toegenomen. We zijn dagenlang geschaduwd, er worden deurwaarders op Zenon afgestuurd, en nu zijn we beschuldigd van drugssmokkel. Scientology is een rekening aan het vereffenen.

Unbiased columnism # 2.7

Carrying water from the desert to the sea

Stockholm, January 26-27, 2001

[Previous installment: Unacceptable truths.] WHEN WE ARRIVE AT COURT for the final day, two women approach us. Zenon shakes hands with one of them; they speak for a short while, Zenon introduces her to me – it is the bailiff who was responsible for the raid in 1996 – and then she hands him an envelope. As it turns out, it is a demand for outstanding tax bills.

While discussing this – I am sure that Scientology has sicked the bailiff on him, while Zenon thinks that she came of her own accord – we walk inside. After a few meters, a man approaches Zenon and flashes a badge. I can’t see the badge and for a second I fear that this is a police officer who is going to arrest Zenon for god-knows-what; perhaps Scientology has filed some weird complaint against him of the kind that are filed against US critics all the time. The man seems angry and grabs Zenon’s arm. Zenon calms him somewhat, and they have a short discussion; then the man hands Zenon an envelope too and a paper for him to sign. It turns out to be another demand, this one for his study loan. The idiotic part is that both bailiffs came from the same office. (Which also means that they sent three people in order to hand over two letters. Isn’t that a tad inefficient?)

This is no coincidence. I am sure that somebody has tipped somebody or has pulled some strings. This must be Scientology’s revenge for Zenon’s new witnesses, and for his claim that McShane has come very close to perjury.

9:30

ZENON SUBMITS TO the court that McShane has not been telling the truth and that he can prove as much. Magnusson, of course, objects: isn’t this the exact same evidence that was at one point rejected by the court because Zenon didn’t file his briefs in time? Quite some discussion ensues. Zenon argues that yes, indeed, that was the case, and he would not have been able to bring up this evidence nor would he have had a need to do so if it hadn’t been for the fact that in Tuesday’s deposition of McShane, Magnusson himself suddenly brought in this new claim that no money was charged for the NOTs. But since Magnusson has brought up this claim, it is Zenon’s goddamn right to refute it – especially since McShane lied in his testimony.

Magnusson acts all upset over this vicious suggestion that his most honourable client hasn’t been telling the truth, and tells the court so, with this embarrassed and shy smile of his that by now I have come to recognise as a performance, meaning “I apologise to the court that I had to bring this clown Panoussis into their respected presence, so would you please disregard what he is saying right now, it is simply too stupid,” or something to that effect.

And then Zenon explodes with cold anger. Didn’t Magnusson bring in four witnesses that have to quite some degree disqualified themselves? Didn’t we have Small hiding the fact that he was actively employed by RTC when he rushed to their defence? Didn’t we have Mikael Nyström who had said that Usenet postings could not be falsified, and who now admitted that they could – actually, that some people sit with their hands right in the cookie jar? Didn’t we have the notary public vowing that she had made a random selection of the Monkey NOTs, while now it transpired that she selected only those Monkey NOTs that she “recognised” as infringing? And on top of that, now we have Magnusson’s main witness, actually his client, evading the truth and perhaps downward lying to us. For god’s sake: doesn’t Zenon then has a right to prove his point, especially when it concerns something that Magnusson has only recently brought in?

The Chair seems inclined to see things Zenon’s way on this, but is justifiably concerned about the court’s schedule. Hearing new witnesses will disrupt the proceedings, it would mean that the case needs to be adjourned and would proceed well into next week. Besides, there is a procedural problem: our first and main witness is Italian, and according to Italian law, witnesses cannot testify via telephone. Thus, she would need to be flown over.

The court would like to know all names of the witnesses; yesterday, Zenon only filed the name of the first one. I scrutinise McShane’s face when Zenon lists the people willing to testify:

  1. Maria Pia Gardini from Italy; a Class IX Auditor who was invoiced immediately for the NOTs; no deferred payment. Besides, she knows the material rather well. She is adamant that most of the NOTs are included in OT6 and OT7.
  2. Michael Philip Pattinson, from Los Angeles, California. [I see McShane’s face sagging. Then he notices that I saw it, and for the next ten minutes he averts his eyes.] Michael Pattinson can testify that huge part of the NOTs pack is included in OT6 and OT7.
  3. A former member from Austria, who has done OT6 and later on saw the NOTs on the Internet. He can testify that a huge part of them is included in OT6.

Magnusson claims that all of this is not relevant. The parishioners do not pay for the material but for the course as a whole. The Chair intervenes: Zenon has a solid point. What if we put McShane in the witness stand again and ask him these questions once more? Magnusson can’t very well oppose this. There we go…

9:50

MCSHANE TAKES THE witness chair. The atmosphere in the court room is tense, very tense. We all know what is at stake.

Zenon: Let’s first clarify definitions. For the purpose of this deposition, “NOTs” is all the material included in attachment 37 and nothing else. That is what I define as NOTs.
McShane: That is not the church’s definition.

Z: That is irrelevant. In this interrogation, I define NOTs as exhibit 37.
Magnusson intervenes. How do we know that these are the original NOTs? [Dork. He has been claiming that they are all along.]

Z: I am talking about the NOTs such as they are in attachment 37, from page 24 and on. Mr. McShane, have the NOTs, either in their entirety or partly, ever been part of any other course except for the Class IX Auditors Course?
McShane: [speaking slowly, and very aware of what he is saying] There are parts of NOTs, the description of NOTs, the principles of NOTs, that are contained in OT6. The actual issues themselves, the bulletins, that we call works, are not in OT6. But some of the principles are contained in OT6. Because OT6 is on the same subject. But you have to understand that NOTs, the NOTs, teaches a Class IX Auditor how to deliver those services, those processes, to a member.

Z: I want to know about concrete text mass. Are any of these NOTs texts part of another course than the Class IX Auditor Course?
McShane: There are parts that are in OT6.

Z: And in OT7?
McShane: [pause; he hesitates] No.

Z: How do you know? I asked you on Monday or Tuesday what level you yourself had attained; you answered that you were OT6, and I asked you specifically if everything up to OT6 was your personal knowledge and nothing above, and you confirmed that.
McShane: [pauses] I, ehm, I don’t exactly know what that, ehm, question was, what I said then. I know the texts of OT7.

Z: Have you seen my latest brief?
McShane: Yes.

Z: [picks up that brief] Have you read this brief? I expect that it was translated for you?
McShane: [nods twice]

Z: I would like you to comment upon the list of the re-use of NOTs that is included in that brief. And please bear in mind that I am not only asking you about current times but also about the past.

[From here on, Zenon uses what Scientology would most likely refer to as “Tone 40”: he is precise, insistent, commanding, demanding, and his voice makes it clear that he won’t be fooled with. For the first time during this whole court procedure, McShane suddenly answers in broken sentences. Again, my transcript is more or less verbatim.]

Z: Has any part of the NOTs in attachment 37, i.e. any part of the material from page 24 and onward, at any time been part of any course whatsoever other than the Class IX Auditors Course?
McShane: Yes, some parts of that material are used in OT6 and OT7. But I have read your list in which you claim that some, eh, 20 or 30 NOTs are part of OT6 or OT7. That is not true.

Z: In that case, let’s go through them one by one and assess which ones are part of OT6 or OT7. To start with, are any parts of NOTs series 1 such as it appears in exhibit 37 part of any other course than the Class IX Auditors Course?
McShane: I would have to have the OT6 course to compare them with and I don’t have that with me.

Z: Can you say approximately how much text mass of attachment 37 is included or has ever been included in other courses than the Class IX Auditor Course?
McShane: Ehm, in order to do that, I would need to make a comparison and I can’t do that here. [Hesitates] There are texts, there are parts of these texts, in OT7. But there is more in NOTs than there is in exhibit 37.

Z: The rest of the NOTs are not interesting; they are not part of this case. We are only talking about the NOTs material in exhibit 37 here. How many people did partake in OT6 and in OT7, approximately?
McShane: [pause] I would estimate probably some 5,000 to 7,000.

Z: These pro forma invoices, can you describe what is on them?
McShane: They are meant for employees, and it says something to the effect of, the persons name, what course the person is taking, and the worth, the value of the course. And the person promises that if he breaks the contract he will pay that money. It is an internal church procedure, and its purpose is to prevent somebody to join staff in order to get the courses for free. So it tells the person: it is part of your job that you get this for free, but if you leave without fulfilling your contract, your have to pay.

Z: For how long are these contracts?
McShane: Which ones?

Z: The Sea Org contracts for instance, of which Class IX Auditors are members.

 
[Comment: it is interesting to see how long it takes McShane to reply that Sea Org members sign a billion year contract. Yet, Zenon has already put this bit of information in his Wednesday January 25 brief. The court knows.]

McShane: The Sea Org is eternal within the church. More religions, other religions also … like the Jesuits, or certain religions have, and it’s the staff who dedicate their entire life to their religion and we sign a kind of a pledge, ehm, for a billion years of service. It’s a symbolic gesture of your dedication.

Z: If a year or two after signing this fraternity membership, and completing the course you break the contract, will this pro forma invoice be brought up?
McShane: If the member leaves the church there is no bill. If he wants to continue receiving services, he would be responsible to not only pay that course, but all services. But there are circumstances when somebody has left that that somebody does not have to pay at all.

Z: Is it correct that these pro forma invoices are known as the “Freeloader’s Bill”?
McShane: Yes.

Z: Is it correct that the church claims these “Freeloader Debts” as amounts receivable on its balance sheets as submitted to the US Internal Revenue Service?
Magnusson interrupts, and wants to know where these questions are going to. The Chair answers instead: the obvious point of this line of questioning is whether these invoices are symbolic or not.

Z: Is it true that these Freeloader Debts are reported to the US tax offices?
McShane: [smiling] No.

Z: Does the church have an internal reporting system that weekly reports these Freeloader Debts to Scientology management, as part of the “Income Notes Collections Summary”?

 
[Comment: We received this information just that same morning. Thank you – you know who you are.]

McShane: It is possible … there could be … I am not familiar with such a system. I don’t know.

Zenon has gotten enough out of McShane. Yes, these bills are real, and yes, parts of the NOTs Pack are included in OT6 and OT7, and McShane didn’t say so before. That is all he had to prove. Zenon ends his interrogation and retracts his request to hear the new witnesses. The court looks relieved.

10:10

MAGNUSSON’S TURN: McShane gets his chance to repair some of the damage done. While Zenon was questioning McShane, he was ghastly nervous. Our supporter, who was sitting right behind McShane, later told us that McShane was shaking and that his legs couldn’t stop trembling. Only when Magnusson interrogates him does he calm down. Actually, McShane relaxes so much that out of sheer relief , he starts babbling and again confirms what Zenon just got out of him, but this time of his own accord:

McShane gives us the same story about OT5 that we have heard a few times before in this court, but this time with an emphasis on “services” and “exchange”.

McShane: “Solo NOTs are related to NOTs but are not NOTs. On Solo NOTs the member needs to have some understanding of what NOTs are and what he will be addressing at that level so some of the principles are related to him, so that he understands what he is doing.”

McShane: “The pro forma invoices relate to training, the costs of living et cetera. That is because the Class IX Auditor Course is only for staff members – and there is only one church that trains Class IX Auditors, that is our Flag church, in Florida – and that church invests a lot in those persons. Not only the supervision, room and board, but also the medical expenses and dental expenses, and that is how this pro forma invoice came about, because people were coming in for these free services doing these courses for a year or two and then leaving, without any exchange for the church! That is why we came up with this.”

Zenon loves this. In almost every other line, McShane is confirming that in exchange for work people are allowed to study the NOTs. Under Swedish law, that means that the NOTs are not for free. Any exchange whereby you give something away but expect something in return, may simply not be labelled “free”.

*

IT IS ONLY AFTERWARDS that we discover that Zenon’s job could have been easier. Jeta points out in a message that we only find after the court sessions have finished, that the Freeloader’s Bill is actually part of the NOTs:


HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 NOVEMBER 1978R-1
ADDITION OF 15 OCTOBER 1981

C O N F I D E N T I A L
NED FOR OTs
ADVANCED COURSES SPECIALIST COURSE
CHECKSHEET
PART TWO

[…]

STUDENT COURSE COMPLETION

[…]

B. STUDENT ATTEST AT C & A:

I attest (a) I have enrolled on the course, (b) I have been properly invoiced for the course as a contracted staff member,

10:20

THE CHAIR ANNOUNCES that we will have short break, after which final pleas will be held. The Chair wishes to know how long both parties will approximately speak. Magnusson claims and hour, and Zenon says, oops!-ishly, “The court said that brief is better, so I went home and wrote fifty pages of notes…” Some judges can’t help but smile.

The pleas will be taped. [Yes, we will get hold of these tapes and then translate Zenon’s plea to English.]

10:35

MAGNUSSON GOES FIRST. He focuses very much on first publication, quotes a lot of foreign rulings, and seems to come up with more rhetoric than legal arguments. He also claims that the Court in my case made a severe error, because they believed that 25,000 copies of OT3 were made while that number only pertained to the amount of people who had studied them. This is a blatant lie: the court in my case never said anything to this account. They knew that people just studied the same copies; one of my lawyers had even made a joke about it: if in a porn video shop fifty people see a flick one after the other, all of them seeing it on their own, it is still fifty people who have seen it and the flick is still publicly shown, not privately.

11:20 – Magnusson is done! That was remarkably short. Last time he was excruciatingly lengthy.

11:30 – Zenon’s turn. [These are just short notes. A full transcript will be made available later on.]

ZENON EXPLAINS TO the court Scientology’s principle of “acceptable truths” and illustrates it with the testimonies that we have heard. Vorm, Small, Alexandersson, and McShane himself – all of them have been proven to have been withholding parts of the truth, or sometimes reverted to claiming that “they didn’t know” when an answer would be too damaging. The court must also take into account that Vorm, Small and McShane have big economic, social and religious stakes in what they say. They are not objective witnesses, they have their position and their religion to defend.

Zenon at one point openly slights Magnusson: while going through the Dutch case and CST being part of it, he says that “RTC had a better lawyer in that country than the one that they employed here…” I only manage to keep a straight face because I knew that the joke was coming. Not even a hint of a smile crosses my lips. Magnusson contains himself. But fifteen seconds later I hear a deep sigh escaping him.

Discussing the identity of the texts, Zenon stresses that modifications abound, different versions have been used through time, and that texts are often revised. We simply have no means of knowing what exactly is registered with the US Copyright Office; it is masked, after all. Zenon explains that there is no contradiction between his claim that this material is Scientology’s material on the one hand, and his claim that there is no equality between the Scientology’s material and what he published on the other. Only the text that is registered with the US Copyright Office counts, and RTC has not proven that the materials that Zenon published are identical to those that are registered.

Zenon harps upon McShane’s definition of “infringement”: paraphrasing is infringement; the use of certain words is a infringement, quoting is an infringement, actually, any use of any part of any text outside the church is an infringement. When Zenon quoted mere captions of a part of OT2 in the Fishman Affidavit, without ever including the actual sections underneath each caption, that was labelled as an infringement too. And what is more: RTC’s method of comparison never allowed the court to assess how much he quoted of a passage, and thus doesn’t allow the court to consider whether quoting such a passage is within the limits of the law.

Publication. Zenon lists the reasons why the OTs and NOTs should be considered to have been legally published (an assessment from which the right to quote and the right to make private copies follow, and from which it will follow that the primary court, the administrative court and parliament will again be able to give copies of the OTs and NOTs to the public as per offentlighetsprincipen). The amount of people who accessed the NOTs (5,000 to 7,000) and the OTs (25,000); the translation of the OTs into four languages; the commercial offering of the OTs and NOTs to all eight million Scientologists via the Scientology magazine “Source”; the accessibility (all you need to do is to qualify) of OTs and NOTs for all Scientologists; and the paying for these courses – each and every one of these elements is in itself sufficient to constitute publication.

Jurisprudence has it that the “closed circle”, the “limited circulation” that a text can enjoy without constituting legal publication, is very small. Now let’s look at the church’s own figures: 25,000 (members who have done OT2 and OT3) times 6,000 dollars (the price for each of these courses) times 2 (OT2 and OT3) times 9 (crowns in the dollar) amounts to 2,7 billion SEK. Would any circle that generates such an amount ever be considered closed?

The pro forma invoices are not pro forma. They build upon the principle of exchange. In order to partake these courses, students are supposed to produce for the church. These Class IX Auditors who study the NOTs do pay in work: only this morning, McShane literally said: “We don’t want them to have these courses for free.” They work for years on end, and produce the huge revenues that Scientology gets from the courses that they administer.

12:10 – 13: 15 – Lunch break.

ZENON POINTS OUT to the court that if they accept Magnusson’s stance on copyrights, that would have severe repercussions on copyright law. Actually, the law would need to be completely re-written. After all, Magnusson claims that private circles can be really big, and that distributing material within such a circle gives you all rights but no obligations whatsoever. If that point of view is accepted by the court, Zenon’s own Free Church of Scientology will have a ball. All Zenon needs to do is set up membership, invent some requirements that members have to meet, and treat the material with the same confidentiality that Scientology does. Once he has done that, he can circulate this same material to up to 25.000 members without committing infringement. After all, it is only within a closed circle, isn’t it? What is more, this same principle will be applicable to other material by other people. People can set up closed circles for the distribution of DVDs, of computer programs, of videos. Nobody would be obliged to pay anything to any copyright holder as long as they apply some membership conditions and confidentiality.

As for the material: RTC’s argument obscures that Zenon did not simply post parts of OT2 and OT3. What he actually did was to publish a court file, to instruct the general public. The OT-fragments were just a very small part of the Fishman file. Article 26 of the Swedish copyright law, explicitly permits the publication of copyrighted texts that are part of a court case, if this is done within the frame of reporting about the case itself.

Regarding the right to quote: Zenon quoted only 3 pages of the 300 page OT2 and the 25 pages from the 200 page OT3: that is less than 6%. Compare this fact to how McShane portrayed the severity of Zenon’s infringement: “From OT2 [Panoussis] infringed upon 10 individual works and 4 of those works are infringed upon 100%, one is infringed upon for 94%, one for 84%, one for 75%, one for 62%, one for 20%, and the last one for 7%. I did the same calculations for OT3. 15 works were infringed upon. 13 of those for 100%, one for 66%, and the last one for 29 %.” That sounds serious, Zenon says, but in all actuality we are only talking about less then 6% of OT2 and OT3.

European Convention of Human Rights. Scientology has always blocked discussion: sometimes via their demand for secrecy, sometimes by (threatening to) sue, most often by either denying their own teachings or claiming that quotes are “taken out of context”.

Religious freedom: other Scientologists, not part of the official church, are not allowed to practice their religion. McShane has even testified here that one of the reasons for RTC registering the advanced material was so that they could sue people who used the material outside the church. These people, the free Scientologists, have a constitutional right to be able to practice their religion without having to pay any particular organisation.

The damages claimed should go down in proportion to the claims that RTC loses in this appeal. Apart from that, RTC claims that their “market value” has gone down and that they have suffered “commercial damage”, which is a rather remarkable claim for an organisation that purports not to be charging for the material it is suing over. As for immaterial damages: RTC does not represent and is not entitled to damages on behalf of those members of the public that suffer “irreparable damage” by reading this material “without being prepared”, nor is RTC entitled to damages on behalf of individual Scientologists that might have to retake their courses. Finally, when it comes to “hurt feelings”, only the author himself can be hurt, and the right to such damages does not follow the copyrights; in other words, RTC cannot legally have hurt feelings.

[Meanwhile, Magnusson’s aide is looking at Zenon and me with piercing eyes. If looks could kill… The effect is however quite ruined by his nervousness. The guy has developed a nervous tic in the past half hour and is continuously bobbing his head.]

How can RTC claim to have suffered damages, by the way? They only license the material to the Advanced Organisations, it is them who lose clients, not RTC. If anybody should have sued Zenon, it should have been those Advanced Orgs.

[By this time I am sure that McShane wishes that he had had Zenon as his lawyer (and Magnusson as his opponent). Even I, with my shaky Swedish, can hear that while Magnusson was merely making statements, Zenon is developing arguments, and that some of them are rather ingenious. He is not reading from his paper, he uses them as mental reminders and builds his arguments from these stepping stones.]

Zenon goes through the various copies made / infringements that RTC claims, and the evidence for it. Nyström’s testimony proved that anybody could have made the disputed May 2 posting. But RTC never bothered to look for evidence and didn’t ask for any logs: perhaps they did not really want to assess who the culprit was? As for the bailiff: when RTC asked her to go through his computer files, she was ordered to search for more than infringements. Neither the word “Vorlon” nor “Ward” are part of RTC’s texts, these are the names of people. That clearly demonstrates that RTC was after Zenon’s correspondence, not (only) after the material. As for the copy of the OTs and NOTs that Zenon handed in to the administrative court: Scientology itself had stolen that copy (the thief has been identified and Zenon names him in court: Thierry Duchaunac) and Zenon only returned a copy that the primary court itself had produced.

Legal costs: McShane counts the lobbying with US congress and the Swedish government to seal the OTs and NOTs and to change the law regarding offentlighetsprincipen and the guarding of the OTs and NOTs in court and in parliament, as legal costs and wants Zenon to foot that bill, but none of these costs have anything to do with the court case itself. RTC could have claimed these costs as damages, but probably feared that it wouldn’t get them; and thus, they made them part of the legal bill.

RTC insists on having their material masked. That in itself makes establishing of identity and other evidence so much more difficult: suddenly we need notaries and complicated comparisons. Those costs are the consequence of RTC’s own desires and demands, and they can hardly expect Zenon to pay for that.

Meanwhile, Magnusson has produced an enormous amount of copies, many of them unnecessary; and all these are put on Zenon’s bill. Besides, the amount of payment that Magnusson demands for his own work is enormous as compared to what lawyers usually get.

14:05 – Zenon is done. 90 minutes all in all.

In this case, too, bills for legal costs need to be handed in. Zenon asks for 25,000 SEK, that is: 2525 USD – for lost hours of work, copies, stamps and so on. Magnusson’s turn. He hands in a bill for 1,665,000 SEK (168,000 USD):

  Lawyer’s fees: 1,400,000 SEK
  Translations 160,000 SEK
  Work McShane: 75,000 SEK
  Travel costs McShane: 20,000 SEK

Zenon comments upon the amount demanded for McShane’s work: it is McShane’s job to travel from court to court. To put that here as expenses, is slightly ridiculous. And as for Magnusson’s fee, he won’t even comment upon it.

The court announces that the ruling will be available from the secretariat of the court in six weeks from now: on March 9, 2001, at 11:00.

*

SATURDAY AFTERNOON we take the plane back home. We have a nice flight and even get served (fake) caviar. We read Dutch newspapers and work on this report. After landing, we stack an enormous amount of luggage on a trolley: apart from our bags, we have a 25 kg Samsonite with legal papers and a 10 kg carton with more of the same.

We show our passports at customs. The guy is not interested and waves us to pass on. The moment Zenon moves, another guy in civilian clothes comes up to him and flashes him a badge. “Customs. Opium law. We want to search your luggage. Would you please follow me into this room?” I am whisked off as well. Four other people, all plainclothes customs officers, are waiting for us there. All our bags are put in line and are searched thoroughly. The man searching the Samsonite dutifully sifts through the binders and is amazed at the number of them. “The both of us are being sued by Scientology, you know, this cult,” we explain. “Actually, we are just returning from court.” Zenon picks up a newspaper that was on top of the binder and shows them a one-page article with a picture of us: “Zenon’s lonely war against Scientology”. (A stupid headline, by the way. We are not lonely. We have all of a.r.s. to back us up and help us – and it did.)

Slowly, something dawns upon the faces of the police. We are cleared within five minutes and allowed to leave. They apologise profusely.

When we get home we make a couple of calls and pull a few strings. Soon we discover that the Dutch Customs did not receive one but two tips, “independent” of one another, both describing Zenon and me at great length, and giving a rather detailed account of how we would be smuggling cocaine from Sweden into the Netherlands. And of course, Customs have to investigate every tip they receive. We had to be stopped and searched, even though Customs themselves found the tips a bit weird. (So would I. Smuggling coke from Sweden into Holland? That’s like carrying water to the sea – from the desert, at that).

Zenon and I learn one important lesson from this. Scientology’s harassment of us has stepped up remarkably: the tails that were put on us in Stockholm, the bailiff that was sicked upon Zenon, and now accusations of coke smuggling. This is how we reply:


From: Zenon Panoussis
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology
Subject: First and last warning.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:08:16 +0100
Message-ID: <3A7354E0.D9226C7A@xs4all.nl>

Something happened. You will read about it in Karin’s next (and last) Stockholm report, due tomorrow. However, I have a point to make in the direction of the CoS, now at once.

The following is part of a mail from me to someone. I just post it as is so I don’t have to repeat myself.

Forget it. Anonymous phone calls. Even thinking of investigations is a waste of time. The same goes for most of what they do.

What they should think of is that, so far, we have been harassing them openly, while they are now harassing us anonymously. What they forget to take into account is that we are much better at anonymous harassment than they will ever be. Thus, if this continues, we might sooner or later take their example and pay them back in their own currency.

Actually I will post these last three paragraphs on ars/nls and give them one single chance to think it over. If they don’t get it, if they choose to change the war from “clean” to “dirty”, so much the worse for them. They’ll get a taste of their own medicine that no toothpaste will ever take away.»

Scieno drones, please pay attention to the subject line. This is your first *and last* warning. Any more of this kind of shit, any at all, and you will not know what the fuck is hitting you. Beware. You have been advised.

Z

[Unbiased columnism is a double series of seven court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the Jan 2001 sessions. Rhe first series – from May-June 1998 – starts here: Zenon does research.]

Panoussis vs Scientology, dag 5/6

Onaanvaardbare waarheden

Stockholm, 24-25 januari 2001

[Vorige aflevering: Kinderachtige spelletjes.]

DE ZITTING IS VOOR twee dagen opgeschort. Vrijdag gaan we verder: dan worden de slotpleiten gehouden, en dat was het. Daarna kunnen we alleen maar afwachten (en tot Xenu bidden).

McShanes stellige bewering dat Class IX Auditors niet betalen voor het ‘privilege’ de NOTs the mogen bestuderen en dat alleen zij de NOTs te zien krijgen, zit ons dwars. We geloven simpelweg niet dat McShane de waarheid vertelt, de waarheid, de hele waarheid en niets dan de waarheid.

Wanneer we later Zenons ondervraging van McShane doornemen slaan we onszelf voor het hoofd. Verdomme! Wat een stommelingen zijn we! We stelden vragen over betalingen en ‘vaste donaties’, maar hebben het helemaal niet over de Freeloader’s Debt gehad… Scientology laat stafleden zogenaamd gratis cursussen volgen, maar zodra je weg wilt krijg je alsnog een rekening gepresenteerd. Waarschijnlijk krijgen Class IX Auditors een vette rekening voor hun studie van de NOTs wanneer ze staflid-áf worden. McShane had ons een ‘aanvaardare waarheid’ verteld, een bekende praktijk binnen Scientology: een vraag zo interpreteren of beantwoorden dat je om de feitelijke vraag heen draait en net niet echt liegt, zodat je de vraag in feite ontduikt. Zenon post allerijl een bericht op alt.religion.scientology en stelt een serie korte vragen:


From: Zenon Panoussis
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology, alt.clearing.technology
Subject: The NOTs
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:49:32 +0100
Message-ID: <3A6F5BFC.17BF9C75@xs4all.nl>

McShane zei vandaag onder ede dat
– alleen Class IX auditors de NOTs zelf te lezen krijgen; scientology-leden die de nieuwe OT5 cursus doen, op basis van de NOTs geauditeerd worden maar zelf de NOTs niet te lezen krijgen;
– alle Class IX auditors zijn in dienst van CoS; de NOTs bestuderen is onderdeel van hun werk; ze hoeven nimmer te betalen voor de Class IX auditor cursussen; CoS heeft *nimmer* iemand iets in rekening gebracht voor de NOTs, noch heeft zij donaties gevraagd voor deze specifieke cursus;
– tot aan 1998 hebben 325 toestemming gekregen om binnen CoS de NOTs te lezen; na 1998 hebben naar schatting nog zo’n 100 CoS-leden de NOTs gelezen.

Wanneer je ook maar *iets* hiervan kunt weerleggen, mail me dan onmiddellijk.

Z

WE ONTVANGEN EEN aantal uitermate interessante reacties hierop. Een paar ex-leden die nogal hoog in Scientology zijn geweest, bevestigen dat Class IX Auditors een Freeloader’s Bill kregen, zodat er *inderdaad* betaling werd verwacht voor de NOTs. Anderen vertellen ons dat niet alleen Class IX Auditors de NOTs daadwerkelijk onder ogen kregen: grote delen van de NOTs zijn onderdeel van OT6 en OT7.

Eén e-mail in het bijzonder is veelbelovend. Een vrouw die voormalig Sea Org lid is en die zelf de Class IX Auditing Course heeft gedaan, heeft daadwerkelijk voor de NOTs betaald. Bij haar heeft Scientology geen Freeloader’s Bill uitgeschreven: ze wilden het geld meteen van haar hebben. En wat belangrijker is: deze vrouw is bereid om onder ede te getuigen. Ze is in de positie om de meeste van McShanes beweringen over de NOTs te weerleggen.

Zenon belt haar op. De twee hebben een lang gesprek waarin de vrouw een uitgebreid en gedetailleerd verslag doet van welke NOTs waar gebruikt worden. Ze is een droomgetuige – en van harte bereid om haar medewerking te verlenen.

*

ZENON SCHRIJFT OGENBLIKKELIJK een stuk dat hij woensdagmiddag bij de rechtbank indient; daarin doet hij verslag van het nieuwe bewijs. Het enige – grote – struikelblok is dat we officieel klaar zijn met het doornemen van bewijs en het verhoren van getuigen, en dat het in dit stadium uitermate moeilijk is om de discussie opnieuw te beginnen.

Aan de andere kant hebben we McShane nu betrapt op iets dat gevaarlijk dicht tegen meineed aanligt. Wat hij heeft gedaan is meer dan “aanvaardbare waarheden” debiteren: hij heeft zich in bochten gewrongen, hij heeft informatie achtergehouden en duidelijke vragen ontdoken. Als Magnusson verhindert dat Zenon deze getuigenis vrijdag inbrengt, zullen we die informatie later alsnog bewijzen en als we dat doen, moet de zaak mogelijk van voren af aan hernomen worden – terwijl Magnussons voornaamste getuige, ja zelfs de partij die hij in de rechtszaak vertegenwoordigt, zichzelf ongeloofwaardig heeft gemaakt; om van erger dan ‘ongeloofwaardig’ maar niet te spreken.

We hebben geen idee wat er nu te gebeuren staat. We hebben RTC in de greep, maar we weten niet wast het resultaat op korte termijn zal zijn. Magnusson kan dit bewijs simpelweg accepteren en met ferme tegenzin toegeven dat zijn cliënt een ‘fout’ heeft gemaakt. Magnusson kan het nieuwe bewijs koste wat kost tegenhouden, en op procedurele gronden kan de rechtbank hem daarin gelijk geven. De rechtbank kan ons toestaan de nieuwe getuige te horen, maar in dat geval is het schema voor vrijdag compleet in de war – de hele dag zou besteed worden aan de pleidooien – zodat Zenon een paar dagen langer in Stockholm zal moeten blijven. De nieuwe getuige kan afgewezen worden, maar in dat geval zal Zenon ervoor zorgen dat haar getuigenis later wordt ingediend, wat op zich al voldoende reden is om de zaak te heropenen indien hij verliest. Welk van deze mogelijkheden zal het zijn? We hebben geen flauw idee.

*

DE VOLGENDE DAG, donderdag, belt Zenon Magnusson op en vraagt hem of RTC de feiten die hij in zijn laatste stuk opsomt, toegeeft. Magnusson weigert hem daar antwoord op te geven. Zenon belt de rechtbank, die hem meedeelt dat ze voor drie uur die middag een antwoord van Magnusson willen hebben en dat zijzelf momenteel geen beslissing kunnen nemen over de toelaatbaarheid van zijn nieuwe bewijs, aangezien niet alle rechters nu aanwezig zijn. Zenon gaat naar de rechtbank om de tapes van de verhoren van McShane op te halen, en tegen de tijd dat hij daar arriveert is Magnussons antwoord binnen gekomen.

Magnussons verontrusting is zichtbaar in zijn antwoord. Met tegenzin geeft hij toe dat er inderdaad facturen worden uitgeschreven voor de Class IX Auditors, maar dat die rekeningen slechts een “symbolische formaliteit” zijn, en geen echte rekeningen. Alleen degenen die de Sea Org willen verlaten (maar niet helemaal uit Scientology willen stappen) worden verwacht die rekening te betalen. En heus, van alle Sea Org leden vertrekt haast niemand, echt niet: nog geen een procent stapt uit de Sea Org. Het hof moet begrijpen dat het feit dat RTC dit nu zegt, slechts een genereus gebaar is ten opzichte van Panoussis, een gebaar bedoeld om de procedure te vereenvoudigen, en dat dit niet inhoudt dat RTC Zenon in deze gelijk geeft. En wat betreft de NOTs die onderdeel zouden zijn van OT6 en OT7, dat is klinkklare nonsens.

*

ONDERTUSSEN BENADEREN OOK anderen Zenon. Op donderdagavond hebben we vier getuigen verzameld die allemaal in staat en bereid zijn om onder ede te verklaren dat zowat tachtig procent van de NOTs onderdeel uitmaakt van OT6 en OT7, en dat elke Scientologist die deze cursussen volgt, daarvoor betalen moet. Dat betekent dat er duizenden mensen zijn betaald hebben voor het bestuderen van de NOTs. Dat is precies wat Zenon al die tijd heeft beweerd.

Wat meer is: we hebben het bewijs in handen dat McShane een onbetrouware getuige is.

We zien er plots naar uit McShane morgenochtend in de rechtszaal te zien.

[Volgende (en laatste) aflevering: Water naar de zee dragen.]