A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 1 2/5/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
584 lines
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Three perspectives of a two-day meeting in Atlanta between EFF and
representatives of regional groups of grassroots networking activists.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
INTRODUCTION:
This past January 23rd and 24th, 11 members of the electronic
community met in Atlanta with members of the staff and board of
the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The meeting lasted a day and a
half, with topics of discussion including EFF's recent organizational
restructuring and how groups serving the electronic community can
work together to be more effective. By the end of the two days,
meeting attendees had formed a group to organize and formulate
guidelines for continuing interchange among all who work to
strengthen electronic communications.
This issue of EFFector Online presents some first-hand views of what
transpired in Atlanta. Mitch Ratcliffe, one of the members of
This!Group out of San Francisco's Bay area, David Smith, a board
member of the EFF-Austin group, and Jerry Berman, EFF's Executive
Director, all offer their thoughts about the meeting. Other meeting
attendees were:
Dick Anderson, Delegate from EFF-Austin
John Perry Barlow, EFF Executive Committee Chairman
Judi Clark, Delegate from This!Group
Esther Dyson, EFF Board Member
Dave Farber, EFF Board Member
Cliff Figallo, EFF Online Coordinator
John Gilmore, EFF Board Member
Mike Godwin, EFF Legal Services Counsel
Mitch Kapor, EFF Board Chairman
Jon Lebkowsky, Delegate from EFF-Austin
Matt Midboe, Delegate from Huntsville, Alabama
Simona Nass, Delegate from NTE (New York)
Alexis Rosen, Delegate from NTE (New York)
Shari Steele, EFF Staff Attorney
Bob Stratton, Delegate from Washington, DC, area
Glenn Tenney, Delegate from This!Group
Ed Vielmetti, Delegate from Ann Arbor, Michigan
Information Activists Confer, Establish Understanding
*******************************************************************
by Mitch Ratcliffe
Atlanta, where the world comes everyday for news and colorized
movies, the capitol of Cyberspace, was the setting for a discussion
between the Electronic Frontier Foundation and information activists
on the weekend of January 23-24. After two days of discussions, the
parties came away with a new understanding of EFF's legislative
agenda in coming years, and how local groups can work together to
raise awareness of electronic freedom and privacy.
EFF has endured a roller-coaster year, during which it wrestled with
the growth of its influence in Washington and growing interest in
local chapters. After the group's board of directors rejected investing
organizational energy in local chapters and closed its Cambridge,
Mass. office -- shifting all funding to a Washington office -- they
faced the challenge of explaining their new role to the world. EFF's
founders had already discovered the Internet community can be a
fickle friend. As the group succeeded inside the Beltway, its Internet
constituency has savaged them in e-mail and news groups. People
have questioned their commitment to civil liberties and whether the
EFF agenda served only its corporate sponsors.
So, the purpose of the meeting in Atlanta was clearly two-fold. In
addition to identifying the projects on which the attendees can work
together, EFF needed to cultivate a chorus of voices in key virtual
and actual forums that can articulate their new agenda. The
representatives invited to the summit included members of the
Austin, Texas,-based EFF chapter that has been growing for the past
year, as well as activists from New York, San Francisco, Ann Arbor,
Mich., and Huntsville, Ala.
EFF and the representatives of the various groups met bearing with
them considerable defensiveness after months of crossed signals and
animosity. What transpired was not a conversion, but a discovery of
the personalities behind the EFF machine. Mitch Kapor and John
Perry Barlow, the founders, and Jerry Berman, the lobbyist who has
ascended to head the now Washington-based organization, exposed
themselves to questioning for two days. What we found were very
human leaders, who are as confused about perceptions of them as
the world is about where they came from, what they have
accomplished and how they operate in Washington. While we do not
agree with everything they do, there is no denying that they are
effective. Considerable educational and advocacy territories are also
wide open for other groups who want to make them their own.
"There has been some ambiguity in people's minds with regard to
who we are," Barlow said. "We are who we've always been. The
changes we announced are fairly minimal. We've decided to focus a
lot of our activities in Washington because there is a significant
window of opportunity there"
If EFF has suffered from anything this last year, it's bad
communication. Without a concerted effort to reach out to the Net --
and to everyday people who live and work on the fringes of
Cyberspace, because they use computers, cable television and ATM
cards -- the organization has allowed itself to become a victim of its
own early expectations that enlightened visions of the future would
allow them to transcend organizational and Beltway politics. Instead,
the EFF received a fierce, full-body reality check. They've found that
experience can be a high-sticking teacher on the black ice of life.
"We're a bunch of permanent, chronic mavericks," Kapor said. "But
certain things became very clear when the board met to discuss our
direction. We clarified the role of chapters, or lack of chapters,
deciding that we did not want a centralized organization. The other
thing that's increasingly clear is that there is a sense in certain parts
of the net that EFF has a perceived obligation to serve particular
constituencies. We are not trying to be the provisional government of
Cyberspace, and we also reject the idea that we have an obligation to
serve the good of the net," he said.
He also said his own personal animosity for running the day-to-day
operations of a large organization had contributed to the
miscommunication between EFF and potential chapters.
Discussion on the first day revolved around the recently announced
changes at EFF. After EFF presented several perspectives on its
Washington-based strategy, the activists from around the country
explained how their groups were founded and had begun to grow.
"We're better defined and we're capable of changing based on what
we hear from the outside," said EFF board member Esther Dyson. "We
are not for the net community, we're for the idea of communities.
One that we come from and feel close to is the net community, but
that's not the only one."
Jerry Berman explained that EFF will continue to advocate for
freedom of expression and extension of civil liberties into
Cyberspace.
"We are committed to the legal services and civil liberties service
role and we will work with people using the technology in different
ways that will raise constitutional and public policy issues," Berman
said, citing as an example the 2600 case the EFF has just joined with
the American Civil Liberties Union. "With regard to those two
functions, of representing people in trouble and civil liberties
representation, we are on the ground. With regard to representation
of the net community, there is a strong part of all of us who wants to
work with grass-roots organizations outside of Washington DC."
That outreach will come through collaboration with local information
advocates, Berman said.
The regional groups in attendance outlined their organizations:
This!Group, the San Francisco-based group, said that it has pursued a
loose structure, but tightly defined projects. Without a board or
officers in place, This!Group has not grown particularly fast. It has,
however, begun work on a pamphlet, "Thirteen Things to Keep You
Awake at Night at the Dawn of the Information Age", and a CD-ROM
containing video and audio clips from the Computers, Freedom and
Privacy Conferences I and II, and text of various electronic civil
liberties cases and papers.
EFF-Austin, the "alpha" chapter that EFF sanctioned in 1991, has
grown very quickly and holds monthly Cyberdawg events to reach a
large audience of potential members. With approximately 70
members, EFF-Austin has published "InfoDisks" of EFF-related
documents and conducted seminars on sysop liability.
NTE, the New York group that sprung up last fall, has 50 or so active
members. They have established a board of directors and hold
monthly meetings in Manhattan that are well attended. Net access is
a focus for NTE, because several public access UNIX providers have
joined; they would also like to conduct educational programs for
ordinary folk and the law enforcement community.
Ann Arbor, the Washington DC area and Huntsville, where people
have discussed forming groups, were represented, as well.
Conversation about how the Net might be organized to fight
intrusions on privacy or freedom of expression revolved around how
EFF might act as a central clearinghouse for information. But more
than that, it became apparent that a national action coordinator is
needed. This person or organization must be a conduit not only
between EFF and the regions, but also a mechanism for generating
letters to Congress, agencies and so on (for example, imagine the
impact of 100,000 letters sent to the National Security Agency vis-a-
vis encryption export policy -- the Director of the NSA should have
to wonder about how people got his address by now -- but no
such coordinated mailings have happened).
Attendees called repeatedly for a national coordinator staff member
at EFF. They also demanded that EFF take its show on the road,
having staffers and the board meet with activists around the
country. However, this may have been missing the real point -- if the
people of the Net want to have this kind of coordination, they are
probably going to have to set the wheels in motion themselves. EFF
has a talent for lobbying, and will be honing their legislative blade
over the next year. The Net -- or better, people concerned about the
extension of civil liberties into Cyberspace -- had better get to
organizing a body that can provide these services. The message is
that EFF is already busy.
So came the suggestion on the second day that a federation of
information activist organizations would be one possible solution to
the problem. Of course, more organization may be the last thing the
Net and activists need. But the suggestion was made and approved
resoundingly by all. A steering committee was named to explore how
such an organization might be launched, and to gauge the interest of
groups like Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, the
American Library Association, ACLU and many others. The steering
committee began work on a statement of principles and conjured the
working title for the group: Congress of Information Associations
(CIA). A Birds of a Feather session to discuss the CIA will be
scheduled for the Third Conference on Computers, Freedom and
Privacy in Burlingame, Calif. on March 9 - 12, 1993. (for CFP
information, send mail to cfp93@well.sf.ca.us).
What was accomplished? The reestablishment of communication
among members of a broad coalition, but one that has not succeeded
in including everyone concerned about electronic communications
and civil liberties. Contentiousness is the first law of the Net, and
there is certain to be argument about the motivations of EFF in
holding this conference without invitations to CPSR, ACLU and the
thousands of activists who are reaching users in the far corners of
the Matrix. But for those who attended, it was a weekend of
productive face-to-face talk that may serve as the foundation for
future collaboration and action.
Mitch Ratcliffe
Editor at Large
MacWEEK
coyote@well.sf.ca.us
Mitch_Ratcliffe@macweek.ziff.com
+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+
February 7, 1993
ATLANTA SUMMIT CONFERENCE
David Smith
bladex@wixer.cactus.org
[This is not intended to be a definitive account, but rather my
personal account of what I thought was important at the Atlanta
Summit Conference. --D.S.]
The format of the conference was (roughly) a day and a half of
conversations while seated in a Georgia Tech campus building, 2-3
hours of conversation while seated at a Chinese restaurant, and many
more hours of conversation while seated in the lobby and bar of the
hotel.
In addition to a greater understanding of the other groups and
individuals, I learned a lot more about EFF-Austin, and how we fit
into the "national scheme."
Take, for example, the nature of each organization. The word "civil
liberties" was dropped more times by lunch than I had heard in
almost a year of my own involvement with EFF-Austin. While EFF-
National works primarily as a political activist, EFF-Austin works as a
social activist. The strength of our organization is providing a forum
and common ground for the vast and diverse members of the Austin
electronic community.
While a wing of EFF-Austin may develop in the future that more
closely resembles the traditional cyber-liberties organizations, a self-
definition of "community activist" more aptly describes not only our
history but future goals as well.
A preconception I carried into Atlanta was thinking that the "Best
Thing To Do" was the creation of a document, FAQ, outline, or
guideline that served as a cookbook for creating other local groups
across the country. After meeting and speaking with members from
the other groups, however, I now believe a cookie sheet cut-out
won't work, because each group exists as a function unique to their
environment and local area.
Some examples.
San Francisco already hosts a strong Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility (CPSR) group as well as Bay Area MacIntosh
User Group (BMUG). There is no need (or desire) for This!Group to
replicate those efforts. There is no need (or desire) for another highly
structured organization like an EFF-Austin, and so this is a very loose
affiliation of people picking and choosing tasks that interest them.
Judi Clark and Mitch Ratcliffe are working a CD-Rom that will be a
combination of historical archive of the Computers Freedom and
Privacy Conference (sound bytes, multi-media), as well as having
600+ textfiles. Glenn Tenney mentioned as another possible project
an informational brochure or pamphlet.
Another example of a group being a function of their area is Matt
Midboe, the representative from Huntsville. He cannot receive UUCP
access in his area, much less an Internet connection. (Note: He is
"borrowing" one from one of the Departments at his University, with
implicit permission). Austin has at least a dozen sites to receive
USENET newsgroups and e-mail access, so this is not an issue of
concern for EFF-Austin.
Finally, after listening to Simona Nass and Alexis Rosen discuss the
organization-building experiences of NTE, I am glad that we had the
good common sense to only have *one* lawyer-type and not half a
dozen or more.
EFF-NATIONAL RE-ORGANIZATION
Jerry Berman, executive director of EFF-National, spoke about the
recent reorganizations, the role of EFF, and how it operates. After
reading the press release and litany of jilted lovers on
comp.org.eff.talk, and after speaking with other EFF-Austin Board
members, my impression was that EFF had engaged in a full scale
retreat.
Berman's explanation, however, showed the re-organization as an
attempt to realign the organization with their commitments to
advance the cyber liberties agenda. Not only did it not work to have
two offices, he said, but it was counter- productive, created mixed
signals, and was not very effective. Rather than abandoning the
communications function of the Cambridge office, they were simply
re- consolidating inside the Beltway. Nearly every member of EFF-
National that spoke admitted to the organization having a serious
communication problem, aggravated in part by having two offices.
Berman also left me with a greater understanding of the role that EFF
plays in national politics. Cyberspace is a domain in the Washington
political arena surrounded by entities who have interests other than
the First Amendment at heart : the CIA, FBI, the military, AT&T, NSA,
IBM, et. al. These organizations have enclosed telecommunications
policy into a gridlock and the way EFF-National has chosen to break
this gridlock is through alliances with as many members as possible
in order to provide for the passing of the civil liberties agenda.
Berman gave as an example the digital telephony bill, which the FBI
proposed, allowing law enforcement agencies (in essence) a back
door to all encryption methods.
EFF-National opposed this on constitutional grounds and enlisted the
aid of several business and telecommunication industry interests.
Perhaps these corporations were *really* concerned with the bottom
line and thought that the scheme would be too expensive to
implement. Perhaps they aligned with EFF-National not out of
concern about being a good democratic citizen, but out of the desire
to protect profits.
So what? says the EFF-National.
The alliance was so effective that not a single member of the Senate
nor House of Representatives sponsored the bill, when it could have
just as easily been framed as protecting the public from terrorists or
the need to be tough on crime etc. etc. The civil liberties agenda was
served through alliances with industry spear-headed by EFF-
National.
That is the dance that Jerry Berman is hosting in Washington.
POST ATLANTA AGENDA
Besides a sense of greater understanding and co-operation between
groups (as measured by a whole week sans flames on the
thesegroups mailing list), some more concrete items are rising out of
Atlanta.
The local groups banded together to present EFF-National with a joint
proposal about what we wanted from EFF-National. Essentially we
made a list of resource-sharing tasks that would help us out, and
asked EFF-National to assign or hire a person to perform these tasks.
Berman said this would be discussed at the Board Meeting (which
was scheduled for Sunday afternoon), though no official
announcement or follow- up as been released as of this writing.
As a direct result of contacts made in Atlanta, Matt Midboe reports
that he has located a company interested in providing access to the
Huntsville area.
A special Steering Committee was formed to investigate the creation
of a formal organizational structure that will serve as an alliance
between the cyber-liberties groups. Jon Lebkowsky immediately
volunteered as the representative for EFF-Austin, pending Board
approval at the next Director's meeting.
We also agreed to continue using the thesegroups mailing list as a
forum for communication. We discussed having another conference
in a year from now, and immediately volunteered Austin as a host
site. <joke! joke!> EFF-Austin is also working on projects that involve
members of different groups.
* * *
End note :
I want to point out that both Dick Anderson and Jon Lebkowsky
were vigorous participants in representing EFF-Austin as well. There
just wasn't room to try and discuss everything.
Also, I want to personally thank EFF-National for sponsoring the
conference and taking the time to listen to our concerns. I want to
thank EFF-National for paying for our round trip airfare and dinner
Saturday night, as well as Mike Godwin for picking up the tab at the
bar, even if Atlanta doesn't stock Shiner Bock.
+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-
EFF-Austin contact information
E-mail : eff-austin@tic.com
Snailmail : PO Box 18597, Austin, TX 78760
VoiceMail : 512-465-7871
Disclaimers : You are encouraged to re-distribute this.
document electronically. Any opinions expressed belong to
the author and not the organization. (c) 1993
+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+=+-+= +-+=+
February 5, 1993
An Open Letter from Jerry Berman
Executive Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
On January 12, 1993, the Electronic Frontier Foundation
announced that it was moving all of its operations to Washington, DC,
and that I was EFF's Executive Director. At the same time, EFF
announced that it was not going to establish formal EFF chapters
around the country. On January 23 and 24, members of EFF's board
and staff met in Atlanta with representatives of groups interested in
possible EFF affiliation to explain our decisions and discuss future
cooperative efforts. In this first issue of EFFector Online for 1993, we
offer you both "grass roots" and EFF views on what this all means. I
am including my own first take on the changes at EFF.
First and foremost, we are consolidating our operations in
Washington, DC, in order to better carry out our mission of fostering
openness, individual freedom and community on the electronic
frontier. We want to serve as more effective advocates of policies
and causes that increase civil liberties and democratic values in new
digital media, and we want to engage in education and advocacy both
with other groups who share a common mission and with "grass
roots" citizens on and off the net who want to join with us in these
efforts.
But why Washington? The answer is plain: While many of us
are increasingly cynical about Washington, DC, and "inside the
beltway" politics, we must also understand that the momentous
decisions that affect our society are being made in Washington. This
is as true when it comes to the shaping and civilizing of cyberspace
as with anything else.
While many who already communicate online think of the
electronic frontier as inhabited by BBS systems, the WELL, USENET
and other fledgling outposts of new digital communities, in fact the
electronic frontier exists within communications wires that are
highly regulated and structured. Today, giant public and private
institutions -- from the FBI to the Congress, from the FCC to the
telephone and cable companies -- are battling between and among
themselves over the future control and governance of the electronic
frontier.
Recognizing the importance of being "inside the beltway," EFF
opened the Washington office last January and ever since has
devoted an increasing amount of staff and resources to shape the
outcome of these policy battles in ways that are consistent with and
supportive of civil liberties and democratic values. Unfortunately,
we have not communicated well about our goals and activities.
Seldom have our electronic public interest policy efforts, or those of
others, been discussed in EFFector or other EFF outlets. And when
they have, they have often been badly garbled or misconstrued.
We can only accept full responsibility for failing to explain the civil
liberties implications of the "ISDN thing" or to fully communicate
EFF's leadership role in thwarting the FBI's effort to "dumb down"
new computer and communications technologies and networks to
carry out government wiretapping.
As none of these policy debates or issues are resolved, nor can
they be resolved in ways that serve the public interest without
broader citizen participation, we are restructuring our operations and
our communications.
Soon, both EFFector and our new public policy newsletter will
set out the critical issues. For example, we will explain how:
* our ISDN initiative and our involvement in the NREN are
designed to empower a diversity of electronic voices to share politics,
commerce and culture with one another as we transition to the
broadband networks of the next century;
* EFF will continue to coordinate a broad coalition of
organizations -- from public interest groups like the ACLU and CPSR
to companies interested in the future of communications like AT&T,
Microsoft, Lotus and Sun Microsystems -- in opposition to the FBI's
legislation to "certify" technologies and networks only when they
meet broad, ill-defined wiretapping standards;
* EFF wants to build grass roots support for lifting export
and other controls on encryption to guarantee the right of privacy
and security;
* EFF not only wants to litigate future "Steve Jackson
Games"-type cases, but it wants to avoid the need to do so by
establishing new Secret Service and FBI investigative guidelines that
keep law enforcement officers from trampling on the First and
Fourth Amendment rights of computer users;
* we want other groups to use EFFector and other EFF
publications for communicating about their local, state and national
policy and cultural initiatives; and
* EFF is interested in working toward a possible
federation of electronic frontier outposts that we would join but not
govern or control.
To accomplish this mission, we will be located in Washington
but will maintain our presence on the Net. We are committed to
listen, learn and work towards common goals but maintain our
independence. Members of the EFF board and staff will be out and
about, both online and off.
EFF is a unique organization, operating at a critical moment.
Major policy decisions affecting free speech and privacy will be made
over the next several years. Combining technical, legislative and
legal expertise, EFF is committed to engaging in vigorous advocacy
for our vision of the electronic future, which we hope you share. We
look forward to working with you to make this vision a reality.
Jerry Berman*
EFF Executive Director
(*Before joining EFF as Washington Office and now Executive Director,
Jerry Berman was Chief Legislative Counsel for the American Civil
Liberties Union and founder of the ACLU Projects on Privacy and
Information Technology.)
=============================================================
For information on EFF membership, email <fig@eff.org> or call
(617)576-4506.
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20003
Phone: +1 202 544-9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Cliff Figallo, EFF
Online Communications Coordinator (fig@eff.org)
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
for their express permission.
=============================================================
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 2 2/19/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
326 lines
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Update on the Steve Jackson Games Case
Contact information for Local and Regional Groups Supporting the
Online Community
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Happy Anniversary ;-) Steve Jackson Games Case!!
March 1st marks the three-year anniversary of the Secret Service
raid on Steve Jackson Games. As we await Judge Sam Sparks's
decision in this precedent-setting case, EFF would like to remind
everyone of what has happened so far.
In May of 1991, EFF reported about the case in issue #1.04 of
EFFector Online:
On March 1, 1990, the United States Secret Service nearly
destroyed Steve Jackson Games (SJG), an award-winning
publishing business in Austin, Texas.
In an early morning raid with an unlawful and unconstitutional
warrant, agents of the Secret Service conducted a search of the
SJG office. When they left they took a manuscript being prepared
for publication, private electronic mail, and several computers,
including the hardware and software of the SJG Computer Bulletin
Board System. Yet Jackson and his business were not only
innocent of any crime, but never suspects in the first place.
The raid had been staged on the unfounded suspicion that
somewhere in Jackson's office there "might be" a document
compromising the security of the 911 telephone system.
In the months that followed, Jackson saw the business he had
built up over many years dragged to the edge of bankruptcy. SJG
was a successful and prestigious publisher of books and other
materials used in adventure role-playing games. Jackson also
operated a computer bulletin board system (BBS) to communicate
with his customers and writers and obtain feedback and
suggestions on new gaming ideas. The bulletin board was also the
repository of private electronic mail belonging to several of its
users. This private mail was seized in the raid. Despite
repeated requests for the return of his manuscripts and
equipment, the Secret Service has refused to comply fully.
Today, more than a year after that raid, The Electronic Frontier
Foundation, acting with SJG owner Steve Jackson, has filed a
precedent setting civil suit against the United States Secret
Service, Secret Service Agents Timothy Foley and Barbara Golden,
Assistant United States Attorney William Cook, and Henry
Kluepfel.
"This is the most important case brought to date," said EFF
general counsel Mike Godwin, "to vindicate the Constitutional
rights of the users of computer-based communications technology.
It will establish the Constitutional dimension of electronic
expression. It also will be one of the first cases that invokes
the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act as a shield and not
as a sword -- an act that guarantees users of this digital medium
the same privacy protections enjoyed by those who use the
telephone and the U.S. Mail."
As the case proceeded, the attorneys from George, Donaldson and
Ford, who represented Steve Jackson, Steve Jackson Games, and
Illuminati BBS users Elizabeth McCoy, Steffan O'Sullivan and Walter
Milliken, decided to drop charges against all defendants except the
United States Secret Service. (This was a strategic decision made to
ensure that the trial would proceed in a timely manner.) The case
went to trial in the United States District Court in Austin, Texas, from
January 26 - 28, 1993. The plaintiffs presented their case first with
testimony from all of the plaintiffs themselves, Secret Service Special
Agents Timothy Foley and Barbara Golden, former U.S. District
Attorney William J. Cook, Bellcore security expert Henry Kluepfel,
University of Texas security guard Larry Coutorie, WWIV BBS
software creator Wayne Bell and a financial expert who testified to
the amount of damages. By the end of the second day, the plaintiffs
rested their case.
On Thursday morning, the defense put Special Agent Timothy Foley
back on the witness stand. After he testified that he did not know
that Steve Jackson Games was a publisher, that the seized computer
equipment (3 computers, 5 hard disks, and more than 300 floppies)
had not been accessed by Secret Service investigators after March
27, 1990, but was not returned to Steve Jackson until late June, and
that no copy of the information contained on the seized disks
(including a manuscript for an upcoming publication and the
company's business records) was ever provided to Steve Jackson,
Agent Foley sat through a solid 15-minute reprimand from the judge
on the unacceptability of the government's behavior. The defense
attorneys were so shaken by the judge's admonishments that they
decided not to call any other witnesses.
While Judge Sparks made it clear that he found the Secret Service's
behavior to be reprehensible, it is not clear how he will rule in this
case. The case was based on two rarely-construed federal statutes --
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Privacy
Protection Act (PPA). ECPA says that government officials may not
read private electronic mail unless they have a warrant specific to
that mail. No search warrant specified that Elizabeth McCoy, Steffan
O'Sullivan or Walter Milliken had done any wrong, yet it appears that
their mail -- in fact, ALL of the electronic mail contained on the
system that ran the Illuminati BBS -- had been read and deleted by
agents conducting the search at Secret Service headquarters in
Chicago. PPA requires that law enforcement officers follow special
procedures when the entity to be searched is a publisher, in order to
protect the First Amendment freedom of the press. No special
procedures were followed in this case. So even if the judge finds that
Secret Service behavior was inappropriate, it is not so clear that he
will find that the behavior was actually in violation of these statutes.
We expect Judge Sparks will hand down his decision any time now.
When it is issued, we will be sure to print the written opinion in an
upcoming issue of EFFector Online.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Local and Regional Groups Supporting the Online Community
Many of our members have expressed interest in joining with others
in activities that support the online community. Below is a list of
regional groups that are organized to work on projects to improve
online communications. Feel free to contact any of the folks listed
below with your ideas and to learn more about how you can get
involved.
We are constantly looking to update this list, so if you know of other
groups that we should add, or if you are trying to form a group in
your local area, please forward the name of the group and contact
information to Shari Steele at ssteele@eff.org.
NATIONAL
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Shari Steele - ssteele@eff.org
Cliff Figallo - fig@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, #303
Washington, DC 20003
Phone: (202)544-9237 (voice)
ALABAMA
Huntsville:
Huntsville Group
Matt Midboe - mmidboe@nyx.cs.du.edu
CALIFORNIA
San Francisco Bay Area:
This!Group
Mitch Ratcliffe - coyote@well.sf.ca.us or
Mitch_Ratcliffe@macweek.ziff.com
Glenn Tenney - tenney@netcom.com
Judi Clark - judic@netcom.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington, DC, Area:
"Group 2600" and some public access operators
Bob Stratton - strat@intercon.com
Mikki Barry - ooblick@intercon.com
MASSACHUSETTS
Cambridge:
EF128 (Electronic Frontier Route 128)
Lar Kaufman - lark@ora.com
MICHIGAN
Ann Arbor:
Ann Arbor Computer Society & others
Ed Vielmetti - emv@msen.com
msen gopher - gopher.msen.com
msen mail list - majordomo@mail.msen.com "info aacs"
MISSOURI
Kansas City:
Greater Kansas City Sysop Association
Scott Lent - slent@vax1.umkc.edu
GKCSA
P.O. Box 14480
Parkville, MO 64152
Phone: (816)734-2949 (voice)
(816)734-4732 (data)
NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque:
FreeNet! and Noise in the Void
Stanton McCandlish - anton@hydra.unm.edu
Stanton McCandlish
8020 Central SE #405
Albuquerque, NM 87108
Phone: (505)246-8515 (data - 24hr, 1200-14400 v32bis, N-8-1)
NEW YORK
Batavia:
Genesee Community College Group
Thomas J. Klotzbach - 3751365@mcimail.com
Thomas J. Klotzbach
Genesee Community College
Batavia, NY 14020
Phone: (716)343-0055 x358 (voice - work)
New York City:
NTE
general - nte@panix.com
Simona Nass - simona@panix.com
Alexis Rosen - alexis@panix.com
TEXAS
Austin:
EFF-Austin
general - eff-austin@tic.com
directors - eff-austin-directors@tic.com
Jon Lebkowsky - jonl@tic.com
EFF-Austin
P.O. Box 18957
Austin, TX 78760
Phone: (512)465-7871 (voice)
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20003
Phone: +1 202 544-9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Articles by Shari Steele, EFF Staff Attorney (ssteele@eff.org)
Coordination, production and shipping by Cliff Figallo, EFF
Online Communications Coordinator (fig@eff.org)
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
for their express permission.
*This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons*
=============================================================
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our
efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we
need the financial support of individuals and organizations.
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that
can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other
notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should
be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect
to become a member.
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year
for regular members, and $100.00 per year for organizations. You
may, of course, donate more if you wish.
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never,
under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We
will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit
organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals.
But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you
must actively grant us permission to share your name with other
groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you
do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason.
=============================================================
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
238 Main St.
Cambridge, MA 02142
I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
$100.00 (Corporate or organizational membership.
This allows any organization to
become a member of EFF. It allows
such an organization, if it wishes
to designate up to five individuals
within the organization as members.)
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
Email address:
I enclose a check [ ].
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:
Expiration date:
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date:
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ].
Initials:___________________________
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 3 3/5/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
321 lines
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Representative Markey Speaks on Tech Policy
Announcement of Midwest Rural Datafication Meeting
EFF Funding
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Coverage of Representative Markey's Speech to Computer
Execs on Technology Policy
In an article in the New York Times of Tuesday, February 23, 1993
entitled "Computer Makers Told To Get Involved in Rules" by Steve
Lohr, it was reported that Representative Edward J. Markey,
Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House subcommittee
on telecommunications warned a gathering of computer industry
executives at a conference in Phoenix that their industry was "in
danger of losing out in the emerging but potentially enormous
business of providing computer services to American homes and
offices unless it became involved in the Federal standard-setting that
will occur this year." Markey emphasized that, given the Clinton
Administration's focus on technology policy, some critical steps will
certainly take place this year toward the establishment of "a so-
called data superhighway that will eventually reach every home in
the country."
Markey said, "Decisions will be made this year that will affect the
rest of your lives, and unless you participate, the rules will be cut in
a way that may not be to your advantage."
As the Times pointed out, "The regulated telephone industry is a
seasoned practitioner of shaping government rules, but most
computer and software companies are entrepreneurial upstarts that
have grown and thrived outside the reach of regulatory controls.
Traditionally, the industry rarely dealt with Washington."
Markey described the size of the potential market for services that a
national network could create and how the speed at which that
network will develop and which companies will benefit by it depend
largely on Federal and state regulations which will be on the Federal
table in the near future.
The Times then described ISDN as part of a plan promoted by some
in the computer industry "to insure that digital phone service is
available nationally at affordable rates" and as "a middle ground
between the current technology and the super-speed fully fiber-
optic network that is often discussed. But the fiber-optics data
highway, by most estimates, would not reach most households until
after 2010 and at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.
"By contrast, the digital network could reach every office and house
in America in less than five years, estimates Mitchell Kapor,
president of the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
"A computer pioneer turned advocate, Mr. Kapor is pushing Federal
and state regulators to insure that the digital network is available,
standardized and affordable nationally."
The Times said that "Markey is preparing Federal legislation to push
the digital format later this year" and quoted him as saying, "ISDN. is
something that can be done now, and it will help unleash the next
wave of computer and software innovation, creating jobs and
wealth."
Markey was further quoted as saying, "The Government should set
standards for openness and fund pilot projects, but it isn't going to
pay for the information highway. The money just won't be there."
************************************************************************
Regional Group Activities:
************************************************************************
Submitted by Ed Vielmetti in Ann Arbor:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Preliminary Program Announcement
Rural Datafication:
Achieving the goal of Ubiquitous Access to the Internet
May 14, 1993
Chicago, IL
A joint conference focused on extending the services of the Internet
to difficult-to-reach and typically under-served user communities.
Jointly sponsored by CICNet and the following state networks
Illinois: netILLINOIS
Indiana: INDnet
Iowa: IREN
Michigan: MichNet
Minnesota: MRNet
New York: NYSERNet
Pennsylvania: PREPnet
Wisconsin: WiscNet
Conference focus and theme:
---------------------------
CICNet is pleased to announce Rural Datafication as a major
cooperative initiative among nine networking organizations
committed to the creation of ubiquitous data networking services
throughout their region and, indeed, throughout the nation. As part
of this initiative, these organizations have agreed to co-sponsor a
conference which builds on an already successful collaboration
between CICNet and the above networks and which will focus on two
primary areas:
1. Ways to most effectively respond to user communities which
desire Internet services but which are currently unable to obtain
Internet access.
2. Ways to best enhance existing services to those populations which
which make use of non-dedicated connections: i.e., users whose
access to the Internet is via dial-up modem rather than high speed
dedicated lines. The focus includes users who use SLIP and PPP to
get direct connections to the Internet, and users who use Internet
facilities via dial-up terminal emulation.
Come, join, and assist us as we plan for increased access for such
communities. Examples include elementary and high schools, public
libraries, small businesses, organizations located in remote
geographic areas, and the rapidly evolving community of users who
need Internet access from their homes. Help us develop ideas for
new programs and services both useful and interesting. Meet other
people who are committed to expanding the network's usefulness.
Intended Audience:
We invite you to meet with us to share information and successes
you may have, to learn from the information and successes of others,
to talk with people interested in developing the potential of
networks, and to discuss ways to develop the rural datafication
theme as a major initiative focused on meeting the needs of the user
communities discussed throughout this announcement. This
conference is specifically intended for three key communities:
1. Providers of networked information, whether they be network
organizations or not, who are committed to assisting us as we
pursue our rural datafication strategy.
2. Users of networked information: teachers, researchers, librarians,
scientists, lawyers, bankers -- in short, those who are interested in
contributing to and gaining from the growing electronically-
connected community. We are particularly interested in attracting
users interested in the rural datafication concept.
3. Perhaps of most importance, potential users of networked
information who which to either learn about the network or
advise us on how best to construct a truly pervasive and
ubiquitous data network.
Agenda, dates and times:
-----------------------
Friday, May 14th:
Opening remarks begin at 9:15 am
Closing remarks will conclude at 4:30 PM
An optional early registration and opening Reception will be held on
Thursday, May 13th from 5 - 7pm.
Location and fees:
-----------------
McCormick Center Hotel
Lake Shore Drive at 23rd Street
Chicago, IL 60616
+1.312.791.1900
Conference room rates: Single $85; Double $95
Conference fee: $69 -- includes Friday lunch, morning and afternoon
breaks, and Thursday's registration reception
To be placed on the list to receive additional information, please
email, mail, or fax your request for additional information to:
email: may14@cic.net
fax: +1.313.998.6105
mail: Rural Datafication
CICNet
2901 Hubbard
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
We will need either your e-mail or postal address with the request
for additional information. We would like you to list a particular area
of interest that you have, relevant to the theme of the conference.
Queries may also be directed to Julie-Elise Burroughs at
+1.313.998.6103 or to Glee Cady at +1.313.998.6419
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
EFF Funding
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt,
nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C. Our total budget for 1993
will be in the neighborhood of $1.7 million.
Like many other public interest advocacy groups, EFF sustains its
activities through membership dues, individual donations and gifts,
and foundation and corporate grants.
Much of EFF's research on public policy and technology is conducted
through the Communications Policy Forum (CPF). Jointly sponsored
by EFF, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), and the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), CPF brings together consumer groups,
communications and computer firms, and public policy experts to
explore communications policy options. CPF does not engage in
lobbying or take positions on issues. It is broadly supported by
foundations and corporations with widely divergent and conflicting
views on communications policy. Funders include:
Adobe Systems Apple Computers
AT&T Bauman Foundation
Bell Atlantic Benton Foundation
Dun & Bradstreet Electronic Mail Association
IBM Interval Researc
Lotus Development Corp. MCI Telecommunications
Microsoft Corporation Newspaper Assoc. of America
NCTA RSA Data Security
Sun Microsystems Tides Foundation
EFF's policy goals and advocacy positions are determined by EFF's
board and staff. In support of these positions, EFF does, from time to
time, assemble political coalitions that include EFF corporate funders
and other public interest organizations. For example, corporations
such as Lotus Development Corporation, Microsoft, and Apple
Computer have contributed funding for EFF's digital privacy work.
Major individual donations and foundation and corporate grants
range from $10,000 to $250,000. EFF also receives many smaller
donations from individuals supportive of its work. EFF has over
1,000 members who pay dues of either $40 or $20 annually.
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20003
Phone: +1 202 544-9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Cliff Figallo, EFF
Online Communications Coordinator (fig@eff.org)
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
for their express permission.
*This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons*
=============================================================
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our
efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we
need the financial support of individuals and organizations.
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that
can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other
notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should
be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect
to become a member.
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year
for regular members, and $100.00 per year for organizations. You
may, of course, donate more if you wish.
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never,
under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We
will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit
organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals.
But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you
must actively grant us permission to share your name with other
groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you
do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason.
=============================================================
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
238 Main St.
Cambridge, MA 02142
I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
Email address:
I enclose a check [ ].
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:
Expiration date:
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date:
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ].
Initials:___________________________
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 4 3/19/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
389 lines
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Victory in the Steve Jackson Games Case
EFF Pioneer Award Winners for 1993
Issues for K-12 Access to the Internet
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
STEVE JACKSON GAMES WINS LAWSUIT
AGAINST U.S. SECRET SERVICE
A games publisher has won a lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service
and the federal government in a ground-breaking case involving
computer publications and electronic mail privacy.
In a decision announced in Austin, Texas, on March 12, Judge Sam
Sparks of the federal district court for the Western District of Texas
announced that the case of Steve Jackson Games et al. versus the U.S.
Secret Service and the United States Government has been decided
for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, which include Steve Jackson, the company he founded,
and three users of the company's bulletin board system (BBS), sued
the government on claims that their statutory rights to electronic
mail privacy had been violated when the BBS and other computers,
disks and printouts were seized by the Secret Service as part of a
computer crime investigation. These rights are protected under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which extended most
of the protections of the federal Wiretap Act ("Title III") to electronic
mail.
Jackson and his company also claimed violations of the Privacy
Protection Act of 1980, a federal law designed to limit searches of
publishers in order to protect their First Amendment rights.
Mitch Kapor, founder and chairman of the board for the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, the public interest/civil liberties organization
that has underwritten and supported the case since it was filed in
1991, said he is pleased with the decision. "This decision vindicates
our position that users of computer bulletin board systems are
engaging in Constitutionally protected speech," Kapor said.
"This decision shows that perseverance pays off," he added. "We've
been at this for almost three years now, and we still don't know if it's
over -- the Justice Department might appeal it." Nevertheless, Kapor
said he is optimistic about the case's ultimate outcome.
Judge Sparks awarded more than $50,000 in damages to Steve
Jackson Games, citing lost profits and violations of the Privacy
Protection Act of 1980. In addition, the judge awarded each plaintiff
$1,000 under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act for the
Secret Service seizure of their stored electronic mail. The judge also
stated that plaintiffs would be reimbursed for their attorneys's fees.
The judge did not find that Secret Service agents had "intercepted"
the electronic communications that were captured when agents
seized the Illuminati BBS in an early morning raid in the spring of
1990 as part of a computer crime investigation. The judge did find,
however, that the ECPA had been violated by the agents's seizure of
stored electronic communications on the system.
The case was tried in Austin, Texas, by the Austin-based media law
firm George, Donaldson & Ford, with case assistance provided by the
Boston, Massachusetts, law firm of Silverglate & Good.
Pete Kennedy, the lawyer from George, Donaldson & Ford who
litigated the case, calls the decision "a solid first step toward
recognizing that computer communications should be as well-
protected as telephone communications." Kennedy also said he
believes the case has particular significance for those who use
computers to prepare and distribute publications. "There is a strong
indication from the judge's decision that the medium of publication is
irrelevant," he said, adding that "electronic publishers have the same
protections against law enforcement intrusions as traditional
publishers like newspapers and magazines. All publishers that use
computers should be heartened by this decision. It indicates that the
works-in-progress of all types of publications are protected under
the Privacy Protection Act.
"The case also demonstrates that there are limits on the kinds of
defenses law enforcement agents can use, Kennedy said, noting that
"the judge made it very clear that it is no excuse that the seizure of
draft material for publication held on a computer was incidental or
accidental."
Mike Godwin, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation who
has worked on the case since 1990, said he is pleased with the scope
of the decision. "This case is a major step forward in protecting the
rights of those who use computers to send private mail to each other
or who use computers to create and disseminate publications."
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
SECOND ANNUAL EFF PIONEER AWARDS
On March 10, at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference in
Burlingame, California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation presented
its Second Annual Pioneer Awards to five recipients who were
judged to have made significant and influential contributions to the
field of computer-based communications. The 1993 Pioneer Award
recipients were Paul Baran, Vinton Cerf, Ward Christensen, Dave
Hughes and the USENET software developers, represented by the
software's originators Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis.
Nominations for the Pioneer Awards were carried out over national
and international computer-communication systems from November
1992 to February 1993. A panel of four judges selected the winners
from these nominations.
The Pioneer Award Recipients
Paul Baran was the original inventor of the notion of packet
switching, a technology of fundamental importance to data networks.
Packet switching makes possible the efficient and simultaneous
transmission of many messages from many sources to many
destinations over the same circuit. Mr. Baran's innovations in other
and related technologies have led him to co-found a number of
companies in Silicon Valley including Telebit, Packet Technologies (a
portion of which later became StrataCom), Equatorial
Communications, Metricom, InterFax and his current venture, Com21.
Dr. Vinton Cerf led the research project which developed the TCP/IP
protocol suite, the open system interconnection protocol which is
used today by schools, government, corporations and an increasing
number of individuals to communicate with each other over the
Internet. Dr. Cerf also participated in the development of the
ARPANET host protocols and managed the Internet, Packet
Communications and Networked Security programs for DARPA.
While working at MCI, he led the engineering effort to develop MCI
Mail. He is now vice president of the Corporation for National
Research Initiatives where he is responsible for projects involving
the Internet, electronic mail, and Knowledge Robot research.
Ward Christensen wrote the original software program,
"MODEM.ASM", which came to be called "Xmodem" or the
"Christensen protocol". For untold numbers of early-to-present day
computer communications users, Xmodem has made it possible to
transfer files, error-free, over phone lines from one computer to
another. Xmodem file transfer has been the major means of
information exchange for computer hobbyists and small business
users through the first decade of the personal computer revolution.
Mr. Christensen also programmed the first microcomputer dial-in
system which he named a "BBS" - bulletin board system. His original
BBS, CBBS/Chicago, is still in operation. He is in his 25th year at IBM.
Dave Hughes has been an outspoken and effective grassroots
evangelist and spokesperson for popular computer networking and
electronic democracy for over a decade. He fashioned his own
computer system at Old Colorado City Communications in1985, and
soon brought the municipal elected government of Colorado Springs
online. He helped design and implement a personal computer
network connecting one-room rural schoolhouses in Montana to
worldwide information resources. He continually brings network
connections and new applications to new populations here and
abroad. Perhaps most importantly, he is a tireless and enthusiastic
communicator, offering his experience, his inspiration and his vision
to any and all on the Net.
USENET is a distributed bulletin board system with approximately
two million readers worldwide. It came into being in late1979
through the inspiration of Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis combined with
the design and programming efforts of Steve Bellovin, Stephen
Daniel, and Dennis Rockwell. Following USENET's introduction in
1980, the resulting and ever-expanding collection of "newsgroups"
began to be carried and circulated by a growing number of
networked sites. The ongoing work of numerous individuals has
allowed Usenet to survive its increasing popularity. The daily traffic
is now approximately 20,000 articles, totaling 50 megabytes, posted
to 2000 different newsgroups.
Tom Truscott is currently a distributed computing professional at
IBM in the Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. He has authored a
number of UNIX-related articles, and is a member of ACM, IEEE, and
Sigma Xi.
James Ellis is currently the Manager of Technical Development at the
Computer Emergency Response Team, which is the team created to
assist Internet sites with computer security incidents. At CERT, he is
responsible for analyzing UNIX system vulnerabilities and for
developing tools to assist in the handling of security incidents.
Judges
This year's judges for the Pioneer Awards were: Jim Warren, Pioneer
Award recipient from 1992 who coordinated the judging process,
Steve Cisler of Apple Computer, Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0,
and Bob Metcalfe, Editor of Infoworld.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
COMMUNICATIONS POLICY FORUM
CPF Airs Issues for K-12 Access to the Internet
by Andrew Blau
The Communications Policy Forum (CPF), a non-partisan project
of the EFF that brings stakeholders together to discuss
communications policy issues, recently convened a roundtable to
explore some of the legal questions that arise when K-12 schools
provide Internet access to their students. Approximately 15 people,
representing carriers who provide connections to the Internet,
schools or school systems who are connected to the Internet, and
legal experts with expertise in this and related areas, met to discuss
issues of legal liability as this new medium enters an educational
setting for minors.
A key concern is that students may be exposed to material that
parents or teachers find inappropriate for children. In other
electronic media, such as broadcast television, cable TV, and
audiotext, legal restrictions have been imposed to protect children
from ÒharmfulÓ or ÒindecentÓ material, and liability has been
assigned. No such framework exists for the Internet. Moreover, the
very strengths of the Internet Ð its decentralized, unhierarchical, and
essentially uncontrolled flow of traffic Ð offer distinct challenges to
those who would seek to control it in the interest of protecting
children. Finally, the tools available in other media Ð safe harbors,
lockboxes, or subscription schemes Ð don't fit in this environment.
Issues and Suggestions
Following a brief summary of the Internet and how it operates
and a review of how it is being used by a handful of K-12
institutions, participants identified specific problems and policy
issues and considered existing statutes and case law for guidance.
The group also considered the potential effects of "harmful to
minors" or "obscene as to minors" statutes, which are on the books in
41 states. Although they are often vague or broad, the Supreme
Court has agreed that it is constitutional to have such laws which
prohibit the dissemination to minors of material that is protected by
the First Amendment and would be constitutional for adults, to
minors.
Discussion then turned to various practical measures that carriers
and schools might take in light of what had been described. One
suggestion was that carriers work with school systems to provide a
recommended set of features or services. In order to protect
themselves, carriers could ensure that the school put in place a set of
policies, identify for students their responsibilities, and place a
teacher or other adult in control of what students access through the
school's connection.
It was also suggested that carriers could develop a contract that
only connects schools that agree to indemnify the provider.
Moreover, the carrier could require assurance that when access is
provided to minors, the school will use some formal agreement with
the minor's parent that includes provisions that hold the network
provider harmless from liability.
As an alternative, it was suggested that carriers could offer a
simple warning to schools that alerts them that Internet access may
enable access to materials inappropriate for minors, and that local
discretion is advised. Schools could also offer disclaimers to parents
modelled on those that parents are given before a field trip.
A handful of technical solutions were suggested throughout the
course of the meeting, and many elicited substantial interest. For
example, various participants suggested using encryption, programs
that flag key words or phrases and route them for human
intervention, and mandatory password protection for all purveyors
of certain kinds of information.
Many participants seemed intrigued by a proposal to develop an
addressing standard under which someone who gets access by virtue
of his/her status as a K-12 student could get an address tag that
identifies the student as such for various purposes. One example
would be to press for the creation of an additional domain of ".stu"
for K-12 students. The appearance of the ".stu" tag would function
like any other identification stamp for access to certain materials.
Statutory immunity for carriers was also seen by almost all
participants as highly desirable and worth pursuing. Developing a
legislative strategy may also highlight how these issues in the K-12
setting are linked to and can be addressed in partnership with other
issues and other sectors of the communications field.
It was also noted that all those interested in K-12 networking
need to educate the new Administration as it considers "information
highways," a new Federal Communications Commission, the
implementation of the NREN, and other programs. According to this
approach, a critical first step is to educate as many new players as
possible, including Congressional staff and the new administration,
that addressing these liability issues is part of the package of
building the networks of tomorrow.
Conclusion
By the end of the session, most participants agreed that there are
no easy answers to the issues raised.
Yet participants also agreed that if the community of interested
educators, carriers, and public interest groups could establish
workable models and promote a positive agenda with lawmakers,
instead of waiting for problems to arise, the resulting legislative and
regulatory framework would be far more likely to cultivate
educational access, as well as to provide a model for broadband
policy as a whole.
The value of the Internet as an educational resource is clear. As
one educator pointed out, our schools lose both students and teachers
because of inadequate access to resources; the Internet can enrich
the resources available to both teachers and students and is not
something that only universities should enjoy. The challenge is to
articulate a policy framework that can enable that potential to be
realized and then to work to see that framework constructed.
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20003
Phone: +1 202 544-9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Cliff Figallo, EFF
Online Communications Coordinator (fig@eff.org)
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
for their express permission.
*This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons*
=============================================================
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our
efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we
need the financial support of individuals and organizations.
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that
can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other
notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should
be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect
to become a member.
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year
for regular members, and $100.00 per year for organizations. You
may, of course, donate more if you wish.
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never,
under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We
will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit
organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals.
But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you
must actively grant us permission to share your name with other
groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you
do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason.
=============================================================
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
238 Main St.
Cambridge, MA 02142
I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
Email address:
I enclose a check [ ].
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:
Expiration date:
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date:
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ].
Initials:___________________________
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 5 4/2/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
507 lines
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Keys to Privacy in the Digital Information Age
What's Important About the Medphone Libel Case?
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Keys to Privacy in the Digital Information Age
by Jerry Berman and Daniel J. Weitzner
With dramatic increases in reliance on digital media for
communications, the need for comprehensive protection of privacy in
these media grows. For many reading this newsletter, the point may
seem trite, but the scope of the digital communications revolution (of
which we only stand at the very beginning), poses major new
challenges for those concerned about protecting communications
privacy. Communication carried on paper through the mail system,
or over the wire-based public telephone network, is relatively secure
from random intrusion by others. But the same communication
carried, for example, over a cellular or other wireless communication
system is vulnerable to being intercepted by anyone who has very
inexpensive, easy-to-obtain, scanning technology. If designed and
deployed properly, communications technology has the potential to
actually support and enhance the level of privacy that we all enjoy.
But if, in the design process, privacy concerns are slighted, whether
consciously or not, privacy may be compromised.
Public policy has a critical impact on the degree of privacy
protection afforded by the new communications systems now being
designed and deployed for public use. Two ongoing public policy
issues present the challenges of digital privacy protection in sharp
relief. In the first case, government policy seeks to limit the
introduction of robust encryption technologies. Motivated by
national security concerns, the National Security Agency is using
export control regulations to discourage the widespread foreign and
domestic adoption of strong encryption systems. The NSA's
reasoning is if uncrackable encryption is available, the NSA will be
powerless to intercept the communications of foreign espionage
agents operating in and around the United States. However, the
NSA's restriction on the use of powerful encryption systems limits
the ability of all who rely on electronic communication systems to
protect their privacy.
Second, on the domestic front, the FBI has proposed a
comprehensive licensing regime that would require all new
communications systems to be certified as "wire-tappable" before
their introduction into the market. This proposal threatens to force
the widespread use of communications systems that have "back
doors" in them that make them inherently insecure and to expand
the scope of the FBI's wiretapping authority to an unspecified degree.
Although these two proposals are now being pursued in independent
policy arenas, it is critical to view them together in order to
appreciate the full implications for privacy.
Encryption Policy
For the individual who relies on digital communications media,
reliable privacy protection cannot be achieved without the protection
of robust encryption technology. While legal restrictions on the use
of scanners or other technology that might facilitate such invasions of
privacy seem to be attractive preventative measures, these are not
lasting or comprehensive solutions. We should have a guarantee --
with physics and mathematics, not only with laws -- that we can
give ourselves real privacy of personal communications through
technical means. We already know how to do this, but we have not
made encryption technology widely available for public use because
of public policy barriers. The actual debate going on involves both
the National Security Agency and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology. They are in the process of deciding what version of
a particularly strong type of encryption system ought to be promoted
for public use. Called Public Key Encryption systems, these coding
systems derive their strength, in part, from the size of the ÒkeyÓ used
to encrypt the message.
In examining discrete issues such as the desirability of various
cryptography standards, we take a comprehensive view of "digital
privacy" policy as a whole. Such a comprehensive view requires a
clear vision of the underlying civil liberties issues at stake: privacy
and free speech. It also requires looking beyond the cryptography
questions raised by many to include some of law enforcement's
recent concerns about the pace of digital infrastructure innovation.
For the sake of promoting innovation and protecting civil liberties,
we must also bear in mind the principle that computer security
policy is fundamentally a concern for domestic, civilian agencies.
Inasmuch as digital privacy policy has broad implications for
constitutional rights of free speech and privacy, these issues must be
explored and resolved in an open, civilian policy context. This
principle is clearly articulated in the Computer Security Act of 1987.
These questions are simply too important to be decided by the
national security establishment alone. The structure of the Act arose,
in significant part, from the concern that the national security
establishment was exercising undue control over the flow of public
information and the use of information technology. When
considering the law in 1986, the Congress asked the question,
"Whether it is proper for a super-secret agency [the NSA] that
operates without public scrutiny to involve itself in domestic
activities...?" The answer was a clear no, and the authority for
establishing computer security policy was vested in NIST (then the
National Bureau of Standards).
In this context, we need a robust public debate over our
government's continuing heavy-handed efforts to control
commercially developed cryptography. It is no secret that
throughout the cold war era, the Defense and State Departments and
the National Security Agency have used any and all means, including
threats of prosecution, control over research and denial of export
licenses, to prevent advanced secret coding capabilities from getting
into the hands of our adversaries. NSA does this to maximize its
ability to intercept and crack all international communications of
national security interest.
Now the Cold War is over, but the practice continues. In recent
years, Lotus, Microsoft, and others have developed or tried to
incorporate powerful encryption means into mass market software to
enhance the security and privacy of business, financial, and personal
communications. In an era of computer crime, sophisticated
surveillance technologies and industrial espionage, it is a laudable
goal.
Although NSA does not have the authority to interfere with
domestic distribution encryption systems, its licensing stranglehold
over foreign distribution has significant domestic consequences.
United States firms have been unable to sell competitive security and
privacy products in international markets. More important, because
the cost of producing two different products is often prohibitive, NSA
policy encourages firms to produce a single product for both
domestic and worldwide use, resulting in sub-standard privacy and
security for users both here and abroad.
While we all recognize that NSA has legitimate national security
concerns in the post cold war era, this is a seriously flawed process.
Foreign countries or entities who want to obtain advanced encryption
technology can purchase it through intermediaries in the United
States or from companies in a host of foreign countries who are not
subject to US export restrictions. By taking a page out of the
Emperor's New Clothes, NSA opts to act as if the process works by
continuing to block export.
In order to get some improvement in mass market encryption, the
computer industry had to resort to using the threat of legislation to
get NSA to engage in the negotiations that finally led NSA to agree to
expedited clearance for the export of encryption software of limited
key lengths. Still, all concede that the agreement does not go far
enough and that far more powerful products are commonly available
in the US. The remaining limits specifying maximum key lengths
offers little long-term security given advances in computer
processing power.
Does this kind of policy make any sense in the post Cold War era?
Mass market products offer limited security for our citizens.
Determined adversaries can obtain much more powerful products
from foreign countries or by purchasing it here in the US. Is the NSA
policy of slowing down the pace of encryption use by foreigners and
adversaries -- and there's some debate as to whether the NSA policy
really does slow down that pace -- any longer worth the significant
price we pay in terms of failing to meet our own communications
privacy and security needs? We don't think so.
FBI's Digital Telephony Proposal
The public policy debate on electronic privacy issues over the last
few years has demonstrated that a comprehensive approach to
digital privacy policy cannot be complete without examining both
questions regarding the availability of encryption technology and the
corresponding infrastructure issues, such as those raised by the FBI's
Digital Telephony Proposal.
Last year, the FBI first proposed a "Sense of the Congress"
resolution stating that communications firms and computer and
communications equipment manufacturers were obligated to provide
law enforcement access to the "plain text" of all voice, data and video
communications, including communications using software
encryption. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) played an
active and leading role both in opposing such a law and in seeking to
find more acceptable means for meeting legitimate law enforcement
needs. Because of our advocacy and coalition-building efforts with
communications and privacy groups, we were successful in
persuading Senate Judiciary Chairman Joseph Biden to remove the
Sense of the Congress Resolution from active consideration as part of
Omnibus crime legislation last year.
Putting aside its attempt to control the use of encryption systems,
last year the FBI proposed legislation that would require telephone
companies, electronic information providers, and computer and
communications equipment manufacturers to seek an FCC "license" or
Attorney General "certification" that their technologies are
susceptible to electronic surveillance. EFF fears we are in danger of
creating a domestic version of the export control laws for computer
and communications technology.
While the FBI claims that neither of last year's proposals address
encryption issues, the Bureau has made it clear it plans to return to
this issue in the future. A broad-based coalition of public interest
and industry groups, coordinated by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, has called on the FBI to explore more realistic, less
vague, and less potentially onerous policy options for meeting
legitimate law enforcement needs. The EFF-coordinated coalition
includes over 30 industry groups (including AT&T, Lotus, Microsoft,
Sun Microsystems, IBM and Digital Equipment) along with public
interest organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Last year the
coalition was successful at stopping two separate FBI legislative
attempts, but we fully expect that the Digital Telephony proposal will
be back on the table.
TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE VISION OF COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY
IN THE INFORMATION AGE
At times, the arcana of encryption standards, export control laws,
and technical specifications of new digital telephony equipment may
unfortunately obscure the critical issues at stake in protecting
individual privacy. Many people are already relying on digital media
-- whether electronic mail, bulletin board systems, or other new
media -- for a plethora of personal, political, professional, and
cultural communications tasks. To provide adequate privacy
protection in the future, we will have to learn to wrestle with both
technical details and constitutional principles together, simply
because more and more of our personal activities will be pursued
through new digital media.
The multi-front battle being waged about digital privacy creates
formidable roadblocks to a final resolution of the policy disputes at
issue. Neither the restrictions of encryption, nor the FBI's wiretap
concerns, can be thoroughly addressed independent of the other.
Those who seek greater privacy and security cannot trust a
settlement on one front, because their victory is likely to be
undermined by action on the other issue. And law enforcement and
national security concerns cannot be adequately addressed without a
sense of the overall solution being proposed on both the encryption
and infrastructure fronts. It is time for policymakers to conduct a
comprehensive review of digital privacy and security policy, with a
consideration of both of these sets of issues.
In the case of the FBI's Digital Telephony proposal, we must tread
carefully. Current laws governing wiretapping authority, for
example, reflect a subtle balance between the guarantees of privacy
and security from state intervention embodied in our constitutional
tradition on the one hand, and the needs of law enforcement, on the
other. The rule developed for one medium -- voice telephony --
cannot be mechanically extended to the host of new communications
options now becoming available. Rather, we must give careful
consideration to the scope of wiretap authority that is appropriate to
the new media that the FBI seek to sweep under their wiretap
authority. In the case of encryption policy, it is critical that private
citizens have access to affordable, effective, and legal encryption
technology. In the information age, concerns for protecting
individual privacy should take precedence over outmoded national
security concerns left over from the Cold War.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
"What's Important About the Medphone Libel Case?"
By Mike Godwin
Online conferencing seems so much like informal conversation that
it may come as a surprise to some people to discover that they may
be bound by the same libel law that applies to The New York Times.
It certainly came as a surprise to Peter DeNigris, who is now being
sued for statements he made while participating in a forum on
Prodigy. But a look at the law of defamation (of which libel law is a
major part) makes clear that there's no reason to believe that online
statements are "immune" from libel lawsuits.
_What is defamation and what is libel?_
A communication is considered defamatory if it tends to damage
someone's reputation. Some legal definitions of "defamation" also
specify that the communication has to be false. If a communication is
both false and it defames someone, the person whose reputation is
injured can sue for damages. In general, if the defamation is
*spoken* in the direct presence of an audience, it's called "slander";
defamation in print or in other media is normally called "libel."
Libel law is an area of great interest for the people who run online
forums. If a newspaper or TV station "republishes" a false
defamatory statement, the defamed person can sue the newspaper or
the station for damages *in addition* to suing the person who made
the original false statement. The big question for online forum
operators, like CompuServe and Prodigy, is the extent to which the
services will be treated like newspapers and TV stations and made
responsible for "republication" of libel.
A possible answer to this question appeared in a recent case called
Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe. In that case, which took place in a federal
district court in New York, the judge dismissed a libel suit that had
been brought against CompuServe as a "republisher." In that case,
the judge held that CompuServe is less like a newspaper or TV
station than like a library or bookstore owner or book distributor.
Although libel law, as limited by the First Amendment, allows print
and TV "republishers" to be liable for defamation, it does not allow
such liability for those who run bookstores or libraries; holding the
latter liable would create a burden on these parties to review every
book they carry for defamatory material. This burden would "chill"
the distribution of books (not to mention causing some people to get
out of the bookstore or library business) and thus would come into
serious conflict with the First Amendment.
But the issues raised in this new libel suit involving Prodigy are
different from those in Cubby v. CompuServe.
_The facts of Medphone v. DeNigris_
Peter DeNigis is being sued by the medical-instrument
manufacturer Medphone for statements he made in the Money Talk
forum on Prodigy. Medphone is claiming that DeNigris engaged in a
"systematic program for defamation and trade disparagement"
against the company, and is suing on business-libel and securities-
fraud theories. The company decided to sue DeNigris after its stock
price plummeted in a way that seemed "not objectively related to the
company's performance"--according to the company's press release,
its sales had been going up, and it had recently formed two
important business alliances. Medphone was alerted to the possible
cause of the stock decline when a stockholder notified the company
about DeNigris's "frequent" statements about the company on
Prodigy.
One example of a DeNigris posting (on Sept. 7), appeared in the LOS
ANGELES TIMES account of the story: "Is the end near for
Medphone?????????? Stock is quoted 25 cents to 38 cents. Closed at
a new low Friday, at (38 cents). My research indicated company is
really having a difficult time. No case, no sales, no profits, and
terrible management. This company appears to be a fraud. Probably
will cease operations soon."
Note that this statement does not prove that DeNigris has
committed libel. DeNigris is reported to have lost $9000 on
Medphone stock that he sold in November, so he may have good-
faith reasons to believe what he was saying about the company. He
insists his opinions, as stated, are "fair" and "can be documented" by
leading publications. If his statements turn out to be true, or even if
it turns out that they're false but that he had a good-faith belief that
the statements are true, it could mean that he'll win the libel case
against him.
This does not mean, however, that there is not a credible case
against him. For one thing, the comment about "fraud" is a very
serious and extreme charge and arguably cannot be based merely on
the stock's or company's underperformance. For another, DeNigris is
alleged to have called Prodigy several times a day to post negative
statements about Medphone, which could be credibly interpreted as
a plan to affect the company's reputation and stock price.
_Does this case raise any new legal issues?_
The major difference between Medphone v. DeNigris and Cubby
Inc. v. CompuServe is that there has been no effort to hold the online
forum (Prodigy) liable as a republisher. This means that the
complicated legal issue of "republisher liability" doesn't arise.
This makes the case a lot simpler legally. It is a well-settled legal
principle that the person who *originates* a defamatory statement
may be held liable for defamation. Although the Electronic Frontier
Foundation and other groups have taken the position (consistent with
Cubby) that the owners and operators of digital forums, as
*republishers*, deserve the same protections as republishers in other
media, none of these groups has taken the position that there is
something different about a defamatory statement on a digital forum
that makes it less damaging or less libelous than if it appears in
other media.
Some people argue, however, that Prodigy *should* be a party to
this lawsuit, or perhaps to another lawsuit. They argue that since
Prodigy prescreens its messages, it's less like a bookstore and more
like, say, USA Today. And they're troubled by the fact that Prodigy
turned over records of some of its subscribers' messages to
Medphone's and DeNigris's lawyers--isn't this a violation of the
subscribers' privacy rights?
Let's address these criticisms in detail:
Some Prodigy subscribers apparently are arguing that Prodigy
should be a codefendant along with DeNigris, a position that seems
grounded in part on a simplistic understanding of traditional libel
law and in part on subscribers' innate sympathy to the plight of
another subscriber. There are two good reasons to disagree with this
position: a) In general, when republishers are held liable for
defamation, it tends to create a chilling effect on their medium. b) In
particular, Prodigy now says it does not prescreen messages for
content (other than bouncing postings with profane language--this is
apparently done through software). Following Cubby v. CompuServe,
and absent any facts to the contrary, there is no reason to think
Prodigy should be a party. (Nor is there any legal reason to think
that Peter DeNigris cannot be a defendant.) And even if there were a
good reason for Prodigy to be a party, it's up to Medphone and its
lawyers, not to anyone else, whether to sue Prodigy.
With regard to the privacy rights of subscribers, it should be noted
that Prodigy turned over records of subscriber messages to
Medphone's lawyers (and, apparently, to DeNigris's lawyers) *in
response to subpoenas.* This suggests that there is no violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which authorizes disclosure
of stored electronic communications in response to subpoena. What's
more, Prodigy could have been held in contempt of court had it *not*
complied with the subpoenas.
At this point, at least, it seems that the Medphone case does not
raise any of the complicated legal issues we might expect to find in a
libel lawsuit involving an online forum.
_What is significant about this case?_
But even if the case does not raise new legal issues, it certainly
seems to have raised a new social issue. Specifically, it shows that the
very same technology that empowers people to be their own
reporters and editors has also created a new potential for them to be
defendants. In the old days, individuals who didn't work for
newspapers or TV stations rarely had to think about the potential
that they might be sued for libel--after all, there wasn't much risk
that even an intentionally irresponsible statement was going to do a
significant fraction of the damage that might be done through a
libelous newspaper article or TV broadcast.
But just as the increasingly common phenomenon of online forums
creates the possibility for each of us to reach vast, new audiences, it
also creates the potential for us to commit defamation on a vast new
scale. And there isn't any legal ambiguity about whether we can be
sued for the defamation that we create ourselves.
So, the Medphone case does turn out to be significant in a major
way--not because it breaks any new legal ground, but because it
serves as a warning signal for the increasing number of Americans
who publish their opinions online. Absent some new legislation that
would give online discussions *more* freedom than the traditional
press, participants in online forums will have to learn the same rules
that generations of professional journalists have already learned--
say something defamatory about somebody to a large audience, and
that statement may come back to haunt you.
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20003
Phone: +1 202 544-9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Cliff Figallo, EFF
Online Communications Coordinator (fig@eff.org)
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
for their express permission.
*This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons*
=============================================================
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our
efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we
need the financial support of individuals and organizations.
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that
can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other
notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should
be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect
to become a member.
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students and $40.00 per
year for regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you
wish.
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never,
under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We
will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit
organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals.
But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you
must actively grant us permission to share your name with other
groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you
do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason.
=============================================================
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
238 Main St.
Cambridge, MA 02142
I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
Email address:
I enclose a check [ ].
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:
Expiration date:
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date:
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ].
Initials:___________________________
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 6 4/16/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
454 lines
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Initial EFF Analysis of Clinton Privacy and Security Proposal
Society for Electronic Access: A New York City-based
grassroots online activist group.
Updated Contact List for Regional Online Activist Groups
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
April 16, 1993
INITIAL EFF ANALYSIS OF CLINTON PRIVACY AND SECURITY
PROPOSAL
The Clinton Administration today made a major announcement
on cryptography policy which will effect the privacy and security of
millions of Americans. The first part of the plan is to begin a
comprehensive inquiry into major communications privacy issues
such as export controls which have effectively denied most people
easy access to robust encryption as well as law enforcement issues
posed by new technology.
However, EFF is very concerned that the Administration has
already reached a conclusion on one critical part of the inquiry, before
any public comment or discussion has been allowed. Apparently, the
Administration is going to use its leverage to get all telephone
equipment vendors to adopt a voice encryption standard developed
by the National Security Agency. The so-called "Clipper Chip" is an
80-bit, split key escrowed encryption scheme which will be built into
chips manufactured by a military contractor. Two separate escrow
agents would store users' keys, and be required to turn them over
law enforcement upon presentation of a valid warrant. The
encryption scheme used is to be classified, but they chips will be
available to any manufacturer for incorporation into their
communications products.
This proposal raises a number of serious concerns .
First, the Administration appears to be adopting a solution
before conducting an inquiry. The NSA-developed Clipper chip may
not be the most secure product. Other vendors or developers may
have better schemes. Furthermore, we should not rely on the
government as the sole source for Clipper or any other chips. Rather,
independent chip manufacturers should be able to produce chipsets
based on open standards.
Second, an algorithm can not be trusted unless it can be tested.
Yet the Administration proposes to keep the chip algorithm
classified. EFF believes that any standard adopted ought to be public
and open. The public will only have confidence in the security of a
standard that is open to independent, expert scrutiny.
Third, while the use of the split-key, dual-escrowed
system may prove to be a reasonable balance between privacy and
law enforcement needs, the details of this scheme must be explored
publicly before it is adopted. What will give people confidence in the
safety of their keys? Does disclosure of keys to a third party waive
individual's fifth amendment rights in subsequent criminal
inquiries?
In sum, the Administration has shown great sensitivity to the
importance of these issues by planning a comprehensive inquiry into
digital privacy and security. However, the "Clipper chip" solution
ought to be considered as part of the inquiry, not be adopted before
the discussion even begins.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
ESCROW
The 80-bit key will be divided between two escrow agents, each of
whom hold 40 bits of each key. Upon presentation of a valid
warrant, the two escrow agents would have to turn the key parts
over to law enforcement agents. Most likely the Attorney General
will be asked to identify appropriate escrow agents. Some in the
Administration have suggested one non-law enforcement federal
agency, perhaps the Federal Reserve, and one non-governmental
organization. But, there is no agreement on the identity of the agents
yet.
Key registration would be done by the manufacturer of the
communications device. A key is tied to the device, not to the person
using it.
CLASSIFIED ALGORITHM AND THE POSSIBILITY OF BACK DOORS
The Administration claims that there are no back door means by
which the government or others could break the code without
securing keys from the escrow agents and that the President will
be told there are no back doors to this classified algorithm. In order
to prove this, Administration sources are interested in arranging for
an all-star crypto cracker team to come in, under a security
arrangement, and examine the algorithm for trap doors. The results
of the investigation would then be made public.
GOVERNMENT AS MARKET DRIVER
In order to get a market moving, and to show that the government
believes in the security of this system, the feds will be the first big
customers for this product. Users will include the FBI, Secret Service,
VP Al Gore, and maybe even the President.
FROM MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerry Berman, Executive Director
Daniel J. Weitzner, Senior Staff Counsel
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
[EFFector Online will regularly feature a regional grassroots group
of telecommunications activists describing themselves and their
activities.-- C.F.]
The Society for Electronic Access
By Steve Barber
The Society for Electronic Access ("SEA") is an organization of
people who are concerned with establishing and preserving civil
rights in cyberspace and with promoting public access to computer-
based information systems. The SEA is a regionally-based group,
centered in New York City, though we have members in other parts
of New York State and northern New Jersey. We like to think of
ourselves as covering the "New York City metropolitan area."
The SEA first met in August 1992 in borrowed space somewhere
on the New York University campus. We were a group of folks who
were vaguely, variously, and intensely interested in the issues posed
by the cyberspace/real-world interface, with a strong interest in
becoming the New York chapter of the EFF. Over the course of the
next six months, the issue of EFF affiliation dominated group
discussions. Some might say "paralyzed." Some found loose analogies
to Beckett's "Waiting for Godot." Finally, of course, the EFF announced
that there would be no chapters. This announcement caused some
minor disappointment, but on the whole it was liberating for the
group. In short order, we had projects, results, and even a name.
The SEA membership has adopted the following statement
of purpose, which is an excellent description of what we are, what we
are becoming, and what we want to be:
The purpose of SEA is to help make our corner of cyberspace a
civilized place to live, work, and visit. We believe that the world
of computers and the communications links that bind their users
together should be open to everyone. Furthermore, if this new
medium is to have a chance of fulfilling its great potential, the
same civil rights that protect our freedom in the physical world
must prevail in cyberspace.
Therefore, SEA will work to educate people about computer
networks and how to use them to find information and to
communicate with one another. We will also reach out to computer
users, government officials, legislators and the media to foster better
understanding of cyberspace and to ensure that laws are written and
enforced to enhance individual rights rather than to curtail them.
Finally, we will do our best to bring into cyberspace those who might
not otherwise have the opportunity or awareness to make use of it,
in the belief that doing so will enrich our lives as well as theirs.
The SEA operates in two modes: through a set of mailing lists,
and through approximately monthly face-to-face meetings. While a
cyberspace activist group ought to be able to meet effectively in
cyberspace itself, our experience is that no consensus is achieved via
a mailing list discussion, and no decisions get made this way. I'm not
sure whether this is because of the asynchronicity of e-mail or
merely because of the low bandwidth of e-mail, but the face-to-face
gatherings are vital. This necessity for face-to-face interaction is one
of the bases for our regional orientation.
Even though the SEA just started accepting paid memberships, at
present all our meetings and electronic mail lists are open to anyone.
We have had various EFF personages drop by, as well as emissaries
from other groups with similar interest to ours from around the country.
The formal meetings are often followed informal ones in convivial
locations throughout Manhattan.
As is apparent from our mission statement, the SEA has a
number of goals. The interest in civil rights has expressed itself
through our legal interest group. Most recently, in what was perhaps
SEA's first public action, we submitted a comment to the United
States Sentencing Commission opposing the proposed sentencing
guidelines on computer fraud and abuse. Other projects covering the
legal side of cyberspace include the compilation of data on local
government officials, and monitoring state and local regulatory
activities that affect networks and BBSs.
SEA's goal of encouraging public access to the computer
networks and other manifestations of cyberspace is being addressed
by promoting ourselves as a clearinghouse for cyberspace resources
in the region. Our purpose is to bring people together who are
interested in working on access projects. SEA has served as a catalyst
for hooking up people interested in, for example, producing
educational videos on Internet access and use, and for finding system
operators willing to donate resources for an organization called
Playing To Win that provides computer access to residents of one of
New York City's more disadvantaged neighborhoods.
The wonderful thing about the SEA is that so far it is entirely a
volunteer operation. We exist in borrowed space, both real and
virtual. Our only real resource is the enthusiasm of our members.
The greatest advantage to being located in New York City is that the
available talent here is varied and seemingly limitless. We are
blessed with a number of people who make their living in
cyberspace, and to whom the issues the SEA addresses makes a
difference in their daily lives. Just to highlight a few of our people,
there is Stacy Horn, who runs the ECHO computer conferencing
system and has expended great effort into bringing more women into
cyberspace. Lance Rose is an attorney who specializes in computer
and BBS law and writes a monthly column on legal matters in
Boardwatch magazine. Alexis Rosen is co-owner and operator of
Panix, a commercial public access Internet host (Panix also donates
lots of resources to the SEA). John McMullen is a journalist who is
responsible in large part for the NewsBytes electronic computer news
service. Bruce Fancher and other founders of the Mindvox system
have been active in SEA projects. Clay Shirky, who drafted our
sentencing guideline comments, is an experienced activist. Joe King
co-hosts a weekly computer radio show on WBAI-FM. Paul Wallich
writes for Scientific American. All of these folks and others I don't
have room to mention make for an exciting mix of system operators,
journalists, lawyers and law students, hackers and even an accused
cracker or two, librarians, activists, and other assorted cyberspace
denizens that gives the SEA a broad base of experience and expertise.
Other current and projected projects include educational
seminars, a media watch, a local calendar of events, and more
involvement in the legislative and regulatory process.
SEA has an effective presence on the Internet via our mailing
lists and through the SEA information hierarchy at gopher.panix.com
that provides public access to our archives. We are trying to reach
out to the BBS community and the vast number of users of the large
commercial services.
For more information on the SEA or to be added to our mailing
lists, please contact us by sending e-mail to sea@panix.com or U.S.
Mail to:
Society for Electronic Access
Post Office Box 3131
Church Street Station
New York, NY 10008-3131
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Local and Regional Groups Supporting the Online Community
*Updated List*
For those readers interested in hooking up with regional groups that
are organized to work on projects to improve online communications,
feel free to contact any of the folks listed below with your ideas and
to learn more about how you can get involved.
We are constantly looking to update this list, so if you know of other
groups that we should add, or if you are trying to form a group in
your local area, please forward the name of the group and contact
information to Shari Steele at ssteele@eff.org.
NATIONAL
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Shari Steele Ð ssteele@eff.org
Cliff Figallo Ð fig@eff.org
ALABAMA
Huntsville:
Huntsville Group
Matt Midboe mmidboe@nyx.cs.du.edu
CALIFORNIA
San Francisco Bay Area:
This!Group
Mitch Ratcliffe coyote@well.sf.ca.us or
Mitch_Ratcliffe@macweek.ziff.com
Glenn Tenney tenney@netcom.com
Judi Clark judic@netcom.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington, DC, Area:
"Group 2600" and some public access operators
Bob Stratton strat@intercon.com
Mikki Barry ooblick@intercon.com
MASSACHUSSETTS
Cambridge and Boston area
EF128 (Electronic Frontier Route 128).
Lars Kaufman lark@ora.com
MICHIGAN
Ann Arbor:
Ann Arbor Computer Society & others
Ed Vielmetti emv@msen.com
msen gopher gopher.msen.com
msen mail list majordomo@mail.msen.com "info aacs"
MISSISSIPPI
Gulf Coast, Mississippi
SotMESC/GCMS
PO Box 573
Long Beach, MS 39560
Local chapter with chapters in Alaska, Orlando Florida, Atlanta
Georgia, Mobile Alabama, Montgomery Alabama, Oxford Miss,
California, Ocean Springs Miss, and other locations.
Contact: RJones%USMCP6.BitNet@VM.TCS.Tulane.Edu
NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque:
IndraNet (formerly FreeNet!, a FTN network) and NitV Data
Center.
contact: Stanton McCandlish
Internet: anton@hydra.unm.edu
Bitnet: anton@unmb.bitnet
FidoNet: 1:301/2
IndraNet: 369:1/1
BBS (1200-14400, v32/v32b/v42/v42b, N-1-8, 24hr)
+1-505-246-8515 Voice +1-505-247-3402
Snail: 8020 Central SE #405, Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
Interests: positive networking, pro-BBS and pro-computer-
freedom activism; FFFREE BBS serves as a site to obtain EFF
and other such material for those without access to
Internet, and supports a rapidly expanding library of
electronic publications. Live free, compute free!
MISSOURI
Kansas City:
Greater Kansas City Sysop Association
Scott Lent slent@vax1.umkc.edu
GKCSA
P.O. Box 14480
Parkville, MO 64152
Phone: (816)734-2949 (voice)
(816)734-4732 (data)
NEW YORK
New York City:
Society for Electronic Access (SEA)
Post Office Box 3131
Church Street Station
New York, NY, 10008-3131
general sea-mgmt@panix.com
Simona Nass simona@panix.com
Alexis Rosen alexis@panix.com
Western New York State
Thomas J. Klotzbach
Genesee Community College
Batavia, NY 14020
MCI Mail: 375 1365
Internet: 3751365@mcimail.com
klotzbtj@snybufva.cs.snybuf.edu
Work: (716) 343-0055 x358
TEXAS
Austin:
EFFÐAustin
general eff-austin@tic.com
directors eff-austinÐdirectors@tic.com
Jon Lebkowsky jonl@tic.com
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20003
Phone: +1 202 544-9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Cliff Figallo, EFF
Online Communications Coordinator (fig@eff.org)
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
for their express permission.
*This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons*
=============================================================
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our
efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we
need the financial support of individuals and organizations.
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that
can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other
notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should
be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect
to become a member.
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students and $40.00 per
year for regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you
wish.
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never,
under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We
will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit
organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals.
But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you
must actively grant us permission to share your name with other
groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you
do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason.
=============================================================
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
238 Main St.
Cambridge, MA 02142
I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
Email address:
I enclose a check [ ].
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:
Expiration date:
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date:
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ].
Initials:___________________________
Comments
Post a Comment