A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 7 4/30/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062Ð9424
400 lines
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Congressman Boucher Introduces NREN Applications Bill
"Future of Computing" Program in Palo Alto, CA
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Congressman Boucher Introduces NREN Applications Bill
--Offers greatly expanded vision of applications program
for widespread social benefit
by Andrew Blau
EFF Associate for Telecommunications Policy
On April 21, Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) introduced legislation
to create computer and networking applications to serve the
education, library, and health care communities, and to promote
access to government information. The bill, H.R. 1757, significantly
expands on similar provisions found in last year's "Information
Infrastructure and Technology Act" (often referred to as "Gore II,"
then-Senator Gore's follow-up to his NREN bill, the High Performance
Computing Act ("HPCA")), and the Senate bill to promote U.S.
competitiveness, S. 4.
Boucher, who chairs the House Science Subcommittee which oversees
the NSF, has held oversight hearings on the development of the NREN
program at which EFF Chairman Mitch Kapor testified. Many of EFF's
suggestions, and the suggestions of EFF's partners in the education,
library, and health care sectors, have been included in this
legislation.
Highlights include:
*a substantial broadening of the focus of NREN to accelerate
progress toward "a universally accessible high-capacity and high
speed data network for the nation";
*a significant commitment to public libraries, K-12 schools, and
support for hardware purchases;
*the creation and inclusion of local 'civic networks' of local libraries,
schools, and local and state government offices, which would be
connected to the Internet;
*an emphasis on promoting access to government information; and
*a codification of the distinction between research and production
networks.
This bill also shifts away from the manufacturing focus of the earlier
bills; it has no provisions for manufacturing applications at all.
There are a handful of weak spots, most notably that the bill seems
to emphasize broadband connections to the Internet, which EFF
believes could drive up the costs of the connections program and
reduce the number of beneficiaries; and the lack of any coordinating
or responsible agency for the government information program, the
network security program, the privacy program or the ease of use
program.
EFF supports the approach outlined in this bill, and will be working
to secure passage of it. We will also seek some minor modifications in
order to improve the bill at the margins -- for example, to improve
the access to information section in order to support putting federal
information online and enabling innovative non-profit groups to
make it available as demonstration projects, and to clarify that the
broadband provisions are an option, not a mandate. Overall, however,
EFF believes this is a substantive advance that merits widespread
discussion and support.
EFF will make a copy of the full text of the bill in our ftp archives
(ftp.eff.org).
Section-by-section review:
*************************
Sections 1 and 2 include the bill's title ("High Performance Computing
and High Speed Networking Applications Act of 1993") and the
Congressional findings that support the need for this legislation.
Sec. 3. Applications of the High Performance Computing Program.
Contains the major provisions, which are proposed as an amendment
to the original HPCA. Sections 301 through 305 cover administrative
issues.
Sec. 301 establishes the applications program. The bill improves on S.
4 by specifying that the applications should be "designed to be
accessible and usable by all persons in the United States"; adds the
provision of government information to the program purposes, and
mandates that the Plan to create applications must take into account
the recommendations of the High Performance Computing Advisory
Committee, which this bill also mandates will include representatives
of the research, K-12, higher education, and library communities,
consumer and public interest groups, network providers, and the
computer, telecommunications and information industries.
Sec. 302 describes the Plan to implement the program. The Plan
must: (a) be submitted within one year and revised at least once
every two years; (b) include goals and priorities, specific
responsibilities of agencies and departments to meet goals,
recommend funding levels to departments; and (c) include progress
reports, evaluations and recommendations.
Sec. 303 describes the role of the Federal Coordinating Committee for
Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) for coordination
among agencies and budget review.
Sec. 304 creates a new "Coordinator" position, which is to be chosen
from the staff of the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. The Coordinator is to monitor the agencies, report any
discrepancies to the OSTP Director, assist in interagency coordination,
and act as Congressional and public liaison.
Sec. 305 describes the annual reports that each agency is to submit
to OMB and OMB's review and report to the President.
The major application areas:
***************************
Sec. 306 creates a program to foster network access. This is a new
provision to create local networks of K-12 schools, libraries, state and
local governments, etc. It includes support for buying hardware and
connecting those local nets to the Internet; it also expands training to
teachers, students, librarians, government personnel to use networks
and the Internet. Note however, that the provisions specify
broadband connections, which could slow down the program,
increase the costs, and reduce the beneficiaries if institutions are not
free to choose the most appropriate-sized connection for their needs.
NSF is the lead agency. Over the next five years, it authorizes 20, 60,
70, 80 and 80 million dollars (i.e., $310 million).
Sec. 307 calls for research into security and privacy of information,
integrity of digital information, and ease of use for non specialists.
This is also a new provision with no counterpart in S. 4. It authorizes
10, 30, 35, 38, and 38 million dollars over the next five years for
these activities (i.e., $151 million). No lead agency is specified.
Sec. 308 outlines educational applications. H.R. 1757 broadens the
range of educational applications compared to S. 4, and adds
additional features to support the intent of this section. New
provisions include: support for hardware and software purchases in
order to demonstrate the educational value of the Internet; support
for systems, software and networks for "informal education"
including job training and life-long learning applications outside of
school; a mandate to address the needs of rural and urban
communities; a clearinghouse of K-12 network projects and available
educational resources; and the creation of undergraduate level
course materials for student teachers to familiarize them with the
Internet and educational uses of computer and networking
applications. Other elements are similar to or better specified
versions of provisions found in S. 4 that call for projects to enable K-
12 students and teachers to communicate with peers and university
level students and teachers, and to gain access to educational
materials and other computing resources. NSF is directed to be the
lead agency, and the section authorizes 24, 70, 82, 94 and 94 million
dollars over the next five years ($364 million) for education.
Sec. 309 outlines health care applications. This is a substantially
expanded version of S. 4's health care section. The lead agency is
shifted from the National Library of Medicine to the Department of
Health and Human Services, which is to implement it through the
NLM, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease
Control. H.R. 1757 also splits health care applications into three
subsections. Besides clinical information systems, which repeats S. 4's
six health care provisions for clinicians, H.R. 1757 adds two sections
of entirely new provisions: health information to public, and health
delivery systems and population data sets for epidemiology. The
section authorizes 24, 70, 82, 94, and 94 million dollars ($364
million) over the next five years.
Applications for health information to the public include: consumer-
oriented, interactive, multimedia materials for health promotion and
distribution of such materials to public access points, such as
community health and human service agencies, schools and public
libraries; interactive, multimedia materials to assist patients in
deciding among health care options; interfaces to allow non
specialists ease of access and use; and the means to provide
customized preventative and treatment information to non
specialists.
Applications for health delivery systems and population data sets
include: networks and software for communication among local
public and private health and human service providers, e.g., health
centers, clinics, entitlement offices, and school based clinics to enable
social service providers to deliver coordinated services; access for
health care providers to current clinic-based health promotion and
disease prevention recommendations and two-way links with
prevention specialists at state and local health departments; and
database technologies to help clinicians diagnose, treat, and provide
preventative information to patients and facilitate the gathering of
systematic population data sets in order to measure treatments and
national health trends.
Sec. 310 describes the applications programs for libraries. Most of
this section describes the same digital library applications found in S.
4: terabit storage systems accessible by thousands of simultaneous
users; high speed digitizing of printed and photographic materials;
tools to search huge volumes of stored text, imagery, data and sound;
encouragement of the development and adoption of standards; smart
systems to categorize and organize information; training for
librarians and database users; making networked databases easy to
use; and visualization tools to help browse through large volumes of
imagery. The subsection on the development of prototypes, however,
is expanded in three significant ways. H.R. 1757 specifies that the
prototypes should be testbeds for all the features noted above. Most
importantly, H.R. 1757 specifies that the prototype libraries will be
accessible to the public via the Internet. Lastly, H.R. 1757 requests
an evaluation of the suitability and utility of distributing electronic
information over the Internet, including an assessment of the
barriers that hinder the use of the Internet for this purpose. H.R.
1757 also directs NASA to develop databases of remote-sensing
images to be made available over computer networks. NSF is named
as the lead agency, and 10, 30, 35, 44, and 44 million dollars ($163
million) is authorized over five years. For its part, NASA is
authorized 6, 16, 20, 20, and 20 million dollars ($82 million) for the
same period.
Sec. 311 calls for applications for government information. H.R. 1757
has a set of new provisions to promote public access to information
generated by Federal, state and local governments. H.R. 1757 calls for
projects that connect depository libraries and other sources of
government information to the Internet to enable access to Federal,
state and local government information, and access to "related
resources" as well as linkages among libraries in order to enhance
the use of that information. H.R. 1757 also calls for the creation of
technologies to increase access to and effective use of government
information in support of three goals: research and education;
economic development; and an informed citizenry. Finally, the
section mandates the creation of a Federal information locator to help
the public find and retrieve government information. No agency is
given coordinating or lead responsibilities, but the bill authorizes 8,
24, 26 30 and 30 million dollars over the next five years ($118
million).
Other provisions:
****************
Section 4 changes the High Performance Computing Advisory
Committee into a Computing *and Applications* Advisory Committee.
It also adds representatives from K-12, consumer and public interest
groups, and computer, telecommunications, and information
industries. Among the Committee responsibilities is to assess
whether the applications that are developed successfully address the
needs of the targeted populations and to estimate the number of
users served by the applications.
Section 5 rewrites Section 102 of the HPCA. Whereas HPCA proposed
that portions of the NREN would reach gigabit transmission rates "to
the extent technically feasible," this bill appears to assume gigabit
networking and moves on to redefine test-bed networks separately.
The Network Program now would have three parts: R&D to support
gigabit transmission speeds; experimental test-beds networks to
develop advanced networking technologies in the quest for gigabit
networks and to support applications that exceed what commercial
networks can handle; and a connections program to help researchers,
educators and students obtain access to and use of the Internet.
H.R. 1757 adds a new section to the HPCA, 102(d), that would codify
the distinction between experimental, "bleeding-edge" research
networks and services available off-the-shelf from commercial
service providers. The bill specifies that eighteen months after the
bill is enacted, test bed networks are forbidden to provide services
that could otherwise be provided satisfactorily over commercial
networks.
Other sections include one that creates a new OSTP Associate Director
to oversee Federal efforts to disseminate scientific and technical
information, and a handful of miscellaneous provisions.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Program Announcement for Palo Alto, California
from Ted Haynes of the Churchill Club
Terry Winograd and Jim Warren will speak on "The Future of
Computing and Its Impact on Society", May 27, 1993, at the Hyatt
Rickey's, Palo Alto, California; sponsored by the Churchill Club (415-
321-9016). A reception and a light dinner begin at 6:00 PM with the
program starting at 6:45 PM.
Terry Winograd is a Professor of Computer Science at Stanford and a
founder of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Jim
Warren is a MicroTimes columnist, founder of Infoworld, and a
founder of the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conferences. They
will be joined by Denny Brown, founder of Coherent Thought and
President of Expert Support.
Will more powerful computers turn into twenty-first century
servants or Big Brother? What are the implications for employment,
economic growth, privacy, education, and the family? Come and find
out!
The Churchill Club, founded in 1985, is a non-profit public affairs
organization in Silicon Valley that provides a non-partisan forum on
timely issues. Past speakers include Edward Teller, Bill Joy, Bill
Clinton and Sandra Kurtzig. The club has 1100 members of which
about 66% work in a "high tech" related company.
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20003 USA
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)
To be included in EFF's email mailing list, send request to:
eff@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 biÐweekly 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 nonÐprofit
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
Membership Coordinator
666 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003
I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
I wish to renew my membership in 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 nonÐprofit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ].
Initials:___________________________
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 8 5/14/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
604 lines
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Clipper Chip-Related Excerpts from:
A Letter from the Digital Privacy and Security Working Group
to President Clinton
A Selection of Questions Submitted by the Working Group
Sent to President Clinton
Whit Diffie's Testimony Before the House Subcommittee on Science
A Request for Public Comment by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Background:
As reported in issue 5.06 of EFFector Online, on April 16, 1993, the
Clinton Administration announced its proposal for a new national
cryptography policy. Under this proposed policy, a voice encryption
standard utilizing a Clipper Chip would be adopted, and two escrow
agents would each hold half of a code key that could be used to
decrypt messages encrypted by a particular Clipper Chip. This would
enable law enforcement officers to conduct court-authorized
wiretaps of encrypted messages. EFF immediately released an
analysis of the proposal, expressing our concerns about the secrecy
surrounding the development of the Clipper Chip and the
Administration's intention to keep the encryption algorithm
classified. Here are some of the activities EFF and others have
engaged in since that announcement was made.
************************************************************************
On May 7, 1993, the Digital Privacy and Security Working Group sent
a letter to President Clinton expressing the Group's concerns and
asking that a public dialogue be initiated to discuss the issue further.
The Digital Privacy and Security Working Group is a coalition of
communications and computer companies and associations and
consumer and privacy advocates that was formed almost a decade
ago and is chaired by EFF's Executive Director, Jerry Berman. The
Working Group has been concerned that no inquiry had been made
before the release of the proposed government Clipper standard.
The Working Group proposed that the Group be included in any
future review process of the Administration's encryption proposal.
Here are some highlights from the Working Group's letter to the
President:
"Dear Mr. President:
"On April 16 you initiated a broad industry/government review of
privacy and cryptography policies. We applaud your efforts to
develop a greater understanding of these complex issues. With the
end of the Cold War and the rapid evolution of technology in the
computer and communications industries, a comprehensive review of
our communications security policies such as you have directed is
sorely needed. As the world becomes linked by a myriad of
interconnected digital networks, and computer and communications
technologies converge, both government and the private sector need
to evaluate information security and privacy issues. Of course, any
overall policy must recognize the authorized law enforcement and
national security needs, and must evaluate the impact on American
competitiveness.
. . .
"While we recognize the importance of authorized national security
and law enforcement needs, we believe that there are fundamental
privacy and other constitutional rights that must be taken into
account when any domestic surveillance scheme is proposed.
Moreover, it is unclear how your proposal and the overall review of
cryptography policy will impact on U.S. export controls. Over the
past two years, the Digital Privacy and Security Working Group has
held numerous meetings at which both public and private sector
representatives have exchanged technical and legal information with
the law enforcement community on just such issues.
"In the White House press release of April 16, the Press Secretary
stated that you have 'directed early and frequent consultations with
affected industries...and groups that advocate the privacy rights of
individuals...'
"Our group of over 50 members -- from computer software and
hardware firms, to telecommunications companies and energy
companies, to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic
Frontier Foundation -- requests the opportunity to participate in
developing policy on the broad range of security and privacy issues
being considered, including appropriate encryption techniques. We
believe that our membership has the breadth and depth of expertise
and experience that would allow us to provide an excellent forum for
the development of new policies in these areas.
"During the past few weeks, the Working Group has met several
times to identify issues that need to be addressed. Several aspects of
the Administration's encryption proposal warrant further discussion,
including, but not limited to:
o whether a key escrow system will produce the desired law
enforcement results;
o the level of strength and integrity of the algorithm and
the security of the key escrow system;
o the advisability of a government-developed and classified
algorithm;
o its practicality and commercial acceptability;
o the effect of the proposal on American competitiveness and
the balance of trade;
o possible implications for the development of digital
communications; and,
o the effect on the right to privacy and other constitutional
rights.
"A detailed list of our questions relating to this subject is being
prepared to facilitate this dialogue.
"We are making our views known to officials within your
Administration and Members of Congress as the review begins. We
would welcome the opportunity to participate in the review process
and look forward to working with you and your Administration on
this important issue in the coming months. Representatives of the
Digital Privacy and Security Working Group are anxious to meet with
your staff at their earliest convenience to establish a consultation
process."
Sincerely,
abcd, The Microcomputer Industry Association Advanced Network &
Services, Inc.
American Civil Liberties Union
Apple Computer, Inc.
AT&T
Business Software Alliance
Cavanagh Associates, Inc.
Cellular Telephone Industry Association
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Computer & Business
Equipment Manufacturers Association Computer & Communications
Industry Association Crest Industries, Inc.
Digital Equipment Corporation
EDUCOM
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Mail Association
Hewlett-Packard Company
IBM
Information Technology Association of America Information
Industry Association
Iris Associates
Lotus Development Corporation
McCaw Cellular Communications
MCI
Microsoft Corporation
RSA Data Security, Inc.
Software Publishers Association
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Toolmaker, Inc.
Trusted Information Systems
United States Telephone Association
***********************************************************************
Today, Friday, May 14, 1993, the Digital Privacy and Security
Working Group sent its list of questions on to the President. The list
contained over 100 questions. A sample of the questions follows:
(for a complete list of the questions, please contact us at eff@eff.org)
"Why the secrecy in which the encryption code scheme was
developed? Were any members of the computer, communications, or
security industries consulted? Were any privacy experts consulted?
Has the Justice Department or the White House Office of Legal
Counsel considered the constitutional implications?"
"If American firms are not able to have their encryption experts
examine the algorithm, how can they be sure that there is no 'trap
door' that would allow any Clipper Chip security system to be
overridden?"
"Will this system be truly voluntary? If so, won't criminals and
terrorists just use some other type of encryption?"
"It appears that once a given chip has been compromised due to use
of the escrowed keys, the chip and the equipment it is used in are
vulnerable forever. Is there any mechanism or program to re-key or
replace compromised hardware? Is there any method for a potential
acquiring party to verify whether the keys on a given chip have
been compromised? Who should bear the cost of replacement or re-
keying of compromised hardware?"
"Who will be the agents for the keys? How secure will they be from
the outside and from the inside? What is the cost of maintaining the
escrow system? Who will pay? Who will profit?"
"If the Administration is so confident about the level of security of
the Clipper Chip scheme, why will classified information not be
encrypted with it?"
"Is law enforcement permitted to identify the specific piece of
communications equipment without obtaining a warrant? If
encrypted communications include the serial number ("chip family
key"), will law enforcement be able to keep track of communications
traffic and track private citizens without even securing the keys
from the escrow agents?"
"Does the escrow system violate the letter or the spirit of the Fourth
Amendment protections which safeguard citizens against intrusive
law enforcement practices?"
"Why weren't other Chip manufacturers given the chance to bid on
the chip production process? Why was the choice made to have only
one manufacturer?"
"What testing has been done to verify the ability of Clipper to work
across the panoply of new emerging technologies? If the underlying
digital transport protocol drops a bit or two, will that interfere with
Clipper operation? How critical is synchronization of the bit stream
for Clipper operation? Has this technology been tested with ISDN,
TDMA, Cellular, CDMA Cellular, ATM, SONET, SMDS, etc. and other
emerging technologies? What effect does Clipper have on the
Cellular Authentication and Voice Encryption (CAVE) algorithm? Are
these differences for key generation, authentication, or voice
privacy?"
"If Clipper won't be commercially accepted abroad, and export
controls continue to prohibit the exportation of other encryption
schemes, isn't the US. government limiting American companies to a
US. market?"
"What governmental regulations will apply to imports of devices
containing the Clipper Chip? Given that most US. companies source
most customer premise equipment (e.g., telephones, fax machines,
etc.) offshore, how will the logistics be handled for the export of the
Clipper Chip as a component, and the subsequent import of the
device containing the chip? Will the US. permit non-US.
manufacturers to have the Clipper algorithm? If not, how will the
Administration justify this trade barrier?"
"There are a number of companies that employ non-escrowed
cryptography in their products today. These products range from
secure voice, data, and fax, to secure e-mail, electronic forms, and
software distribution, to name but a few. With over a million such
products in use today, what does the Clipper scheme foretell for
these products and the many corporations and individuals that are
invested in them and use them? Will the investment made by the
vendors in encryption-enhanced products be protected? If so, how?
Is it envisioned that they will add escrow features to their products
or be asked to employ Clipper?"
"If the outcome of the policy review is not pre-ordained, then the
process to analyze the issues and arrive at solutions would seem to
need a great deal of definition. What roles have been identified for
Congress, the private sector, and other interested parties? Who is
coordinating the process?"
**********************************************************************
On May 11, 1993, Whitfield Diffie, one of the original pioneers of the
public key encryption standard and Distinguished Engineer at Sun
Microsystems, Inc., testified before the House Subcommittee on
Science about his concerns with the Clipper Chip proposal.
Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) heads that committee and
initiated these hearings to discuss security issues regarding the
National Research and Education Network (NREN). Here are some
highlights from Whitfield Diffie's testimony:
. . .
"In the month that has elapsed since the announcement, we have
studied the Clipper chip proposal as carefully as the available
information permits. We conclude that such a proposal is at best
premature and at worst will have a damaging effect on both business
security and civil rights without making any improvement in law
enforcement.
"To give you some idea of the importance of the issues this raises, I'd
like to suggest that you think about what are the most essential
security mechanisms in your daily life and work. I believe you will
realize that the most important things any of you ever do by way of
security have nothing to do with guards, fences, badges, or safes. Far
and away the most important element of your security is that you
recognize your family, your friends, and your colleagues. Probably
second to that is that you sign your signature, which provides the
people to whom you give letters, checks, or documents, with a way of
proving to third parties that you have said or promised something.
Finally you engage in private conversations, saying things to your
loved ones, your friends, or your staff that you do not wish to be
overheard by anyone else.
"These three mechanisms lean heavily on the physical: face to face
contact between people or the exchange of written messages. At this
moment in history, however, we are transferring our medium of
social interaction from the physical to the electronic at a pace limited
only by the development of our technology. Many of us spend half
the day on the telephone talking to people we may visit in person at
most a few times a year and the other half exchanging electronic
mail with people we never meet in person.
"Communication security has traditionally been seen as an arcane
security technology of real concern only to the military and perhaps
the banks and oil companies. Viewed in light of the observations
above, however, it is revealed as nothing less than the
transplantation of fundamental social mechanisms from the world of
face to face meetings and pen and ink communication into a world of
electronic mail, video conferences, electronic funds transfers,
electronic data interchange, and, in the not too distant future,
digital money and electronic voting.
"No right of private conversation was enumerated in the constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented.
"Now, however, we are on the verge of a world in which electronic
communication is both so good and so inexpensive that intimate
business and personal relationships will flourish between parties
who can at most occasionally afford the luxury of traveling to visit
each other. If we do not accept the right of these people to protect
the privacy of their communication, we take a long step in the
direction of a world in which privacy will belong only to the rich.
"The import of this is clear: The decisions we make about
communication security today will determine the kind of society we
live in tomorrow.
. . .
"Eavesdropping, as its name reminds us, is not a new phenomenon.
But in spite of the fact that police and spies have been doing it for a
long time, it has acquired a whole new dimension since the invention
of the telegraph.
"Prior to electronic communication, it was a hit or miss affair. Postal
services as we know them today are a fairly new phenomenon and
messages were carried by a variety of couriers, travelers, and
merchants. Sensitive messages in particular, did not necessarily go
by standardized channels. Paul Revere, who is generally remembered
for only one short ride, was the American Revolution's courier,
traveling routinely from Boston to Philadelphia with his saddle bags
full of political broadsides.
"Even when a letter was intercepted, opened, and read, there was no
guarantee, despite some people's great skill with flaps and seals, that
the victim would not notice the intrusion.
"The development of the telephone, telegraph, and radio have given
the spies a systematic way of intercepting messages. The telephone
provides a means of communication so effective and convenient that
even people who are aware of the danger routinely put aside their
caution and use it to convey sensitive information. Digital switching
has helped eavesdroppers immensely in automating their activities
and made it possible for them to do their listening a long way from
the target with negligible chance of detection.
. . .
"The law enforcement function of the Clipper system, as it has been
described, is not difficult to bypass. Users who have faith in the
secret Skipjack algorithm and merely want to protect themselves
from compromise via the Law Enforcement Exploitation Field, need
only encrypt that one item at the start of transmission. In many
systems, this would require very small changes to supporting
programs already present. This makes it likely that if Clipper chips
become as freely available as has been suggested, many products
will employ them in ways that defeat a major objective of the plan.
. . .
"I urge the committee to take what is good in the Administration's
proposal and reject what is bad.
o The Skipjack algorithm and every other aspect of this proposal
should be made public, not only to expose them to public scrutiny
but to guarantee that once made available as standards they will not
be prematurely withdrawn. Configuration control techniques
pioneered by the public community can be used to verify that some
pieces of equipment conform to government standards stricter than
the commercial where that is appropriate.
o I likewise urge the committee to recognize that the right
to private conversation must not be sacrificed as we move into a
telecommunicated world and reject the Law Enforcement Exploitation
Function and the draconian regulation that would necessarily come
with it.
o I further urge the committee to press the Administration
to accept the need for a sound international security technology
appropriate to the increasingly international character of the world's
economy."
************************************************************************
The Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will be holding
hearings on the Clipper Chip from June 2-4, 1993, at NIST in
Gaithersburg, MD. Public submissions are requested and are due by
4:00 p.m. EDT, May 27, 1993. Submissions should be sent to:
Cryptographic Issue Statements
Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board Technology
Building, Room B-154
National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD
20899
fax: 301/948-1784
Submissions may also be sent electronically to:
crypto@csrc.ncsl.nist.gov
For more information about the NIST meeting, including a more
detailed request for statements and an agenda, send a note to
eff@eff.org.
**If you do submit anything to NIST, EFF would be interested in a
copy of your statement, as well. Thanks.**
. . .
"Issues on which comments are sought include the following:
"1. CRYPTOGRAPHIC POLICIES AND SOCIAL/PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES
"Public and Social policy aspects of the government-developed 'key
escrow' chip and, more generally, escrowed key technology and
government cryptographic policies.
"Issues involved in balancing various interests affected by
government cryptographic policies.
"2. LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
"Consequences of the government-developed 'key escrow' chip
technology and, more generally, key escrow technology and
government cryptographic policies.
"3. INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY
"Issues and impacts of cryptographic-related statutes, regulations,
and standards, both national and international, upon individual
privacy.
"Issues related to the privacy impacts of the government-developed
'key escrow' chip and 'key escrow' technology generally.
"4. QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO AMERICAN INDUSTRY
. . .
"5. QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO THE AMERICAN BUSINESS COMMUNITY
. . .
"6. OTHER
"Please describe any other impacts arising from Federal government
cryptographic policies and regulations.
"Please describe any other impacts upon the Federal government in
the protection of unclassified computer systems.
"Are there any other comments you wish to share?
"The Board agenda will include a period of time, not to exceed ten
hours, for oral presentations of summaries of selected written
statements submitted to the Board by May 27, 1993. As appropriate
and to the extent possible, speakers addressing the same topic will
be grouped together. Speakers, prescheduled by the Secretariat and
notified in advance, will be allotted fifteen to thirty minutes to orally
present their written statements. Individuals and organizations
submitting written materials are requested to advise the Secretariat
if they would be interested in orally summarizing their materials for
the Board at the meeting.
"Another period of time, not to exceed one hour, will be reserved for
oral comments and questions from the public. Each speaker will be
allotted up to five minutes; it will be necessary to strictly control the
length of presentations to maximize public participation and the
number of presentations.
"Except as provided for above, participation in the Board's
discussions during the meeting will be at the discretion of the
Designated Federal Official.
"Approximately thirty seats will be available for the public, including
three seats reserved for the media. Seats will be available on a first-
come, first-served basis.
"FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lynn McNulty, Executive
Secretary and Associate Director for Computer Security, Computer
Systems Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Building 225, Room B154, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone:
(301) 975-3240.
"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background information on the
government-developed "key escrow" chip proposal is available from
the Board Secretariat; see address in 'for further information' section.
Also, information on the government-developed 'key escrow' chip is
available electronically from the NIST computer security bulletin
board, phone 301-948-5717.
"The Board intends to stress the public and social policy aspects, the
legal and Constitutional consequences of this technology, and the
impacts upon American business and industry during its meeting.
"It is the Board's intention to create, as a product of this meeting, a
publicly available digest of the important points of discussion,
conclusions (if any) that might be reached, and an inventory of the
policy issues that need to be considered by the government. Within
the procedures described above, public participation is encouraged
and solicited."
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20003 USA
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)
Introduction and article assembly by Shari Steele
(ssteele@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: $_______
I wish to renew my membership in 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:___________________________
==============================================================================
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
EFF Comments to NIST
Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference 1994
Summary of Rural Datafications Conference
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
EFF Comments to the NIST (the National Institute of Standards and
Technology:
May 27, 1993
Before the
COMPUTER SYSTEM SECURITY AND PRIVACY ADVISORY BOARD
Technology Building, Room B-154
National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD
20899
COMMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
Regarding
Key Escrow Chip Cryptographic Technology and Government
Cryptographic Policies and Regulations
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) commends the Computer
System Security and Privacy Advisory Board for offering the public
the opportunity to comment on developments in cryptography and
communications privacy policy. Recent Administration proposals,
including use of the Clipper Chip and establishment of a government-
controlled key escrow system, raise questions that cut to the core of
privacy protection in the age of digital communication technology.
The questions noted by the Advisory Board in its Notice of Open
Meeting (58 FR 28855) reflect a broad range of concerns, from civil
liberties to global competitiveness. The Digital Privacy and Security
Working Group -- a cooperative effort of civil liberties organizations
and corporate users and developers of communication technology
which is chaired by the EFF -- has also submitted over one hundred
questions to the Administration. (These questions are being
submitted to the Advisory Board under separate cover on behalf of
the Working Group.) That there are so many questions demonstrates
the need for a comprehensive review of cryptography and privacy
policy.
We are encouraged that the Administration has expressed a
willingness to undertake such a review. However, it has become clear
that plans for rapid introduction of the Clipper Chip could
unacceptably distort this important policy review. The
Administration has made no secret of the fact that it hopes to use
government purchasing power to promote Clipper as a de facto
standard for encryption. With Clipper on the market, the policy
process will be biased toward a long-term solution such as Clipper
with key escrow. Moreover, the rush to introduce Clipper is already
forcing a hasty policy review which may fail to provide adequate
public dialogue on the fundamental privacy questions which must be
resolved to reach a satisfactory cryptography policy. Based on the
depth and complexity of questions raised by this review, EFF
believes that no solution, with Clipper Chip or otherwise, should be
adopted by the government until the comprehensive cryptography
review initiated by the Administration is complete.
EFF is a nonprofit, public interest organization whose public policy
mission is to insure that the new electronic highways emerging from
the convergence of telephone, cable, broadcast, and other
communications technologies enhance free speech and privacy rights,
and are open and accessible to all segments of society.
In these comments, we will elaborate on questions 1, 2, and 3 listed
in the Advisory Board's Notice. We offer these comments primarily to
raise additional questions that must be answered during the course
of the Administration's policy review.
A. WILL PARTICULAR ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGIES BE MANDATED OR
PROSCRIBED?: A THRESHOLD QUESTION
Unraveling the current encryption policy tangle must begin with one
threshold question: will there come a day when the federal
government controls the domestic use of encryption through
mandated key escrow schemes or outright prohibitions against the
use of particular encryption technologies? Is Clipper the first step in
this direction? A mandatory encryption regime raises profound
constitutional questions, some of which we will discuss below. So far,
the Administration has not declared that use of Clipper will be
mandatory, but several factors point in that direction:
1. Secrecy of the algorithm justified by need to ensure key escrow
compliance:
Many parties have already questioned the need for a secret
algorithm, especially given the existence of robust, public-domain
encryption techniques. The most common explanation given for use
of a secret algorithm is the need to prevent users from by-passing
the key escrow system proposed along with the Clipper Chip. If the
system is truly voluntary, then why go to such lengths to ensure
compliance with the escrow procedure?
2. How does a voluntary system solve law enforcement's problems?
The major stated rationale for government intervention in the
domestic encryption arena is to ensure that law enforcement has
access to criminal communications, even if they are encrypted. Yet, a
voluntary scheme seems inadequate to meet this goal. Criminals who
seek to avoid interception and decryption of their communications
would simply use another system, free from escrow provisions.
Unless a government-proposed encryption scheme is mandatory, it
would fail to achieve its primary law enforcement purpose. In a
voluntary regime, only the law-abiding would use the escrow
system.
B. POLICY CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT-RUN KEY ESCROW SYSTEM
Even if government-proposed encryption standards remain
voluntary, the use of key escrow systems still raises serious
concerns:
1. Is it wise to rely on government agencies, or government-selected
private institutions to protect the communications privacy of all who
would someday use a system such as Clipper?
2. Will the public ever trust a secret algorithm with an escrow
system enough to make such a standard widely used?
C. CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLS ON
USE OF ENCRYPTION
Beyond the present voluntary system is the possibility that specific
government controls on domestic encryption could be enacted. Any
attempt to mandate a particular cryptographic standard for private
communications, a requirement that an escrow system be used, or a
prohibition against the use of specific encryption algorithms, would
raise fundamental constitutional questions. In order to appreciate the
importance of the concerns raised, we must recognize that we are
entering an era in which most of society will rely on encryption to
protect the privacy of their electronic communications. The following
questions arise:
1. Does a key escrow system force a mass waiver of all users' Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination?
The Fifth Amendment protects individuals facing criminal charges
from having to reveal information which might incriminate them at
trial. So far, no court has determined whether or not the Fifth
Amendment allows a defendant to refuse to disclose his or her
cryptographic key. As society and technology have changed, courts
and legislatures have gradually adapted fundamental constitutional
rights to new circumstances. The age of digital communications
brings many such challenges to be resolved. Such decisions require
careful, deliberate action. But the existence of a key escrow system
would have the effect of waiving this right for every person who
used the system in a single step. We believe that this question
certainly deserves more discussion.
2. Does a mandatory key escrow system violate the Fourth
Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable search and seizure"?
In the era where people work for "virtual corporations" and conduct
personal and political lives in cyberspace, the distinction between
communication of information and storage of information is
increasingly vague. The organization in which one works or lives may
constitute a single virtual space, but be physically dispersed. So, the
papers and files of the organization or individual may be moved
within the organization by means of telecommunications technology.
Until now, the law of search and seizure has made a sharp distinction
between, on the one hand, seizures of papers and other items in a
person's physical possession, and on the other hand, wiretapping of
communications. Seizure of papers or personal effects must be
conducted with the owner's knowledge, upon presentation of a
search warrant. Only in the exceptional case of wiretapping, may a
person's privacy be invaded by law enforcement without
simultaneously informing the target. Instantaneous access to
encryption keys, without prior notice to the communicating parties,
may well constitute a secret search, if the target is a virtual
organization or an individual whose "papers" are physically
dispersed. Under the Fourth Amendment, secret searches are
unconstitutional.
3. Does prohibition against use of certain cryptographic techniques
infringe individuals' right to free speech?
Any government restriction on or control of speech is to be regarded
with the utmost scrutiny. Prohibiting the use of a particular form of
cryptography for the express purpose of making communication
intelligible to law enforcement is akin to prohibiting anyone from
speaking a language not understood by law enforcement. Some may
argue that cryptography limitations are controls on the "time, place
and manner" of speech, and therefore subject to a more lenient legal
standard. However, time, place and manner restrictions that have
been upheld by courts include laws which limit the volume of
speakers from interfering with surrounding activities, or those which
confine demonstrators to certain physical areas.
No court has ever upheld an outright ban on the use of a particular
language. Moreover, even a time, place and manner restriction must
be shown to be the "least restrictive means" of accomplishing the
government's goal. It is precisely this question -- the availability of
alternatives which could solve law enforcement's actual problems --
that must be explored before a solution such as Clipper is promoted.
D. PUBLIC PROCESS FOR CRYPTOGRAPHY POLICY
As this Advisory Board is well aware, the Computer Security Act of
1987 clearly established that neither military nor law enforcement
agencies are the proper protectors of personal privacy. When
considering the law, Congress asked, "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." Recent Administration announcements regarding the Clipper
Chip suggest that the principle established in the 1987 Act has been
circumvented. For example, this Advisory Board was not consulted
with until after public outcry over the Clipper announcements. Not
only does the initial failure to consult eschew the guidance of the
1987 Act, but also it ignored the fact that this Advisory Board was
already in the process of conducting a cryptography review.
As important as the principle of civilian control was in 1987, it is
even more critical today. The more individuals around the country
come to depend on secure communications to protect their privacy,
the more important it is to conduct privacy and security policy
dialogues in public, civilian forums.
CONCLUSION
The EFF thanks the Advisory Board for the opportunity to comment
on these critical public policy issues. In light of the wide range of
difficult issues raised in this inquiry, we encourage the Advisory
Board to call on the Administration to delay the introduction of
Clipper-based products until a thorough, public dialogue on
encryption and privacy policy has been completed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Jerry Berman
Executive Director
jberman@eff.org
Daniel J. Weitzner
Senior Staff Counsel
djw@eff.org
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Computers, Freedom and Privacy '94 Announcement
The fourth annual conference, "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy,"
will be held in Chicago, Il., March 23-26, 1994. This conference will
be jointly sponsored by the Association for Computing Machinery
(ACM) and The John Marshall Law School. George B. Trubow,
professor of law and director of the Center for Informatics Law at
John Marshall, is general chairman of the conference. The series
began in 1991 with a conference in Los Angeles, and subsequent
meetings took place in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, in
successive years. Each conference has addressed a broad range of
issues confronting the "information society" in this era of the
computer revolution.
The advance of computer and communications technologies holds
great promise for individuals and society. From conveniences for
consumers and efficiencies in commerce to improved public health
and safety and increased knowledge of and participation in
government and community, these technologies are fundamentally
transforming our environment and our lives.
At the same time, these technologies present challenges to the idea
of a free and open society. Personal privacy is increasingly at risk
from invasions by high-tech surveillance and monitoring; a myriad of
personal information data bases expose private life to constant
scrutiny; new forms of illegal activity may threaten the traditional
barriers between citizen and state and present new tests of
Constitutional protection; geographic boundaries of state and nation
may be recast by information exchange that knows no boundaries as
governments and economies are caught up in global data networks.
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '94 will present an assemblage of
experts, advocates and interested parties from diverse perspectives
and disciplines to consider the effects on freedom and privacy
resulting from the rapid technological advances in computer and
telecommunication science. Participants come from fields of
computer science, communications, law, business and commerce,
research, government, education, the media, health, public advocacy
and consumer affairs, and a variety of other backgrounds. A series of
pre-conference tutorials will be offered on March 23, 1994, with the
conference program beginning on Thursday, March 24, and running
through Saturday, March 26, 1994.
The emphasis in '94 will be on examining the many potential uses of
new technology and considering recommendations for dealing with
them. "We will be looking for specific suggestions to harness the new
technologies so society can enjoy the benefits while avoiding
negative implications," said Trubow. "We must manage the
technology, or it will manage us," he added.
Trubow is putting out a call for papers or program suggestions.
"Anyone who is doing a paper relevant to our subject matter, or who
has an idea for a program presentation that will demonstrate new
computer or communications technology and suggest what can be
done with it, is invited to let us know about it." Any proposal must
state the title of the paper or program, describe the theme and
content in a short paragraph, and set out the credentials and
experience of the author or suggested speakers. Conference
communications should be sent to:
CFP'94
John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Ct.
Chicago, IL 60604
(Voice: 312-987-1419; Fax: 312-427-8307; E-mail: CFP94@jmls.edu)
Trubow anticipates that announcement of a student writing
competition for CFP'94 will be made soon, together with information
regarding the availability of a limited number of student
scholarships for the conference. Trubow said, "I expect the
organizational structure for CFP'94, including the designation of
program committees, to be completed by about the first of August, to
allow plenty of time for the development of a stimulating and
informative conference."
The venerable Palmer House, a Hilton hotel located at the corner of
State Street and Washington Ave. in Chicago's "loop," and only about
a block from the John Marshall Law School buildings, will be the
conference headquarters. Room reservations should be made directly
with the hotel, mentioning John Marshall Law School or "CFP'94" to
get the special conference rate of $99.00, plus tax.
The Palmer House Hilton
17 E. Monroe., Chicago, Il., 60603
Tel: 312-726-7500; 1-800-HILTONS; Fax 312-263-2556
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Preliminary Report -- Rural Datafication Conference
Chicago, May 13 & 14, 1993
Over 200 hundred people from all over the United States and Canada
gathered in Chicago last week to participate in _Rural Datafication:
achieving the goal of ubiquitous access to the Internet_. The
conference was sponsored by CICNet and nine cooperating state
communications networks or organizations: NetILLINOIS, INDNet,
IREN, MichNet, MRNet, NYSERNet, PREPnet, WiscNet, and WVNET. Two
of the represented states (Minnesota and Indiana) took the
opportunity to caucus among themselves to further define their own
activities.
The program began Thursday afternoon with hosted discussion
groups intended to discover where we could make improvements in
networked information services. Then a panel described current
successful projects in British Columbia (Roger Hart), North Dakota
(Dan Pullen), Montana (Frank Odasz), Washington, Alaska, and Oregon
(Sherrilynne Fuller), Pennsylvania (Art Hussey), and Massachusetts
(Miles Fidelman). Questions from the panel and the audience would
have kept the room filled far into the night had the moderator not
sent everyone out to dinner.
The next morning's sessions featured knowledgeable speakers open
to interaction with the other conference attendees. Mike Staman set
the stage. He was followed by Ross Stapleton who spoke about
recognizing that our government is also not well-networked; by
Simona Nass who spoke about some of the legal and policy issues of
networked communities; by Anthony Riddle who spoke about how
the networked information community could build from the
experiences of the community access television people; and by
George Baldwin who spoke about using networked information to
preserve Native American cultures. Rick Gates finished up the
morning with a presentation that described his efforts to teach
information discovery on the nets using play.
The afternoon session featured reports from the hosted discussion
groups on agriculture, on health care and health education, on
libraries, on post-secondary education, on community and
government information, and on K-12 education. Joel Hartman of
Bradley University and netILLINOIS moderated.
The interaction among the attendees and between and with the
speakers and panelists brought the most benefit, according to some
attendees. The attendees recognized that we haven't quite figured
out how to solve the extensive problems that bar network access to
all but they are excited about continuing to identify and work on
removing the barriers. A number suggested that the meeting should
actually be the first Rural Datafication Conference and offered to host
and/or organize the anticipated follow-on meeting next year. Many
offered format and speaker suggestions for that meeting and look
forward to the anticipated proceedings from the conference which
CICNet expects to publish.
CICNet is working on a summary of the meeting and working to build
a gopher/ftp-archive and printed version of the meeting. We'll
announce the availability of those versions as soon as we can. Thanks
to all the participants for a successful meeting and to all of you who
have expressed interest but couldn't come.
____________________________
Glee Harrah Cady, Manager, Information Services, CICNet 2901
Hubbard, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 +1.313.998.6419
glee@cic.net
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003 USA
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:
Membership Coordinator
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003 USA
I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
I wish to renew my membership in 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. 10 6/11/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Accessing the Federal Government
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
************************************************************************
Over the past two weeks, the White House and the U.S. House of
Representatives each announced that they had set up systems for receiving
electronic mail through the Internet. These official announcements, as
well as other reference materials for accessing federal government
information online, are included in this issue of EFFector Online.
************************************************
***E-MAIL TO THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT***
************************************************
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of Presidential Correspondence
__________________________________________
For Immediate Release
June 1, 1993
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
IN ANNOUNCEMENT OF WHITE HOUSE ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCESS
Dear Friends:
Part of our commitment to change is to keep the White House in step with
today's changing technology. As we move ahead into the twenty-first
century, we must have a government that can show the way and lead by
example. Today, we are pleased to announce that for the first time in
history, the White House will be connected to you via electronic mail.
Electronic mail will bring the Presidency and this Administration closer
and make it more accessible to the people.
The White House will be connected to the Internet as well as several
on-line commercial vendors, thus making us more accessible and more in
touch with people across this country. We will not be alone in this
venture. Congress is also getting involved, and an exciting announcement
regarding electronic mail is expected to come from the House of
Representatives tomorrow.
Various government agencies also will be taking part in the near future.
Americans Communicating Electronically is a project developed by several
government agencies to coordinate and improve access to the nation's
educational and information assets and resources. This will be done
through interactive communications such as electronic mail, and brought to
people who do not have ready access to a computer.
However, we must be realistic about the limitations and expectations of the
White House electronic mail system. This experiment is the first-ever
e-mail project done on such a large scale. As we work to reinvent
government and streamline our processes, the e-mail project can help to put
us on the leading edge of progress.
Initially, your e-mail message will be read and receipt immediately
acknowledged. A careful count will be taken on the number received as well
as the subject of each message. However, the White House is not yet
capable of sending back a tailored response via electronic mail. We are
hoping this will happen by the end of the year.
A number of response-based programs which allow technology to help us read
your message more effectively, and, eventually respond to you
electronically in a timely fashion will be tried out as well. These
programs will change periodically as we experiment with the best way to
handle electronic mail from the public. Since this has never been tried
before, it is important to allow for some flexibility in the system in
these first stages. We welcome your suggestions.
This is an historic moment in the White House and we look forward to your
participation and enthusiasm for this milestone event. We eagerly
anticipate the day when electronic mail from the public is an integral and
normal part of the White House communications system.
President Clinton Vice President Gore
PRESIDENT@WHITEHOUSE.GOV VICE.PRESIDENT@WHITEHOUSE.GOV
*************************************************
***E-MAIL TO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES***
*************************************************
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEM
BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Chairman Charlie Rose and Ranking Minority Member Bill Thomas of the
Committee on House Administration announced today the pilot program of the
Constituent Electronic Mail System.
This groundbreaking new service will allow citizens to communicate directly
with their Member of Congress by electronic mail. The House of
Representatives has established an electronic gateway to the Internet, the
vast computer network that is used currently by over 12 million people
worldwide. Participating Members of the House have been assigned public
mailboxes which may be accessed by their constituents from their home
computers. In addition, many libraries, schools and other public
institutions now provide, or soon will provide, public access to the
Internet.
The Members of the House of Representatives who have agreed to participate
in this pilot program are: Rep. Jay Dickey (AR-07), Rep. Sam Gejdenson
(CT-02), Rep. Newt Gingrich (GA-06), Rep. George Miller (CA-07), Rep.
Charlie Rose (NC-07), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (CA-13), and Rep. Melvin Watt
(NC-12). These Members will be making announcements in their congressional
districts within the next few weeks to make their constituents aware of the
new service.
The Constituent Electronic Mail System represents a significant effort by
the House of Representatives to expand communication with constituents.
With the tremendous growth of electronic mail over the past several years,
and the increasingly inter-connected nature of computer networks, the new
service is a natural addition to the current methods of communication
available to constituents. At the present time, House Members involved in
the pilot program will largely respond to electronic mail messages from
their constituents by postal mail, to ensure confidentiality.
Constituents of House Members participating in the pilot program who wish
to communicate with those Members will be asked to send a letter or
postcard stating their interest to the Member's office. The request will
include the constituent's Internet ``address,'' as well as that
constituent's name and postal address. This process will allow Members to
identify an electronic mail user as his or her constituent.
The pilot e-mail program will continue until sufficient feedback from
participating offices has been collected to allow improvements and
modifications to the system. When House Information Systems and the
Committee on House Administration are satisfied that the system is
sufficiently error-free, other Members of the House will be allowed to add
this new service as technical, budgetary and staffing concerns allow.
For more information, Internet users are encouraged to contact the House of
Representative's new on-line information service. Please send a request
for information to CONGRESS@HR.HOUSE.GOV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONSTITUENT ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEM
We welcome your inquiry to the House of Representatives Constituent
Electronic Mail System. Currently, seven Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives have been assigned public electronic mailboxes that may be
accessed by their constituents. This effort represents a pilot program
that will be used to assess the impact of electronic mail on Congressional
offices and their mission of serving the residents of a Congressional
District. This initial project will be expanded to other Members of
Congress, as technical, budgetary and staffing constraints allow.
Please review the list of participating Representatives below, and if the
Congressional District in which you reside is listed, follow the
instructions below to begin communicating by electronic mail with your
Representative. If your Representative is not yet on-line, please be
patient.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVES PARTICIPATING IN THE CONSTITUENT ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEM
Hon. Jay Dickey
4th Congressional District, Arkansas
Rm. 1338, Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Sam Gejdenson
2nd Congressional District, Connecticut
Rm. 2416, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Newton Gingrich
6th Congressional District, Georgia
Rm. 2428, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. George Miller
7th Congressional District, California
Rm. 2205, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Charlie Rose
7th Congressional District, North Carolina
Rm. 2230, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. 'Pete' Stark
13th Congressional District, California
Rm. 239, Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Mel Watt
12th Congressional District, North Carolina
Rm. 1232, Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSTITUENTS
If your Representative is taking part in the pilot project, we encourage
you to send a letter or postcard by U.S.Mail to that Representative at the
address listed above requesting electronic mail access. In your
correspondence, please print your name and INTERNET ADDRESS, followed by
your postal (geographical) address. When your Representative receives the
letter or postcard, you will receive a reply by electronic mail that will
include the Representative's Internet address. After you receive this
initial message, you will be able to write your Member of Congress at any
time, provided you follow certain guidelines that will be included in that
initial message.
We are aware that it is an inconvenience for electronic mail users to be
required to send a post card in order to begin communicating with their
Representative. However, the primary goal of this pilot program is to
allow Members to better serve their CONSTITUENTS, and this initial postal
request is the only sure method currently available of verifying that a
user is a resident of a particular congressional district.
In addition, constituents who communicate with their Representative by
electronic mail should be aware that Members will respond to their messages
in the same manner that they respond to most communications from
constituents. That is, Members will generally respond to messages by way
of the U.S. Postal Service. This method of reply will help to ensure
confidentiality, a concern that is of utmost importance to the House of
Representatives.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Please feel free to send electronic mail comments about our new service to
the Congressional Comment Desk, at
COMMENTS@HR.HOUSE.GOV
We will make every effort to integrate suggestions into forthcoming updates
of our system.
Thank you again for contacting the House of Representatives' Constituent
Electronic Mail System. We are excited about the possibilities that e-mail
has to offer, and will be working hard to bring more Members on-line and to
expand our services. We feel that this pilot program is an important first
step, and we urge your cooperation and continued interest to make the
program a success.
This message will be updated as necessary.
Honorable Charlie Rose (D-NC)
Chairman
Committee on House Administration
**************************************
***FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)***
**************************************
WHITE HOUSE ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS AND PUBLIC ACCESS EMAIL -- FREQUENTLY
ASKED QUESTIONS
Updated April 7, 1993
Table Of Contents
I. Signing up for Daily Electronic Publications.
A. Widely Available Sources.
B. Notes on Widely Available Sources.
C. Direct Email Distribution
II. Searching and Retrieving White House documents.
- WAIS
- GOPHER
- FedWorld BBS
III. Sending email to the White House.
- CompuServe
- America OnLine
- MCI
- Fidonet
- Internet
I. HOW DO I SIGN UP FOR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS BY THE WHITE HOUSE?
The White House Communications office is distributing press releases over
an experimental system developed during the campaign at the MIT Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory.
You can obtain copies of all the press releases from a wide variety of
on-line services or discussion groups devoted to either national politics
in general or President Clinton in particular. These are listed in
sections I and II.
Section I.C. explains how you can sign up to receive press releases
directly from the experimental MIT system by using an automated email
server. The present system was not designed to handle high levels of
message traffic. A more powerful system will become available in due
course, and in the meantime, it would be appreciated if you used this
service sparingly. One appropriate current use is secondary redistribution
and archiving. If you use it, you will be carried forward when the more
powerful system that replaces it.
A. WIDELY AVAILABLE SOURCES
1. On USENET/NETNEWS, electronic publications are found on a variety of groups:
Direct Distribution
alt.politics.clinton
alt.politics.org.misc
alt.politics.reform
alt.politics.usa.misc
alt.news-media
alt.activism
talk.politics.misc
Indirect Distribution
misc.activism.progressive
cmu.soc.politics
assocs.clinton-gore-92
2. On CompuServe: GO WHITEHOUSE
3. On America Online: keyword WHITEHOUSE or THE WHITEHOUSE or CLINTON
4. On The WELL: type whitehouse
5. On MCI: type VIEW WHITE HOUSE
6. On Fidonet: See Echomail WHITEHOUSE
7. On Peacenet or Econet: See pol.govinfo.usa.
B. NOTES ON WIDELY AVAILABLE SOURCES
[Editor's note: #1 seems to be missing from the original file]
2. CompuServe's White House Forum (GO WHITEHOUSE) is devoted to discussion
of the Clinton administration's policies and activities. The forum's
library consists of news releases and twice daily media briefings from the
White House Office of Media Affairs. CompuServe members can exchange
information and opinions with each other in the 17 sections in the forum's
message area. The message board spans a broad range of topics, including
international and United Nations activities, defense, health care, the
economy and the deficit, housing and urban development, the environment,
and education and national service.
3. On America Online the posts are sent to the White House Forum, located
in the News & Finance department of the service and accessible via keywords
"white house" and "clinton." The White House Forum on America Online
contains the press releases from the White House, divided into the
categories "Press Briefings," "Meetings & Speeches," "Foreign Policy," "The
Economy," "Technology," "Health Care," and "Appointments." The area
features a message board so you can discuss the releases with other AOL
members, and a searchable database for easy retrieval of releases in the
topic that interests you.
4. MCI Mail users can access daily information on the administration's
programs provided by the White House through MCI Mail bulletin boards. The
available boards are: WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC, WHITE HOUSE FOREIGN, WHITE
HOUSE SOCIAL, WHITE HOUSE SPEECHES and WHITE HOUSE NEWS. A listing of
these boards can also be obtained by simply typing VIEW WHITE HOUSE at the
COMMAND prompt.
C. DIRECT EMAIL DISTRIBUTION
If you don't have access to the these accounts or if you would prefer to
receive the releases via email, then the next section details how to sign
up for this service. The server is not set up to answer email letters,
comments or requests for specific information. To reach this MIT server,
send email:
To: Clinton-Info@Campaign92.Org Subject: Help
The server works by reading the subject line of the incoming message and
taking whatever action that line calls for. If you want to sign up to
automatically receive press releases, then your subject line would begin
with the word RECEIVE. You can then specify what kind of information you
are interested in receiving. The categories of information are:
ECONOMIC POLICY -- Get releases related to the economy such as budget news,
technology policy review, etc.
FOREIGN POLICY -- Get releases related to foreign policy such as statements
on Bosnian airdrop, Haitian refugee status, etc.
SOCIAL POLICY -- Get releases related to social issues like National
Service (Student Loan) program, abortion, welfare reform, etc.
SPEECHES -- All speeches made by the President and important speeches made
by other Administration officials.
NEWS -- Transcripts of press conferences released by the White House
Communications office, as well as the President's remarks in photo ops and
other Q&A sessions.
ALL -- All of the above.
So, if you wanted to sign up to get releases related to the economy your
email message would look like this:
To: Clinton-Info@Campaign92.Org Subject: RECEIVE ECONOMY
When you send a signup message to the clinton-info server, it sends you
back a status message letting you know what distribution streams you are
signed up for. If you ever want to check on what groups you are signed up
for send the following message:
To: Clinton-Info@Campaign92.Org Subject: STATUS
You can stop receiving email releases by sending a REMOVE message to the
clinton-info server. The word REMOVE would be followed by whatever
distribution stream you wanted to drop. If you wanted to stop receiving
message about the ECONOMY then your mail would look like this:
To: Clinton-Info@Campaign92.Org Subject: REMOVE ECONOMY
You could substitute SOCIAL, FOREIGN, SPEECHES, NEWS or ALL for ECONOMY in
the above message and you would be dropped from that distribution list. If
you send the subject line REMOVE ALL, then you will be taken off the email
distribution system all together and will not receive further releases of
any kind.
You can also ask for help from the automated server. Send an email query
as follows:
To: Clinton-Info@Campaign92.Org Subject: HELP
The server will respond by sending you a detailed form that will guide you
through the process of signing up for the various distribution streams. As
you will quickly discover, there is a automatic form processing interface
that parallels the quick and easy subject line commands discussed here.
More detailed help is available by sending an email query as follows:
To: Clinton-Info@Campaign92.Org Subject: Please Help!
Finally, if you want to search and retrieve documents, but you do not have
access to the retrieval methods discussed in section II, you can do this
via email through the MIT server. You can obtain the WAIS query form by
sending an email query as follows:
To: Clinton-Info@Campaign92.Org Subject: WAIS
Once you have identified the documents that you want, be careful not to
request them all at once, because you may be sent a message containing all
the documents and this message may be too big for some mail delivery
systems between the email server and you.
II. HOW DO I RETRIEVE WHITE HOUSE PUBLICATIONS FROM INTERNET ARCHIVES?
Various sites are archiving the press releases distributed . What follows
is an incomplete list of some of the sites containing the documents that
have been released to date. This FAQ will be updated to reflect new sites
as they become known.
SITE DIRECTORY
1. SUNSITE.UNC.EDU /HOME3/WAIS/WHITE-HOUSE-PAPERS
2. FTP CCO.CALTECH.EDU /PUB/BJMCCALL
3. FTP MARISTB.MARIST.EDU
4. CPSR.ORG /CPSR/CLINTON
5. FedWorld BBS 703-321-8020 8-N-1
Notes: The following are notes on how to log in and get information from
the above sites.
1. Office for Information Technology at University of North Carolina
maintains the full collection of White House electronic releases available
for search with WAIS and also accessible via Gopher.
1.a WAIS (:source :version 3 :database-name
"/home3/wais/White-House-Papers" :ip-address "152.2.22.81" :ip-name
"sunsite.unc.edu" :tcp-port 210 :cost 0.00 :cost-unit :free :maintainer
"pjones@sunsite.unc.edu" :description "Server created with WAIS release 8
b5 on Feb 27 15:16:16 1993 by pjones@sunsite.unc.edu These are the White
House Press Briefings and other postings dealing with William Jefferson
Clinton and Albert Gore as well as members of the President's Cabinet and
the first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chelsea, Socks and others in
Washington DC. Dee Dee Meyers and George Stephanopoulos. Other good
words: United States of America, Bill Al Tipper Democrats USA US These
files are also available via anonymous ftp from sunsite.unc.edu The files
of type filename used in the index were:
/home3/ftp/pub/academic/political-science/whitehouse-papers/1993 ")
Folks without WAIS clients or gophers that act as WAIS clients may telnet
to sunsite.unc.edu and login as swais to access this information via WAIS.
1.b GOPHER is a distributed menuing system for information access on the
Internet developed at the University of Minnesota. Gophers are
client-server implementations and various gopher clients are available for
nearly any computing platform. You may now use gopher clients to assess
the White House Papers and other political information on SunSITE.unc.edu's
new gopher server. You may also add links from your local gopher server to
SunSITE for access to the White House Papers.
For gopher server keepers and adventurous clients to access SunSITE you
need only know that we use the standard gopher port 70 and that our
internet address is SunSITE.unc.edu (152.2.22.81). Point there and you'll
see the references to the Politics areas.
For folks without gopher clients but with access to telnet: telnet
sunsite.unc.edu login: gopher The rest is very straightforward. Browsing
options end with a directory mark (/), searching options end with an
question mark (?). There's plenty of on-line help available.
2. No special instructions.
3. The CLINTON@MARIST log files which contain all the official
administration releases distributed through the MIT servers are available
via anonymous FTP. These logs contain in addition to the official
releases, the posts that comprise the ongoing discussion conducted by the
list subscribers. To obtain the logs: FTP MARISTB.MARIST.EDU - the logs
are in the CLINTON directory and are named CLINTON LOG9208 thru CLINTON
LOGyymm where yymm stands for the current year and month. Problems should
be directed to my attention: URLS@MARISTC.BITNET or URLS@VM.MARIST.EDU.
Posted by Lee Sakkas - owner, CLINTON@MARIST
4. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is providing all
Clinton documents on technology and privacy at the CPSR Internet Library,
available via FTP/WAIS/Gopher at cpsr.org /cpsr/clinton (and in other
folders as relevant). For email access, send a message with the word
"help" at the 1st line of text to listserv@cpsr.org.
5. The FedWorld Computer System, operated by the National Technical
Information Service, archives White House papers in a traditional BBS type
file library. Connect to FedWorld by calling (703) 321- 8020. No parity,
eight data bits and one stop bit (N-8-1). FedWorld accommodates baud
speeds of up to 9,600. White House papers are located in the W-House
library of files. To access this library from the main FedWorld menu,
enter <f s w-house. Files are named with the first four digits being the
release month and day (e.g. 0323XXX.txt). Some standard abbreviations
after the date include: rem - Remarks by the President; pc - Press
Conference transcript; pr - Press Release; AM - AM Press Briefing; PM -
PM Press Briefing; sch - The President's public schedule; spch - Text of
major speeches. These files are saved in ASCII format. Files can be
viewed online by requesting to download a file and then selecting (L)ist as
the download protocol. This will display the file a screen at a time.
White House papers are kept in the above format for up to two months.
Papers more than two months old are compressed using Pkzip into a single
file that contains all of the files for that month (e.g., 0193.zip contains
all papers released during January 1993). In addition to White Documents,
FedWorld also provides a gateway to more than 100 government funded BBSs
and computer systems.
III. HOW DO I SEND EMAIL TO THE WHITE HOUSE?
The White House email system is under construction. This is a new project
and suffers from all of the problems common to a startup operation. The
Communications office is currently working on defining what this system
will do, as well as trying to come up with equipment and staffing to make
sure that it works. Email messages are currently being printed out and
responses are being sent out via US Mail.
Nobody wants this new venture to work more than the staff that has devoted
so many hours to getting it up and running. But much time and effort will
be required before the system is truly interactive. In the mean time, they
will need a little patience from the electronic community. If you send a
message to the White House, please include a US Post office address for
replies.
You can send email to the following accounts:
CompuServe: 75300,3115; GO: WHITE HOUSE finds White House forum
America OnLine: clinton pz; KEYWORD: WHITEHOUSE finds White House area
MCI: TO: WHITE HOUSE; VIEW WHITE HOUSE views bulletin boards
Fidonet: TO: WHITEHOUSE@1:2613/333; Echomail: WHITEHOUSE views echomail
conference
Internet: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org 75300.3115@CompuServe.Com
clintonpz@AOL.Com
Please send corrections, deletion and additions to this FAQ to:
Updates@Clinton92.Org
**************************
***THE FEDERAL REGISTER***
**************************
Good news everyone! The Federal Register is now on the Net! For those who
want more info, you should be reading your May 1993 Boardwatch Magazine.
To summarize, for $10 an hour, you can access a gopher client that will
give you access to the full text of the register.
telnet or gopher to netsys1.netsys.com and logon as FEDREG with password
REGISTER. This will allow you to browse about the system and check out how
it looks and works.
Contact the publisher for more info:
Counterpoint Publishing
84 Sherman St.
Cambridge, MA 02140
(800) 998-4515
Email: fedreg@internet.com
*************************
***LIBRARY OF CONGRESS***
*************************
The Library of Congress Information System (LOCIS) is now available over
the Internet. The telnet address is:
locis.loc.gov 140.147.254.3 (no login or password)
LOCIS accepts both telnet 3270 and line mode.
LOCIS includes over 15 million catalog records and over 10 million records
for other types of information: federal legislation, copyright
registrations, Braille and audio, organizations, and selected foreign legal
materials.
Searching hours are (all times USA eastern; closed national holidays):
Monday - Friday: 6:30am - 9:30pm
Saturday: 8:00am - 5:00pm
Sunday: 1:00pm - 5:00pm
Printed manuals will be available for sale later this summer and very soon
via FTP (ftp seq1.loc.gov /pub/LC.Online). There will be a LOCIS Quick
Search Guide and a LOCIS Reference Manual.
LC Online Internet: lconline@seq1.loc.gov
Library of Congress
**********************************
***U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS***
**********************************
PROJECT HERMES
Electronic Dissemination of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Project Hermes was started in May 1990 by the U.S. Supreme Court as an
experiment in disseminating its opinions electronically. Case Western
Reserve University was one of the participants in the pilot project. In
the Fall of 1992, the Court decided that the experiment in electronic
dissemination of its opinions was successful. Starting with the 1993
calendar year, the U.S. Supreme Court began disseminating opinions
electronically on an official basis. CWRU will continue to electronically
receive and distribute the opinions of the Court.
* * *
The file names are as they are received from the Supreme Court. The
extentions are .O for the Opinion, .S for the Syllabus, .C for Concurring
opinions, and .D for Dissenting opinions. The ascii files also have a
.filt extention.
You can contact Project Hermes via e.mail on the Cleveland Free-Net at:
aa584, via the Internet at: aa584@cleveland.freenet.edu, by writing:
PROJECT HERMES, CWRU, 319 WICKENDEN BUILDING, CLEVELAND, OHIO, 66106, or by
calling: (216) 368-2733
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published biweekly by:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003 USA
Phone: +1 202 544 9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Shari Steele,
EFF Legal Services Coordinator (ssteele@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.
=============================================================
Mail to:
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003 USA
Membership rates:
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
E-mail 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 nonprofit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate. Initials:______________________
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 11 6/25/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
EFF Is Moving
NREN Applications Bill Update
Interval Research Conference on Online Communities
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
************************************************************************
EFF Is Moving
************************************************************************
EFF has outgrown our current office space. On July 2, we will be taking
over an entire floor of an historic building in downtown Washington, DC.
Please note our new address and telephone numbers beginning July 2:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001
202/347-5400 voice
202/393-5509 fax
Our e-mail address will remain the same, eff@eff.org.
************************************************************************
NREN Applications Bill Update
************************************************************************
by Andrew Blau
In an earlier issue of EFFector (5.07), we described legislation introduced
by Congressman Rick Boucher to stimulate Internet applications in health
care, education, libraries, and for access to government information. On
June 17, the bill, H.R. 1757, was marked-up by the Science Subcommittee,
which Mr. Boucher chairs. ("Mark up" is the process by which a committee
or subcommittee reviews a bill, adds amendments, and if passed, sends it on
to the next stage in the legislative process.)
The bill that emerged reflects a number of important changes to the
original H.R. 1757. Some of these changes reflect the Clinton
Administration's input, others come from efforts to accomodate the
Republican members of the Subcommittee, while still others reflect concerns
of groups that would be affected by the legislation.
-------------------------------------
Major changes to HR 1757 as marked up
-------------------------------------
New name
--------
The bill had originally been called the High Performance Computing and High
Speed Networking Applications Act of 1993. Its new name is the National
Information Infrastructure Act of 1993.
Emphasis on accessibility
-------------------------
H.R. 1757 had originally specified that applications developed under this
program should be accessible by all persons in the United States. The new
version expands on that by specifying throughout the bill's many provisions
that applications must be accessible to people with disabilities; that
training programs must include training for people with disabilities; and
that public access points for networked information should include centers
for people with disabilities.
Connections program to support *services,* not facilities
---------------------------------------------------------
The connections program originally called for the creation of local
networks connecting schools, libraries, and state and local governments.
Now, the bill calls for the development of network services in local
communities. The language clarifies that the money is to support the
purchase of network services, not to build new facilities. Museums were
also added to the list of local institutions under this program. The
length of the Connections Program was cut from 5 years to 3 years (at which
time it is likely to be reviewed).
Process for restricting use of test-bed networks modified
---------------------------------------------------------
One of H.R. 1757's most controversial provisions had required that
government supported test-bed networks could not be used for services that
could be "provided satisfactorily" by commercial networks 18 months after
the bill is enacted. Educators, the research community, librarians and
others were concerned by the rigid timeline and feared that users would be
restricted from using the government supported NSFNet without any adequate
alternative, or at substantially higher costs. The new provisions replace
the fixed timeline with guidelines for determining when the cutover may
happen and a process for determining it.
1) The bill outlines conditions by which "satisfactory availability" is to
be determined: the determination "shall include consideration of
geographic access to and affordability of service, and timeliness and
technical performance standards in providing services." This responds to
the concern that there be well-known standards "available" that take into
consideration various conditions faced by users across the country.
2) The bill calls for a study to explore the issue and decide when
commercial services are satisfactorily available, subject to the results of
the study. The study is to be done by the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in consultation with Federal agencies
and departments supporting test bed networks. The study is due 6 months
after the date of enactment of the legislation. This abandons the fixed,
18-month timeline and asks OSTP to make the determination according to the
specified conditions.
3) The bill also includes an "escape" clause if conditions change. If the
OSTP report announces a date for the cutover, but "for technical reasons"
the cutover cannot be imposed on that date, the OSTP Director has the
option of going back to Congress with a new date.
As a related matter, the bill includes renewed emphasis on using
commercially available network services whenever possible, "to minimize
Federal investment in network hardware and software."
Scope of Education section expanded
-----------------------------------
H.R. 1757 originally specified primary, secondary, and higher education as
the beneficiaries of the education section. That has been broadened to
include educational institutions at all levels, which adds pre-school or
early childhood education and vocational/technical schools.
The new provisions also specify the inclusion of the Department of
Education in the program.
Advisory Committee expanded; Public input process specified
-----------------------------------------------------------
The original H.R. 1757 modified the High Performance Computing Advisory
Committee created by the High Performance Act of 1991 to expand its
membership. The new provisions take additional steps to expand the
committee to include library representatives, the computer hardware and
computer software industries, and the publishing industry.
The new provisions also require that the Advisory Committee meet at least
once a year to take oral and written testimony from the public on progress
in implementing the network and applications plan, summarize the public
input, and report it to OSTP Director.
Lastly, the bill first specified that Advisory Committee members were to be
appointed by the President. The new provisions specify that the OSTP
Director is to appoint them.
New attention to copyright issues
---------------------------------
The bill as amended now includes greater attention to the copyright issues
that electronic networks create. Specifically, the bill calls for general
research to facilitate the management and protection of copyrighted
information accessed via the Internet, and a means to identify
electronically copyrighted works and electronically indicating whether
permission to reproduce it has been granted.
Money: less of it and none of it is "new"
-----------------------------------------
In an effort to keep this package within the parameters of the
Administration's budget request, and in light of the budget deficit and the
struggles to pass a budget package, the amount of money authorized in each
section has been cut. The overall total was reduced from $1.55 billion
over five years to $1.005 billion over that period.
A large portion of that total comes from the removal of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) from the program.
NTIA is not under the Science Subcommittee's jurisdiction, and will be
reauthorized by the committee that does have jurisdiction, the Energy and
Commerce Committee, which is expected to authorize money for similar
purposes.
The bill now also clarifies that all money authorized in it is from money
already authorized for each agency. These provisions were added to clarify
that the bill was not seeking to add over a billion dollars to the federal
budget for these programs, but was authorizing agencies to spend the money
they have on these applications.
Miscellaneous
-------------
The bill as reported out of the Subcommittee also calls for:
o an emphasis on the development of "interconnected and interoperable
information systems" rather than proprietary or stand-alone systems;
o research into "the long-range social and ethical implications of
applications of high-speed networking and high-performance computing"; and
o new applications in clinical medicine, including drug development,
technologies to monitor, evaluate and treat patients in nonclinical
settings, and modeling of sociological populations affected
disproportionately by selected diseases or disorders.
Finally, H.R. 1757 no longer includes the section that calls for a
coordinator for the networking and applications program nor a section
specifying an Associate Director at OSTP to oversee Federal efforts to
disseminate scientific and technical information.
The bill is now scheduled to come before the full Science, Space and
Technology Committee on June 30 for a vote. It is not expected that
additional major revisions will be made, but changes are always possible.
Following the full Committee markup, the bill will be ready for
consideration by the full House of Representatives once the Committee
issues its report. No date for House consideration has been set.
************************************************************************
Interval Research Conference on Online Communities
************************************************************************
The Interval Research Mini-Conference on Online Community
May 17-18, Palo Alto
attended and reported on by Cliff Figallo
This past Monday and Tuesday, I attended the "FIRST EVER INTERVAL GATHERING
ON ONLINE COMMUNITIES," hosted by Interval Research in Palo Alto. It was
described as "a small meeting of professionals and advanced students to
explore the nature and dynamics of on-line communities -- including
informal presentations and panels, show and tell, rants and ravings, and
hands-on net surfing orchestrated by the inimitable Jonathan Steuer, host
of Stanford's famous net.jams!" The list of topics covered at the meeting
included:
o MUDs and MOOs
o the world of online gaming
o virtual identity and gender
o "emergent" vs. "planned" communities
o multimedia vs. text
o online services
o professional/work communities
o political and social issues - the net of the future
The list of communities invited included:
America Online, CPSR, EFF, Electronic Cafe, Fidonet, Habitat, Kidsphere,
LambdaMOO, MediaMOO, Seniornet, Sierra Network, Smart Valley, and the WELL.
The purpose of the gathering, as expressed to me by Brenda Laurel and Lee
Felsenstein, the Interval employees who planned the mini-con, was to
demonstrate the existence and meaning of online community to those
higher-ups at Interval who didn't yet "get it."
John Coate, Marc Smith and I followed Lee Felsenstein's opening remarks on
the importance of networked communities as agents of social change. John
Coate and I had worked together at the WELL and Marc Smith wrote his
master's dissertation, "The Logic of the Virtual Commons" about the WELL.
I described the many variables that contributed to the formation of the
WELL's online sense of community including, the policy of users being
responsible for the words they post, the communal background of its
managers, the connection with Whole Earth, the no-anonymity policy, the
inclusion of users in developing the system, the distribution of
responsibility among the users, and the personal and technical challenges
that the population faced and overcame through the WELL's formative years.
The concept of "common goods" was discussed as a centerpiece of community;
some value that most participants could agree on that is gained by taking
part in the online scene. This "common good," I think, can also be a
commonly perceived threat, as from government or corporations. Most often,
though, it is the knowledge and personal resource of the group present
online, providing information and support at the convenience of the users.
Gaming populations are present on the Sierra Network where, rather than
through conferencing or messaging software, interactive games are the
meeting places, with e-mail filling the need for extended communication.
Although little in the way of "serious" group discussion happens on Sierra,
a community of sorts does, in fact, exist. Sierra Net has over 20,000
subscribers. They have, since the meeting, signed on with Prodigy to
collaborate somehow.
Habitat is a semi-animated interactive system where each participant is
represented online by a graphic figure of a human body on which a head,
chosen from a gallery of heads, can be attached. Dialog takes place
through cartoon-like "balloons" above the characters' heads. Habitat is
popular in Japan, and its two American developers, Chip Morningstar and
Randy Farmer, are reviving Habitat in the U.S. (it formerly ran only on
Commodore 64 machines), while also developing a
pay-or-barter-for-information system called AMIX in California (initially
funded by AutoDesk) and working on a conferencing interface for a
wide-reaching information structure like the Internet. They claim to have
a "very large corporation" interested in funding their idea.
MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons) and MOOs (MUD-Object-Oriented) are structured
and user-modifiable online environments that allow users to not only
interact with each other, but to do role-playing, build and furnish living
areas and interaction areas, and extend and create the interactive "space"
and the rules for using that space. Some MUDS and MOOs are being used to
teach children and, after giving the children the ability to create on
their own, to study how children work in an unencumbered environment. Amy
Bruckman of MIT's Media Lab and Pavel Curtis of Xerox PARC described their
systems and experiments.
Some examples of specially-designed online communities were described by
participants. Anna Couey, Director of Arts Wire, talked about the
reluctance of artists to move from systems of regional or cultural
preference to another system where a central Arts Forum was established.
Loyalties run strong online. Seth Fiery described the Smart Valley project
for installing a broadband network throughout Silicon Valley as a prototype
for the NII. Even on this local scale, there are more questions about
interoperability than answers. Fran Middleton talked about SeniorNet and
how, even having their system located on America Online, there were many
complaints about difficulty using the system and high expense. Dave Hughes
gave his list of ingredients for grassroots networked systems:
1) Rooted in real cultures
2) Universal grassroots access
3) Public technical standards
4) Start farthest from centers of power (rural, remote, foreign)
5) Always evolving (technically, connectively, individual/group/
community skills) to higher orders
6) End users do not just connect, they create
7) Sysop's role is to enable and empower
Patricia Seybold of Seybold Publishing spoke about her efforts to get
corporate users to participate in networks using Lotus Notes. She is
having to "be patient," waiting for them to actively use these systems.
Tom Jennings, inventor of Fidonet, described the self-governing nature and
evolution of the Fidonet and how node sysops had developed sanctioning
norms and techniques. Tom's original idea took off so fast that the
software tables he originally designed to count the nodes overflowed after
just one year of distribution. Fido now generates its own regular
"newsletter" that reports on the operation of this anarchic networked
community of communities. It is a poor (non-academic or corporate)
person's Internet, operating with none of the national or international
regulatory red tape of the Internet. Mark Graham, president of Pandora
Systems, talked about the growth in public access to the Internet, the need
for better tools for access and data searching (which his company develops)
and the growing interconnectivity with foreign countries. Pandora was
instrumental in installing the first commercial Internet site in the former
Soviet Union. Bob Carlitz is a physicist who has been involved in
networking children through the Internet via KidSphere. He has seen how
children can form their own communities online and learn at the same time
on a global scale. Kathy Ryan of America Online gave a description of the
service and how they have handled its rapid growth and customer support,
specifically how they have created systems for gathering feedback from
their users on system design and features. They are struggling with the
question of opening their system into the Internet beyond just having an
e-mail gateway.
Finally, Kit Galloway and Sherry Rabinowitz demonstrated some video clips
from their almost 20 years of involvement with the Electronic Cafe, which
uses low-cost to sophisticated video equipment to encourage creativity and
communication between different communities and cultures. In some cases,
they have set up satellite video feeds between geographically-distant
groups holding simultaneous events. In other cases, they have linked local
culturally-disparate groups in different neighborhoods in the same town.
No keyboarding necessary; anyone can hold the camera.
The purpose of the meeting was addressed mostly in discussion between and
following presentations as the differences and commonalities between many
concepts and models of community were explored. It was evident that
sophistication of technology was not the determining factor, but more that
freedom and openness and encouragement of creativity seemed to be the
critical keys to nurturing community. Greater access will allow more
people to connect, and basing systems around some kind of "commons" may
stimulate involvement and loyalty. The fragility of trust online is
something that must be recognized, and privacy concerns are high on the
list of values. Creating and enforcing community standards, even where a
minority may claim that free speech is being infringed upon, was also seen
as a contributor to community. Where a group needs to feel secure in
giving free rein to their children online, rights to use strong language or
provide pornographic files may be, appropriately, abridged in the interest
of community.
Discussion of the privacy rights of children were examined in the case of
Amy Bruckman's desire to study and document children's behaviors online in
MOO environments without the children's knowledge. Would parental
permission be sufficient or should the children know they are being
studied?
The presence of children online, in general, presents many difficult
ethical dilemmas which may have, at least, partial technical solutions.
The looming spectre of collusion between large cable companies and telcos,
leading to domination of electronic media by mostly one-way communications
and entertainment at the expense of the interactive and user-created
activities necessary to foster community, was recognized as a threat that
could best be countered by proactive development of more interactive
communities of all types in the near future. I explained EFF's positions
on several issues of concern to the attendees. EFF's existence as a
watchdog over policy and regulation as well as a protector of civil
liberties was regarded as a comforting security umbrella and a real
necessity if the practice of online community is to expand and thrive.
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published biweekly by:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003 USA
Phone: +1 202 544 9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Shari Steele,
Director of Legal Services & Community Outreach (ssteele@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.
=============================================================
Mail to:
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003 USA
Membership rates:
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
E-mail 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 nonprofit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate. Initials:______________________
x
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 12 7/9/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
EFF Has Moved
Online Congressional Hearing
To Be at Liberty, by John Perry Barlow
Announcement of Group Meeting
Request for Help from Canadian Readers
Job Openings at EFF
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
*************
EFF Has Moved
*************
On July 2, EFF moved. Please note our new address and telephone numbers:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001
202/347-5400 voice
202/393-5509 fax
Our e-mail address is the same, eff@eff.org.
****************************
Online Congressional Hearing
****************************
On July 26 at 9:30AM EDT, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and Finance of the U.S. House of Representatives will hold the first
Congressional Hearing ever held over a computer network. The oversight
hearing on "The Role of Government in Cyberspace" will take place in
the Grand Ballroom of the National Press Club at 14th and F Streets,
N.W., Washington, D.C. The hearing is open to the public. An open
house will be held from 3-5PM on the same day in the same location and
is also open to the public.
Chairman Markey has asked that this historic occasion demonstrate
the potential and diversity of the global Internet. Thirty Sparcstations
will be in the hearing room, allowing members of Congress, staff, and
their guests to read e-mail, use Gopher menus, read testimony in WAIS
databases, browse the World Wide Web, and otherwise use the resources
of the global Internet as part of the hearing.
Some witnesses for the hearing will testify remotely, sending audio
and video over the Internet. Audio and video of the hearing will also
be multicast over the Multicast Backbone (MBONE). We are hoping that
C-SPAN and other traditional media will also carry the event. *MORE
DETAILS ON MBONE AND OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE HEARINGS REMOTELY WILL BE
FORTHCOMING SHORTLY.*
One of the primary points that we are hoping to demonstrate is
the diversity and size of the Internet. We have therefore established
an electronic mail address by which people on the Internet can communicate
with the Subcommittee before and during the hearing:
congress@town.hall.org
We encourage you to send your comments on what the role of government
should be in the information age to this address. Your comments to this
address will be made part of the public record of the hearing. Feel free
to carry on a dialogue with others on a mailing list, cc'ing the e-mail
address.
Your cards and letters to congress@town.hall.org will help
demonstrate that there are people who use the Internet as part of their
personal and professional lives. We encourage you to send comments on
the role of government in cyberspace, on what role cyberspace should play
in government (e.g., whether government data be made available on the
Internet), on how the Internet should be built and financed, on how you
use the Internet, and on any other topic you feel is appropriate. This
is your chance to show the U.S. Congress that there is a constituency
that cares about this global infrastructure.
If you would like to communicate with a human being about the
hearing, you may send your comments and questions to:
hearing-info@town.hall.org
Support for the Internet Town Hall is provided by Sun Microsystems
and O'Reilly & Associates. Additional support for the July 26 on-line
congressional hearing is being provided by ARPA, BBN Communications,
the National Press Club, Xerox PARC, and many other organizations.
Network connectivity for the Internet Town Hall is provided by
UUNET Technologies.
****************
To Be at Liberty
****************
John Perry Barlow wrote this essay for an upcoming PBS special on liberty.
This is the text of what will be a quarter of the show. The other three
essayists include Salman Rushdie.
To Be At Liberty
An Essay for Public Television
Text by John Perry Barlow
Video production by Todd Rundgren
Let me tell you where I'm coming from. I grew up on a ranch near Pinedale,
Wyoming, a very free town not far from the middle of nowhere.
It was the kind of place where a state legislator could actually say, "If
the English language was good enough for our Lord Jesus Christ, it's good
enough for our school children."
Though surely a hick town, it was also a real community. There was a lot
of trust. Neither the locks nor the lawyers got used much. People knew
each other and tried to let one another be. After all, they'd come to that
wild and remote place to be free. Liberty was a fierce practice among
them. That it might also be a legal guarantee seemed irrelevant.
It seems to me that elsewhere in America, liberty is far more a matter of
law than practice. The Bill of Rights is still on the books, and they'd
have a hell of a time putting you in jail for just saying something, but
how free are we?
Whatever the guarantees, I believe liberty resides in its exercise. Liberty
is really about the ability to feel free and behave accordingly. You are
only as free as you act.
Free people must be willing to speak up...and listen. They can't merely
consume the fruits of freedom, they have to produce them.
This exercise of liberty requires that people trust one another and the
institutions they make together. They have to feel at home in their
society.
Well, Americans don't appear to trust each other much these days. Why else
would we employ three times more lawyers per capita than we did in 1970?
Why else would our universities be so determined to impose tolerance that
they'll expel you for saying what you think and never notice the irony?
Why else would we teach our kids to fear all strangers? Why else have we
become so afraid to look one another in the eye?
We have come to regard trust as foolishness and fear as necessary. We live
in terror that the people around us might figure out what we're actually
thinking.
Frankly, this America doesn't feel very free to me at all. What has
happened to our liberty?
I think much of the answer lies in the critical difference between
information and experience.
These days we view most of our world through a television screen. Most of
our knowledge comes from information about things, not experience with
them.
Let me return to Pinedale for an example. Those folks killed each other
pretty regularly, but there wasn't much fear. They knew each other, and if
somebody got shot, it wasn't too hard to figure out why.
Homicide was not abstract. It was a familiar threat, like wild horses or winter.
And you also knew that today's opponent might be the only person along to
pull you out of a snowdrift tomorrow. So tolerance and trust were
practical necessities. Living more or less safely in a world we
understood, we found liberty an easy thing to keep.
But elsewhere, as I say, the average American's sense of the world has
likely been derived by staring at it through the one-way tunnel of
information.
What the media's taught my fellow citizens is that all the world is
dangerous in some irrational, non-specific way. Terrorists are everywhere.
Nature is in open rebellion. Making love can kill you. Your fellow humans
are liars in suits, thugs, zealots, psychopaths, and, mostly, victims who
look a lot like you.
Television amplifies the world's mayhem and gives you no way to talk back.
No way to ask, "Is this the way the world is?" Just as right now it's
giving you no way to argue with me.
Why does television prefer terrifying images? Because it lives on your
attention. That's what television is really selling. And scaring the hell
out of you is, like sex, one of those really efficient ways to get your
undivided focus. To gain it, they flood your living room with images
designed to hit your fear glands like electricity.
So we have erected a glowing altar in the center of our lives that feeds on
our terror, and Fear has become our national religion.
We ask the government to defend us against the virtual goblins that stream
from the tube, and the government has obliged us.
For example, in 1992, a total of two Americans died in terrorist attacks.
Not what I'd call a major threat. But our fear of them is so real that we
spend tens of billions a year to protect ourselves from terrorism. For many
Americans, making the car payments depends on keeping this fear alive.
But you cannot build a society of general trust in an atmosphere of general
fear. The fearful are never free.
If we are to fight back - if we are to regain the courage necessary to the
practice of liberty - we are going to have to stage another kind of
revolution. We need to find a new means of understanding the world that
takes no profit from our fear.
We need a medium that, like life itself, allows us to probe it for the
truth. We need, in essence, to cut out the middlemen and speak directly to
one another. Indeed, we need a place where we can share information
unfiltered by the needs and desires of either Big Brother or the Marketing
Department down at Channel Six.
Such a medium may be spreading across the planet in a thickening web of
connected computers called the "Internet." Through the Internet I can
already get a personal connection with people all over the globe, learning
from those on the scene what's really going on. Through the Internet I can
publish my own understandings to whomever might be interested, in whatever
numbers.
During the War in the Persian Gulf, I was able to get minute by minute
reports from the laptop computers of soldiers in the field. The picture
they presented felt far more detailed, more troubling and ambiguous, than
the mass hallucination presented on CNN.
The Internet is also creating a new place...many call it Cyberspace...where
new communities like Pinedale can form. The big difference will be that
these Cyberspace communities will be possible among people whose bodies are
located in many different places in the world.
Direct communication should breed understanding and tolerance. Our fears
will be far easier to check out. We may begin to understand that these
distant and sometimes alien creatures are real people whose rights are
directly connected to our own.
I imagine the gathering places of Cyberspace, some as intimate as
Pinedale's Wrangler Cafe, some more vast than Tienanmen Square. I imagine
us meeting there in conditions of trust and liberty that no government will
be able to deny.
I imagine a world, quite soon to come, in which ideas can spread like fire,
as Jefferson said, "expansible over all space, without lessening their
density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe... incapable of
confinement or exclusive appropriation by anyone."
If ideas can spread like fire, then freedom, like water, will flow around
or over those that stand in its way. In Cyberspace, I hope that this truth
will be self-evident.
*****************************
Announcement of Group Meeting
*****************************
Hypereal Group Meeting: The Aesthetics of Presence -
towards an ethic of design
Sunday, July 11 within interactive technologies
7:00 pm
Sunken Room - Genesee Co-op
713 Monroe Ave Rochester, NY
Free and open to the public.
For more information, contact:
Haim Bodek
hb003b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
716-442-6231
Hypereal Group
P.O. Box 18572
Rochester, NY 14618
**************************************
Request for Help from Canadian Readers
**************************************
Peter Hum, a reporter with a major Canadian newspaper called the Ottawa
Citizen (circulation about 200,000 in an area of about 1 million) is
interested in learning about encryption issues in Canada. Anyone with
information can send e-mail to Peter at af391@freenet.carleton.ca, or call
him at (613) 596-3761.
*******************
Job Openings at EFF
*******************
SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
EFF is looking for a dependable, organized, hands-on SysAdmin with 2-3
years experience to manage a cluster of Sun Sparcstations serving as our
Internet host in our Washington, DC, office. The successful candidate must
know UNIX applications, including sendmail, ftp archive, Gopher, DNS &
WAIS. S/he must be able to customize, install & debug in C. Extensive Mac
(System 7, LocalTalk, Ethernet, MacTCP) experience is also required to
manage our Mac LAN & bus applications. This person will be responsible for
hardware & software acquisition & maintenance & our 50-port PBX telephone
system.
Our SysAdmin must enjoy a high energy, interrupt-driven environment. Good
communications skills (writing & speaking) & a user-friendly attitude are
required. A BS in CS, EE, MIS or a related field is helpful. Interest in
EFF's mission & an ability to advise EFF staff members on technical issues
related to public policy is preferred.
Salary negotiable with excellent benefits. Send resume, cover letter &
salary requirements by 7/20 to:
EFF SysAdmin
238 Main Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Attn: L. Breit
by e-mail (ASCII only, please): lbreit@eff.org
no phone calls
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECEPTIONIST
EFF and its upstairs neighbors are looking for a telephone receptionist.
Computer and phone experience preferred. Must be professional, personable,
courteous, extremely reliable and graceful under pressure. All applicants
should be content with a permanent position as a receptionist with our
organizations. Competitive salary with good benefits.
E-mail your resume (ASCII) to erickson@eff.org, or fax to (202) 393-5509.
You may also mail your resume to:
Receptionist Search
1001 G Street, NW
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001
Attn: K. Erickson
No phone calls, please. Resumes should be received by 7/20. EFF is an
equal opportunity employer.
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published biweekly by:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Phone: +1 202 347 5400 FAX: +1 202 393 5509
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Shari Steele,
Director of Legal Services & Community Outreach (ssteele@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.
=============================================================
Mail to:
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Membership rates:
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
E-mail 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 nonprofit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate. Initials:______________________
xx
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 13 7/23/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Online Congressional Hearings Postponed
Summary of New Infrastructure Bill
EFF Joins Telecommunications Policy Roundtable
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
**************************************
Online Congressional Hearing Postponed
**************************************
In the last issue of EFFector Online (Volume 5, Number 12, July 7, 1993),
we announced an upcoming online Congressional hearing to be held over the
Internet on July 26 at 9:30AM EDT. Unfortunately, this event has been
postponed until October or November. The following note from Internet Town
Hall organizer Carl Malamud explains:
"I wanted to explain a bit more my understanding of why we
are delaying the congressional hearings. Please be very
clear that I do not represent the committee and that this
explanation is being sent in my capacity as the organizer
of the Internet Town Hall.
"The Internet Town Hall depends on voluntary donations from a
large number of parties. For this Internet Town Hall, we've
had a tremendous outpouring of support from groups such as
O'Reilly & Associates, Sun Microsystems, Cisco, ARPA, Empirical
Tools and Technologies, BBN, UUNET, Metropolitan Fiber Systems,
and many others.
"The purpose of this broad coalition is to demonstrate how the
Internet works and how the Internet can be made to work in the
congressional process. We wanted to make the point that there
exists a general-purpose infrastructure that allows everything
from email to IRC chat to WAIS databases to the World Wide Web
to be accessed.
"One of the key things we wanted to show the Congress was how
audio and video can work over a general purpose infrastructure
such as the Internet. Rather than transmit video over the key
transit networks, which tend to get overloaded during events
such as the Internet Town Hall, ARPA had agreed to furnish the
use of DARTNET, the experimental advanced research network they
operate.
"The underlying transmission facilities for DARTNET are operated
by Sprint. In order for the National Press Club, the headquarters
site for the hearing, to be part of DARTNET we required a T1
line from our facility to the Sprint point of presence a few
blocks away. We had requested Sprint to provide that T1 line
and become part of the Internet Town Hall.
"In the course of examining our request, Sprint postulated that
furnishing a T1 line for a congressional hearing might violate
congressional ethics laws. There are in fact laws on the books
that prohibit members of Congress or its committees from accepting
in-kind donations over a certain value under certain circumstances.
Sprint forwarded their concerns to the House Ethics Committee,
and then later informed the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and Finance and my organization of their actions.
"Needless to say, there are technical alternatives to the T1 line
that we asked Sprint to furnish. In fact, a single call to
Metropolitan Fiber Systems resulted in a 10 Mbps virtual Ethernet
using ATM between Washington, D.C. and Boston which is available
for the hearing when it does occur.
"Even though the technical issue is solved, there still remains
the ethics concern. We firmly believe that a broad industry/government
group volunteering time and money to show how the congressional
process can be changed to include more input from the general
public to be in the public interest. However, we are equally
adamant that *ANY* ethical concerns *MUST* be cleared before
we proceed with the hearings.
"The crux of the issue has to do with in-kind contributions. If
you are testifying before Congress, it is clearly allowed to bring
in computers. However, a donation to the underlying infrastructure
of the congressional committee might be construed as an expense
that must be reimbursed by the committee to the donor. The purpose
of such laws is to establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that
the congressional process is clean and not subject to the undue
influence of a particular interest group.
"We will spend the next few months describing to congressional
officials exactly what we have in mind for the hearings. Since this
will be a historical occasion, there is no precedent for on-line
hearings. We want to make sure that everybody is very comfortable
with the issues and that officials believe that there is public
benefit in such a demonstration.
"I'd like to thank all the volunteers for their time and effort
to date. A tremendous amount of behind the scenes efforts has
already taken place and we're hoping to salvage some of that
effort so we don't have to start from scratch. I'd also like
to thank everybody on the network who sent in letters. The
Subcommittee and Congressman Markey were truly impressed at
the volume and the quality of the commentary from the public
through e-mail and are looking forward to a successful on-line
hearing later in the year.
"BTW, we're keeping congress@town.hall.org open ... no sense
in cutting off communication!
Carl Malamud
Internet Multicasting Service"
*******************************************************
Telecommunications Infrastructure Act of 1993 (S. 1086)
*******************************************************
Introduced by Senators Danforth and Inouye on June 9, 1993
First hearing scheduled: July 14, 9:30 AM
A Summary by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
The Senate Communications Subcommittee is now in the process of
considering legislation that would eliminate the legal monopoly that
local telephone companies have on local phone service, allow any
communications provider to offer local phone service, and allow local
telephone companies to compete fully in the cable television market.
The legislation's goal is to promote increased investment in the
nation's telecommunications infrastructure.
The bill proposes many significant policy changes, chief among
which is a very rapid move toward deregulating the local telephone
companies' monopoly on local telephone service. The policies proposed
are laid out in broad concepts, leaving the Federal Communications
Commission to wrestle with the actual implementation of the policies.
LOCAL EXCHANGE COMPETITION
One year after the bill is enacted, any company would be allowed
to offer local telephone service. Potential new entrants that would be
allowed in the local exchange market under this bill include cable
television companies, wireless service providers, and even Bell
companies outside their current local exchange monopoly areas. Any
State laws that would preserve the current telephone company monopoly
or limit the entry of competitors are pre-empted by the bill.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER OBLIGATIONS
Any company that offers telecommunications service or is
interconnected with the local exchange carrier's network has several
obligations under this bill. The definition of telecommunications
service is somewhat vague, but it certainly includes voice telephone
service, interactive data services used to carry information services,
and possibly one-way video services such as those currently provided by
cable television companies. Carriers' obligations include:
1. Interconnection
All carriers that either provide telecommunications service or are
interconnected with a carrier that provides telecommunications
service must allow other carriers to interconnect with their network
for the purpose of providing telecommunications or information services
to users of either network. Network operators must provide
interconnection under nondiscriminatory terms, on an unbundled basis.
Operators must also supply all necessary technical information to enable
others to interconnect and interoperate from one network to another.
2. Universal Service
All providers of telecommunications service must contribute to the
"preservation and advancement of universal service." States, in
cooperation with the FCC, are responsible to make regulations that
establish the mechanism for supporting universal service in the newly
competitive telephone market. The bill does provide, however, that any
universal service support should be given directly to "individuals and
entities that cannot afford the cost" of telecommunications service.
Subsidy for users' communications equipment is also allowed.
3. Number Portability
The FCC will establish regulations the provide for "portable"
numbers from all carriers as soon as possible. Thus, a customer could
switch telecommunications providers without having to change telephone
numbers. The administration of the numbering system would be removed
from Bellcore and placed with an "impartial entity."
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RURAL AREAS AND NONCOMPETITIVE MARKETS
The bill recognizes that in a competitive market environment,
rural and "noncompetitive markets" may not enjoy the level of investment
necessary for providing advanced telecommunications services. The
minimum level of service desired in the bill is that which would
"provide subscribers with sufficient network capacity to access to
information services that provide a combination of voice, data, image,
and video; and are available at nondiscriminatory rates that are based
on the reasonably identifiable costs of providing such services." It is
not clear that such services would be interactive. State regulators would
be given the primary responsibility to ensure that carriers have an
incentive to provide high-quality services to all areas. If this
approach fails, the FCC is empowered to take action to have necessary
service delivered to these areas.
NETWORK STANDARDS AND PLANNING
All segments of the communications industry are encouraged to work
together to set voluntary standards for interconnection and
interoperability. If the FCC determines that standards development is
not succeeding or is proceeding too slowly, it may set incentives or
deadlines for work to be completed. The FCC may also impose mandatory
standards if the voluntary process fails.
The FCC and the States are required to ensure that advanced
telecommunications services are designed to be accessible to people with
disabilities.
TELEPHONE COMPANY ENTRY INTO CABLE TELEVISION MARKET
The current ban preventing local telephone companies from entering
the cable television market is lifted, in part. Local phone companies
will be allowed, under the bill, to provide cable television service
within their serving area, if the service is provided by a
separate subsidiary and the phone company does not break any laws
regarding improper cross-subsidization between phone service and cable
services. By the same token, cable companies that provide
telecommunications service must do so through separate subsidiaries and
obey laws regarding cross-subsidization. Phone companies are still not
allowed to purchase more than 5 percent interest in any cable system
that provides services within the phone companies' service regions.
CHANGES IN LONG DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS
The restrictions on local phone companies against providing long
distance (InterLATA) telecommunications service are lifted, in part, by
the bill, to enable local phone companies to function more easily in the
cable television and cellular phone markets. Bell companies would be
allowed to operate wireline and satellite links for the purposes of
distributing cable television signals over long distances. Some
relaxation of the InterLATA restriction is also allowed to enable Bell
companies to carry cellular phone calls from one region to another, and
to hand off calls from one cellular system to another.
INFORMATION SERVICES SAFEGUARDS
Bell companies that provide information services must do so
through a separate subsidiary in order to prevent cross-subsidies that
would be unfair to consumers of basic phone service and to information
service competitors. The separate subsidiary must maintain separate
books and records, only engage in arms-length transactions with the Bell
company, and follow other regulations that the FCC issues regarding
accounting, tariffing, and business practices.
PRIVACY OF CUSTOMER TRANSACTION INFORMATION
Telecommunications carriers are prohibited from disclosing
information about individual customers unless there is an affirmative,
written request to do so by that customer. Carriers must, however, make
any information (Customer Proprietary Network Information) that is
disclosed available equally to their affiliates and all competitors who
request the information. Customer Proprietary Network Information
includes quantity, type, and technical characteristics of
telecommunications service used by a customer, as well as information
contained in bills received by the customer.
[A complete copy of S.1086 is available by anonymous ftp on ftp.eff.org.]
[Please direct any questions to eff@eff.org.]
**********************************************
EFF Joins Telecommunications Policy Roundtable
**********************************************
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is pleased to announce its participation
in the newly formed Telecommunications Policy Roundtable. With market
actions fast outpacing the public policy process, it is critical that
citizens' groups articulate basic public interest goals that can help frame
the debate over information infrastructure policy.
Organizations such as the Association of Research Libraries, the Center for
Media Education, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and the
Institute for Civic Networking all played leading roles in initiating the
Roundtable. We thank these organizations, for creating the very important
forum, in which a wide range of public interest organizations work together
to frame common communications policy goals. In addition to general
participation in the group, EFF has agreed to focus its efforts on the
public policy and legislative strategy taskforce of the Roundtable.
The initial announcement of the Roundtable (posted to com-priv) contained
some suggestion that EFF's work on infrastructure policy issues over the
last year was narrow and lacking in vision. Though we have never pretended
to know, or be able to pursue, the solutions to all communications policy
problems, we do feel that we have made a significant contribution to the
infrastucture debate and to the effort to protect free speech and privacy
in new electronic media. Some criticize our emphasis on ISDN and other
affordable digital media as too narrow. We believe that our Open Platform
policy efforts in support of ISDN have caused a major change in the way
communications infrastructure policy is discussed. With the example of
ISDN, we showed that citizens do not have to wait around 20 years while
RBOCs lay fiber-to-the-home. Rather, with affordable, available
technology, those who don't own telephone networks or cable television
networks can start to create the applications and services that will shape
our experience of the information age. Our Open Platorm efforts are aimed
at increasing the diversity of information sources, expanding the notion of
universal service, increasing access to information, and protecting
privacy. ISDN is not our final goal, but a first step that shows we should
begin to expect the benefits of digital networking technology soon, at
affordable rates, and with nondiscriminatory terms.
In order to show that we are not stuck on ISDN, either as a technology or a
policy goal, we convened a meeting of over 20 major public interest
organizations on June 1, 1993 (several weeks before the Roundtable was
announced), to discuss EFF's long-term policy concerns and to hear the views
of other groups. A section of the paper that we prepared for that meeting
is appended to this message. We hope that this will clarify that EFF does
have a view of communications policy goals beyond ISDN. We certainly
invite comments on this document, but hope that in the future people who
write about our positions will take the time to read our work first.
(Please see also an article in the July/August '93 issue of Wired Magazine
by Mitchell Kapor, EFF's Chairman of the Board, "Where Is the Digital
Highway Really Heading? A Case for a Jeffersonian Information Policy" for
a broad statement of EFF's infrastructure vision.)
EFF has joined the Roundtable to be part of the process of framing a
comprehensive public interest communications policy. We are looking
forward to the success of this effort.
=========================================================
TOWARD A NEW PUBLIC INTEREST COMMUNICATIONS POLICY AGENDA
FOR THE INFORMATION AGE
A Framework for Discussion
by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
June 1, 1993
I. Introduction
For over a decade, techno-prophets have been predicting the
convergence of telephone, computer and television technologies. In this
world, endless information would be available at the touch of a button, and
many of life's chores would be simplified by artificially-intelligent
personal assistants. The prophesied results were said to be everything
from a newfound global village enabled by democratized communications
tools, to an Orwellian multimedia, mind-numbing, thought-controlling,
consumer culture/police-state gone wild. In the past, discussions of this
convergence has been relegated to the musings of futurists and the arcana
of telecommunications regulatory policy. This year, however, the grand
convergence is evident both on the front pages of national magazines and
newspapers, as well as in the White House. Telecommunications
infrastructure policy -- the management of this grand convergence -- has
arrived as a mainstream policy issue.
Most telling of all, large investments are now being made in order
to take advantage of business opportunities arising out of the convergence
of television, computers, and telecommunications. Despite existing
regulatory barriers, a number of major corporations have undertaken major
initiatives which blur the traditional media distinctions. Regional Bell
Operating Companies, including Bell Atlantic and US West, have announced
multi-billion dollar infrastructure investment plans that position them to
expand from the telecommunications market to the video entertainment
market. By the same token, cable television companies are crossing over
from their traditional domain toward being able to offer telecommunications
services. Early in 1993, Time-Warner announced plans to offer interactive
services and connections directly to long distance telephone networks for
residential customers in Orlando, FL. Six cable television companies also
recently joined forces to purchase a company called Teleport, which
competes directly with local telephone companies. And finally, US West
announced in May 1993 that it will purchase a multi-billion dollar stake in
Time-Warner Entertainment Partners.
All of these developments are being watched with great interest by
Congress and the Administration. No longer is telecommunications policy a
matter of sorting out the special interests of newspaper companies,
telephone companies, and cable companies. Rather it has been re-christened
as "information infrastructure" policy. As such, it is recognized to have
major implications for domestic economic development, global
competitiveness, and science and technology policy. The ultimate symbol of
this increased interest in telecommunications policy is the Vice
President's frequent declaration that the Clinton Administration is
committed to promoting the creation of electronic superhighways in the
1990s, just as the Vice President's father oversaw the construction of the
interstate highway system in the 1950s.
Talk of superhighways and potential for new economic growth,
though, may lead some to forget that in shaping information infrastructure
policy, we must also be guided by core communications policy values. The
"highways" that are being built here are for speech as well as for
commerce. In order to preserve the democratic character of our society as
we move into the Information Age, these key public interest communications
policy goals must be kept at the forefront:
o Diversity of Information Sources: Creating an infrastructure that
promotes the First Amendment goal of availability of a maximum possible
diversity of view points;
o Universal Service: Ensuring a minimum level of affordable,
interactive service to all Americans;
o Free Speech and Common Carriage: Guaranteeing infrastructure
access regardless of the content of the message that the user is sending;
o Privacy: Protecting the security and privacy of all communications
carried over the infrastructure, and safeguarding the Fourth and Fifth
Amendment rights of all who use the information infrastructure;
o Development of Public Interest Applications and Services: Ensuring
that public interest applications and services that are not produced by
the commercial market are available and affordable.
Advances in telecommunications have tremendous potential to support all of
these important communications policy values. In many cases, inexpensive
equipment exists that could give individuals and small organizations a
degree of control over information that has never before been possible.
However, if not implemented with core communications values in mind, the
technology will do more harm than good. The convergence of historically
separate communications media poses a major challenge to the public
interest community. The Electronic Frontier Foundation hopes to play a
role with other public interest organizations in realizing the democratic
potential of these new technologies.
II. Framing Public Interest Communications Policy Goals For The
Information Age: What Is at Stake in the Development of the Information
Infrastructure
A. Diversity of Information Sources
Aside from the universal service guaranty, the driving communications
policy value for the last 50 years has been promotion of the maximum
diversity of information sources, with the greatest variety of viewpoints.
Most agree that from a diversity standpoint, the ideal environment is the
print medium. Compared to both the broadcast and cable television arenas,
print is the vehicle for the greatest diversity of viewpoints and has the
lowest publication and distribution costs. Despite the regulatory steps
taken to promote diversity in the mass media, the desired variety of
opinion and information has never been fully achieved.
The switched nature of advanced digital network technology offers
to end the spectrum and channel scarcity problem altogether. If new
network services are deployed with adequate down- and up-stream capacity,
and allow point-to-point communication, then each user of the network can
be both an information consumer and publisher. Network architecture that
is truly peer-to-peer can help produce in digital media the kind of
information diversity that only exists today only in the print media. If
network access is guaranteed, as is the case in the public switched
telephone network, the need for content providers to negotiate for air time
and channel allocation will be eliminated. Even in a truly interactive
network environment, the government will still need to provide financial
support to ensure that public interest programming is produced and
available, but channel set-asides per se will not be necessary.
B. Universal Service: From Plain Old Telephone Service to Plain Old Digital
Service
The principle of equitable access to basic services is an integral part of
this nation's public switched telephone network. From the early history
of the telephone network, both government and commercial actors have taken
steps to ensure that access to basic voice telephone services is affordable
and accessible to all segments of society. Since the divestiture of AT&T,
many of the internal cross-subsidies that supported the "social contract"
of universal service have fallen away. Re-creation of old patterns of
subsidy may no longer be possible nor necessarily desirable, but serious
thought must be given to sources of funds that will guaranty that the
economically disadvantaged will still have access to basic communications
services.
The universal service guaranty in the Communications Act of 1934
has, until now, been interpreted to mean access to "plain old telephone
service" (POTS). In the information age, we must extend this guaranty to
include "plain old digital service." Extending this guaranty means
ensuring that new basic digital services are affordable and ubiquitously
available. Equity and the democratic imperative also demand that these
services meet the needs of people with disabilities, the elderly, and other
groups with special needs. Failure to do so is sure to create a society of
information "haves" and "have nots."
C. Free Speech: Common Carriage
In a society which relies more and more on electronic communications media
as its primary conduit for expression, full support for First Amendment
values requires extension of the common carrier principle to all of these
new media. Common carriers are companies that provide conduit services for
the general public. The common carrier's duties have evolved over hundreds
of years in the common law and statutory provisions. Common carriers have
a duty to:
o provide services in a non-discriminatory manner at a fair price,
o interconnect with other carriers, and
o provide adequate services
The public must have access to digital data transport services, such as
ISDN and ADSL, which are regulated by the principles of common carriage.
Re-shaping common carriage duties for new media environments is of
critical importance as mass media and telecommunications services converge
and recombine in new forms. Telephone companies, the traditional providers
of common carriage communications services, are moving closer and closer to
providing video and content-based services. By the same token, cable
television companies, which have functioned as program providers, are
showing great interest in offering telecommunications services. In what is
sure to be an increasingly complex environment, we must ensure that common
carriage transport is available to those who want it.
Unlike arrangements found in many countries, our communications
infrastructure is owned by private corporations, not the government.
Therefore, a legislatively imposed expanded duty of common
carriage on public switched telephone carriers is necessary to protect free
expression effectively. A telecommunications provider under a common
carrier obligation would have to carry any legal message, whether it is
voice, data, images, or sound, regardless of its content. For example, if
full common-carrier protections were in place for all of the conduit services
offered by the phone company, the terminations of "controversial" 900
number services, such as political fundraising, would not be allowed, just
as the phone company is now prohibited by the Communications Act from
discriminating in the provision of basic voice telephone services. As a
matter of law and policy, the common carriage protections should be
extended from basic voice service to cover basic data service, as well.
D. Privacy
With dramatic increases in reliance on digital media for communications,
the need for comprehensive protection of privacy in these media grows.
The scope of the emerging digital communications revolution poses major
new challenges for those concerned about protecting communications
privacy. Communication that is 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. As such, access to
robust, affordable encryption technology will be critical to enable people
to protect their own privacy. Government controls on encryption systems,
whether for law enforcement or national security reasons, raise grave
constitutional issues and could undermine individuals' ability to protect
the privacy of personal information and communications.
For more information contact:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G St, NW
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001
eff@eff.org
A complete copy of this document is available by anonymous ftp at
ftp.eff.org in the file named
"pub/EFF/papers/open-platform-discussion-1993."
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published biweekly by:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Phone: +1 202 347 5400 FAX: +1 202 393 5509
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Shari Steele,
Director of Legal Services & Community Outreach (ssteele@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.
=============================================================
Mail to:
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Membership rates:
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
E-mail 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 nonprofit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate. Initials:______________________
vvv
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 14 8/5/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Answers to Clipper Questions
SKIPJACK Review
Another Job Opening at EFF
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
****************************
Answers to Clipper Questions
****************************
In a previous EFFector Online, we printed some of the 114 questions sent to
President Clinton by the Digital Privacy & Security Working Group on the
Clipper Chip. On July 29, we received a response to these questions from
John D. Podesta, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Some
highlights of the response follow. The complete text of the response will
be posted to EFF's ftp site.
Why is key escrow being proposed?
The development of key escrow encryption technology was born out of a
recognition on the part of the U.S. Government of the public's growing
desire for high quality encryption capability for commercial and private
use. At the same time, the Government was concerned that the widespread
use of this technology could make lawfully authorized electronic
surveillance much more difficult. Historically, law enforcement
encountered very little encryption, owing largely to the expense and
difficulty in using such technology. With growing availability of lower
cost, commercial encryption technology for use by U.S. industry and private
citizens, it became clear that a strategy was needed that could accommodate
the needs of the private sector for top notch communications security; of
U.S. industry to remain competitive in the world's secure communications
market; and of U.S. law enforcement to conduct lawfully-authorized
electronic surveillance.
Enhancing the government's ability to decrypt non-key escrow encryption
used by the targets of authorized law enforcement wiretaps is another
possible strategy for coping with the effects of encryption on law
enforcement. However, since encryption appears in a number of forms and
applications, the costs are likely to be substantial and may not be either
affordable or practical given the requirement for "real time" decryption in
the course of wiretap operations.
Why is the algorithm classified?
A classified algorithm is essential to the effectiveness of the key escrow
solution. The use of a classified algorithm assures no one can use the
algorithm in non-escrowed systems. Also, disclosure of the algorithm
would, in effect, provide the world with an extremely secure encryption
capability that could be implemented and used in systems by those whose
interests are adverse to U.S. national security interests. Finally, NSA
classifies all of the algorithms used for defense systems as part of its
policy to take all reasonable steps to assure the security of systems it
develops. The algorithm was classified in accordance with Executive Order
12356 and its implementing regulations.
For all these reasons the encryption algorithm could not be chosen from
those already available to the public, such as the Data Encryption Standard
(DES). Similarly, the algorithm cannot be published for public review and
comment. Nonetheless, in keeping with the Presidential Decision Directive
of April to allow independent experts to review the integrity of the
classified algorithm, five such experts have already begun a study of the
algorithm. We expect their findings to be made public soon.
Is the key escrow initiative compatible with constitutional rights?
Questions have been raised whether the requirement of key disclosure
infringes upon one's right to free speech under the First Amendment, the
right against self incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment, or the
right against improper search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment. The key
escrow scheme does not require the owner or user of a device equipped with
the key escrow encryption chip to say or produce anything. The key escrow
technique in no way addresses the issue of what people may choose to say,
and the individual user of key escrow products will not be required to
provide the government any information. Indeed, the individual will not
know the keys. Thus, this technology or technique in no way impacts the
rights available under the First or Fifth Amendments.
Law enforcement organizations will not be able to decrypt communications
without the device unique key and they can only obtain the key components
needed to determine a device unique key after making an appropriate
certification of their authority to conduct electronic surveillance to the
independent key escrow agents. Thus, this technology actually strengthens
the Fourth Amendment protections afforded individuals, since law
enforcement cannot obtain the contents of communications without first
obtaining the key component.
Will use of the key escrow technology be required?
One point clearly stated in the Presidential Decision Directive and
emphasized several times since April is that use of key escrow encryption
technology is voluntary. While the U.S. government encourages its use
because of the excellent security it provides, and will promulgate
standards permitting its use by government departments and agencies, there
is no requirement that the public use it. No doubt some, particularly
those intent on thwarting authorized wiretaps, will buy other forms of
encryption or could "double encrypt" their communications suing a key
escrow device in combination with a non-escrowed device. But we believe
the vast majority will buy this system because it is easy to use, provides
superb security, and likely will be readily available in commercial
products.
The Administration has chosen to encourage the widespread use of key escrow
devices rather than mandating or regulating its use. Though we recognize
the risks to law enforcement activities posed by the widespread use of
sophisticated encryption products, we also recognize that encryption is an
effective means to secure communications and computer systems. Thus far,
government purchases and standards have created secure products that sere
bought by private citizens "piggybacking" on the government's development
effort. It makes little sense for the government to promulgate standards
or to develop products that will defeat law enforcement interests if and
when they spread to the private sector. Because these measures may be
sufficient to make key escrow encryption the easiest and most available
privacy protection it would be imprudent to pursue the far more drastic
step of regulating private encryption. The Administration has progressed
far enough in its review to conclude it will not propose new legislation to
limit use of encryption technology.
***************
SKIPJACK Review
***************
The following interim report on the SKIPJACK, formerly Clipper, chip was
posted by Dorothy Denning to sci.crypt. It is reprinted here for
nonmembers of that list.
SKIPJACK Review
Interim Report
The SKIPJACK Algorithm
Ernest F. Brickell, Sandia National Laboratories
Dorothy E. Denning, Georgetown University
Stephen T. Kent, BBN Communications Corporation
David P. Maher, AT&T
Walter Tuchman, Amperif Corporation
July 28, 1993
(copyright 1993)
Executive Summary
The objective of the SKIPJACK review was to provide a mechanism whereby
persons outside the government could evaluate the strength of the
classified encryption algorithm used in the escrowed encryption devices
and publicly report their findings. Because SKIPJACK is but one
component of a large, complex system, and because the security of
communications encrypted with SKIPJACK depends on the security of the
system as a whole, the review was extended to encompass other
components of the system. The purpose of this Interim Report is to
report on our evaluation of the SKIPJACK algorithm. A later Final
Report will address the broader system issues.
The results of our evaluation of the SKIPJACK algorithm are as
follows:
1. Under an assumption that the cost of processing power is halved
every eighteen months, it will be 36 years before the cost of
breaking SKIPJACK by exhaustive search will be equal to the cost
of breaking DES today. Thus, there is no significant risk that
SKIPJACK will be broken by exhaustive search in the next 30-40
years.
2. There is no significant risk that SKIPJACK can be broken through a
shortcut method of attack.
3. While the internal structure of SKIPJACK must be classified in
order to protect law enforcement and national security objectives,
the strength of SKIPJACK against a cryptanalytic attack does not
depend on the secrecy of the algorithm.
1. Background
On April 16, the President announced a new technology initiative aimed
at providing a high level of security for sensitive, unclassified
communications, while enabling lawfully authorized intercepts of
telecommunications by law enforcement officials for criminal
investigations. The initiative includes several components:
A classified encryption/decryption algorithm called "SKIPJACK."
Tamper-resistant cryptographic devices (e.g., electronic chips),
each of which contains SKIPJACK, classified control software, a
device identification number, a family key used by law enforcement,
and a device unique key that unlocks the session key used to
encrypt a particular communication.
A secure facility for generating device unique keys and programming
the devices with the classified algorithms, identifiers, and keys.
Two escrow agents that each hold a component of every device unique
key. When combined, those two components form the device unique
key.
A law enforcement access field (LEAF), which enables an authorized
law enforcement official to recover the session key. The LEAF is
created by a device at the start of an encrypted communication and
contains the session key encrypted under the device unique key
together with the device identifier, all encrypted under the family
key.
LEAF decoders that allow an authorized law enforcement official to
extract the device identifier and encrypted session key from an
intercepted LEAF. The identifier is then sent to the escrow
agents, who return the components of the corresponding device
unique key. Once obtained, the components are used to reconstruct
the device unique key, which is then used to decrypt the session
key.
This report reviews the security provided by the first component,
namely the SKIPJACK algorithm. The review was performed pursuant to
the President's direction that "respected experts from outside the
government will be offered access to the confidential details of the
algorithm to assess its capabilities and publicly report their
finding." The Acting Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) sent letters of invitation to potential
reviewers. The authors of this report accepted that invitation.
We attended an initial meeting at the Institute for Defense Analyses
Supercomputing Research Center (SRC) from June 21-23. At that meeting,
the designer of SKIPJACK provided a complete, detailed description of
the algorithm, the rationale for each feature, and the history of the
design. The head of the NSA evaluation team described the evaluation
process and its results. Other NSA staff briefed us on the LEAF
structure and protocols for use, generation of device keys, protection
of the devices against reverse engineering, and NSA's history in the
design and evaluation of encryption methods contained in SKIPJACK.
Additional NSA and NIST staff were present at the meeting to answer our
questions and provide assistance. All staff members were forthcoming
in providing us with requested information.
At the June meeting, we agreed to integrate our individual evaluations
into this joint report. We also agreed to reconvene at SRC from July
19-21 for further discussions and to complete a draft of the report.
In the interim, we undertook independent tasks according to our
individual interests and availability. Ernest Brickell specified a
suite of tests for evaluating SKIPJACK. Dorothy Denning worked at NSA
on the refinement and execution of these and other tests that took into
account suggestions solicited from Professor Martin Hellman at Stanford
University. NSA staff assisted with the programming and execution of
these tests. Denning also analyzed the structure of SKIPJACK and its
susceptibility to differential cryptanalysis. Stephen Kent visited NSA
to explore in more detail how SKIPJACK compared with NSA encryption
algorithms that he already knew and that were used to protect
classified data. David Maher developed a risk assessment approach
while continuing his ongoing work on the use of the encryption chip in
the AT&T Telephone Security Device. Walter Tuchman investigated the
anti-reverse engineering properties of the chips.
We investigated more than just SKIPJACK because the security of
communications encrypted with the escrowed encryption technology
depends on the security provided by all the components of the
initiative, including protection of the keys stored on the devices,
protection of the key components stored with the escrow agents, the
security provided by the LEAF and LEAF decoder, protection of keys
after they have been transmitted to law enforcement under court order,
and the resistance of the devices to reverse engineering. In addition,
the success of the technology initiative depends on factors besides
security, for example, performance of the chips. Because some
components of the escrowed encryption system, particularly the key
escrow system, are still under design, we decided to issue this Interim
Report on the security of the SKIPJACK algorithm and to defer our Final
Report until we could complete our evaluation of the system as a
whole.
2. Overview of the SKIPJACK Algorithm
SKIPJACK is a 64-bit "electronic codebook" algorithm that transforms a
64-bit input block into a 64-bit output block. The transformation is
parameterized by an 80-bit key, and involves performing 32 steps or
iterations of a complex, nonlinear function. The algorithm can be used
in any one of the four operating modes defined in FIPS 81 for use with
the Data Encryption Standard (DES).
The SKIPJACK algorithm was developed by NSA and is classified SECRET.
It is representative of a family of encryption algorithms developed in
1980 as part of the NSA suite of "Type I" algorithms, suitable for
protecting all levels of classified data. The specific algorithm,
SKIPJACK, is intended to be used with sensitive but unclassified
information.
The strength of any encryption algorithm depends on its ability to
withstand an attack aimed at determining either the key or the
unencrypted ("plaintext") communications. There are basically two
types of attack, brute-force and shortcut.
3. Susceptibility to Brute Force Attack by Exhaustive Search
In a brute-force attack (also called "exhaustive search"), the
adversary essentially tries all possible keys until one is found that
decrypts the intercepted communications into a known or meaningful
plaintext message. The resources required to perform an exhaustive
search depend on the length of the keys, since the number of possible
keys is directly related to key length. In particular, a key of length
N bits has 2^N possibilities. SKIPJACK uses 80-bit keys, which means
there are 2^80 (approximately 10^24) or more than 1 trillion
possible keys.
An implementation of SKIPJACK optimized for a single processor on the
8-processor Cray YMP performs about 89,000 encryptions per second. At
that rate, it would take more than 400 billion years to try all keys.
Assuming the use of all 8 processors and aggressive vectorization, the
time would be reduced to about a billion years.
A more speculative attack using a future, hypothetical, massively
parallel machine with 100,000 RISC processors, each of which was
capable of 100,000 encryptions per second, would still take about 4
million years. The cost of such a machine might be on the order of $50
million. In an even more speculative attack, a special purpose machine
might be built using 1.2 billion $1 chips with a 1 GHz clock. If the
algorithm could be pipelined so that one encryption step were performed
per clock cycle, then the $1.2 billion machine could exhaust the key
space in 1 year.
Another way of looking at the problem is by comparing a brute force
attack on SKIPJACK with one on DES, which uses 56-bit keys. Given that
no one has demonstrated a capability for breaking DES, DES offers a
reasonable benchmark. Since SKIPJACK keys are 24 bits longer than DES
keys, there are 2^24 times more possibilities. Assuming that the cost
of processing power is halved every eighteen months, then it will not
be for another 24 * 1.5 = 36 years before the cost of breaking
SKIPJACK is equal to the cost of breaking DES today. Given the lack of
demonstrated capability for breaking DES, and the expectation that the
situation will continue for at least several more years, one can
reasonably expect that SKIPJACK will not be broken within the next
30-40 years.
Conclusion 1: Under an assumption that the cost of processing power
is halved every eighteen months, it will be 36 years before the cost of
breaking SKIPJACK by exhaustive search will be equal to the cost of
breaking DES today. Thus, there is no significant risk that SKIPJACK
will be broken by exhaustive search in the next 30-40 years.
4. Susceptibility to Shortcut Attacks
In a shortcut attack, the adversary exploits some property of the
encryption algorithm that enables the key or plaintext to be determined
in much less time than by exhaustive search. For example, the RSA
public-key encryption method is attacked by factoring a public value
that is the product of two secret primes into its primes.
Most shortcut attacks use probabilistic or statistical methods that
exploit a structural weakness, unintentional or intentional (i.e., a
"trapdoor"), in the encryption algorithm. In order to determine
whether such attacks are possible, it is necessary to thoroughly
examine the structure of the algorithm and its statistical properties.
In the time available for this review, it was not feasible to conduct
an evaluation on the scale that NSA has conducted or that has been
conducted on the DES. Such review would require many man-years of
effort over a considerable time interval. Instead, we concentrated on
reviewing NSA's design and evaluation process. In addition, we
conducted several of our own tests.
4.1 NSA's Design and Evaluation Process
SKIPJACK was designed using building blocks and techniques that date
back more than forty years. Many of the techniques are related to work
that was evaluated by some of the world's most accomplished and famous
experts in combinatorics and abstract algebra. SKIPJACK's more
immediate heritage dates to around 1980, and its initial design to
1987.
SKIPJACK was designed to be evaluatable, and the design and evaluation
approach was the same used with algorithms that protect the country's
most sensitive classified information. The specific structures
included in SKIPJACK have a long evaluation history, and the
cryptographic properties of those structures had many prior years of
intense study before the formal process began in 1987. Thus, an
arsenal of tools and data was available. This arsenal was used by
dozens of adversarial evaluators whose job was to break SKIPJACK. Many
spent at least a full year working on the algorithm. Besides highly
experienced evaluators, SKIPJACK was subjected to cryptanalysis by less
experienced evaluators who were untainted by past approaches. All
known methods of attacks were explored, including differential
cryptanalysis. The goal was a design that did not allow a shortcut
attack.
The design underwent a sequence of iterations based on feedback from
the evaluation process. These iterations eliminated properties which,
even though they might not allow successful attack, were related to
properties that could be indicative of vulnerabilities. The head of
the NSA evaluation team confidently concluded "I believe that SKIPJACK
can only be broken by brute force there is no better way."
In summary, SKIPJACK is based on some of NSA's best technology.
Considerable care went into its design and evaluation in accordance
with the care given to algorithms that protect classified data.
4.2 Independent Analysis and Testing
Our own analysis and testing increased our confidence in the strength
of SKIPJACK and its resistance to attack.
4.2.1 Randomness and Correlation Tests
A strong encryption algorithm will behave like a random function of the
key and plaintext so that it is impossible to determine any of the key
bits or plaintext bits from the ciphertext bits (except by exhaustive
search). We ran two sets of tests aimed at determining whether
SKIPJACK is a good pseudo random number generator. These tests were
run on a Cray YMP at NSA. The results showed that SKIPJACK behaves
like a random function and that ciphertext bits are not correlated with
either key bits or plaintext bits. Appendix A gives more details.
4.2.2 Differential Cryptanalysis
Differential cryptanalysis is a powerful method of attack that exploits
structural properties in an encryption algorithm. The method involves
analyzing the structure of the algorithm in order to determine the
effect of particular differences in plaintext pairs on the differences
of their corresponding ciphertext pairs, where the differences are
represented by the exclusive-or of the pair. If it is possible to
exploit these differential effects in order to determine a key in less
time than with exhaustive search, an encryption algorithm is said to be
susceptible to differential cryptanalysis. However, an actual attack
using differential cryptanalysis may require substantially more chosen
plaintext than can be practically acquired.
We examined the internal structure of SKIPJACK to determine its
susceptibility to differential cryptanalysis. We concluded it was not
possible to perform an attack based on differential cryptanalysis in
less time than with exhaustive search.
4.2.3 Weak Key Test
Some algorithms have "weak keys" that might permit a shortcut
solution. DES has a few weak keys, which follow from a pattern of
symmetry in the algorithm. We saw no pattern of symmetry in the
SKIPJACK algorithm which could lead to weak keys. We also
experimentally tested the all "0" key (all 80 bits are "0") and the all
"1" key to see if they were weak and found they were not.
4.2.4 Symmetry Under Complementation Test
The DES satisfies the property that for a given plaintext-ciphertext
pair and associated key, encryption of the one's complement of the
plaintext with the one's complement of the key yields the one's
complement of the ciphertext. This "complementation property" shortens
an attack by exhaustive search by a factor of two since half the keys
can be tested by computing complements in lieu of performing a more
costly encryption. We tested SKIPJACK for this property and found that
it did not hold.
4.2.5 Comparison with Classified Algorithms
We compared the structure of SKIPJACK to that of NSA Type I algorithms
used in current and near-future devices designed to protect classified
data. This analysis was conducted with the close assistance of the
cryptographer who developed SKIPJACK and included an in-depth
discussion of design rationale for all of the algorithms involved.
Based on this comparative, structural analysis of SKIPJACK against
these other algorithms, and a detailed discussion of the similarities
and differences between these algorithms, our confidence in the basic
soundness of SKIPJACK was further increased.
Conclusion 2: There is no significant risk that SKIPJACK can be broken
through a shortcut method of attack.
5. Secrecy of the Algorithm
The SKIPJACK algorithm is sensitive for several reasons. Disclosure of
the algorithm would permit the construction of devices that fail to
properly implement the LEAF, while still interoperating with legitimate
SKIPJACK devices. Such devices would provide high quality
cryptographic security without preserving the law enforcement access
capability that distinguishes this cryptographic initiative.
Additionally, the SKIPJACK algorithm is classified SECRET NOT
RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS. This classification reflects the high
quality of the algorithm, i.e., it incorporates design techniques that
are representative of algorithms used to protect classified
information. Disclosure of the algorithm would permit analysis that
could result in discovery of these classified design techniques, and
this would be detrimental to national security.
However, while full exposure of the internal details of SKIPJACK would
jeopardize law enforcement and national security objectives, it would
not jeopardize the security of encrypted communications. This is
because a shortcut attack is not feasible even with full knowledge of
the algorithm. Indeed, our analysis of the susceptibility of SKIPJACK
to a brute force or shortcut attack was based on the assumption that
the algorithm was known.
Conclusion 3: While the internal structure of SKIPJACK must be
classified in order to protect law enforcement and national security
objectives, the strength of SKIPJACK against a cryptanalytic attack
does not depend on the secrecy of the algorithm.
**************************
Another Job Opening at EFF
**************************
ONLINE ACTIVIST
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit organization
dedicated to protecting civil liberties for users of newly emerging
technologies, is looking to hire an Online Activist.
The Online Activist will actively participate in and organize EFF's sites
on CompuServe, America Online, GEnie, Usenet and the WELL and will
distribute feedback from the various networks to EFF staff and board
through regular online summaries. This person will provide
leadership to groups of members and will possibly set up and maintain an
EFF BBS. The Online Activist will help to maintain EFF's ftp library.
This person will train new EFF staff members on online communications.
S/he will collect and solicit articles for, write articles for, edit and
assemble our biweekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online. The Online
Activist will work with the System Administrator to distribute and post
EFFector Online and other EFF electronic publications and to maintain a
database of form answers for commonly asked questions, along with the
Membership Coordinator. This person must be willing to work out of EFF's
offices in Washington, DC.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a competitive salary with
excellent benefits. For immediate consideration, please forward a resume,
along with a cover letter describing your online experience and reason for
applying for this job by August 23, 1993, to:
Online Activist Search
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, NW
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001
fax (202) 393-5509
e-mail ssteele@eff.org (ASCII only, please)
EFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published biweekly by:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Phone: +1 202 347 5400 FAX: +1 202 393 5509
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Shari Steele,
Director of Legal Services & Community Outreach (ssteele@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 biweekly 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.
=============================================================
Mail to:
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Membership rates:
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
E-mail 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 nonprofit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate. Initials:______________________
mm
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 15 8/20/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet
New EFF T-Shirts, Hot Off the Presses!
Computers, Freedom & Privacy '94
Local Groups List Updated
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
*********************************
Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet
*********************************
EFF is proud to announce that the Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet is now
available for free download from our ftp site. The Big Dummy's Guide is a
user guide for novices on all the Internet has to offer.
The genesis of the Big Dummy's Guide was a few informal conversations,
which included Mitch Kapor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and
Steve Cisler of Apple Computers, in June of 1991. With the support of
Apple Computers, EFF hired a writer (Adam Gaffin) and actually took on the
project in September of 1991.
The idea was to write a guide to the Internet for folks who had little or
no experience with network communications. The Guide is currently posted
to "the 'net" in ASCII and Hypercard (Mac) formats. We have been giving it
away on disk at conferences, and we hope to have a print edition available
for a nominal charge soon. We're hoping to update this Guide on a regular
basis, so please feel free to send us your comments and corrections.
EFF would like to thank the folks at Apple, especially Steve Cisler of the
Apple Library, for their support and gentle prodding in our efforts to
bring this Guide to you. We hope it helps you open up a whole new world,
where new friends and experiences are sure to be yours. Enjoy!
The Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet can be downloaded by anonymous ftp
from ftp.eff.org. The ASCII version is located at
/pub/EFF/papers/big-dummys-guide.txt. The Hypercard stack is located at
/pub/EFF/papers/big-dummys-guide.sit.hqx.
*************************************
New EFF T-Shirts, Hot Off the Presses
*************************************
EFF has just received a shipment of 1000 new t-shirts. The design on the
back of the shirt was submitted as part of our t-shirt contest by Steve
Sheinkin, who will receive a free t-shirt and membership into EFF.
The shirts themselves are white with red and black lettering. On the
front, a small EFF logo is printed on the left. The back is split into
four blocks and is labelled "Pioneers Throughout History." The first block
contains a cowboy on a horse looking off into the sunset and is labelled
"The Western Frontier." The second block contains John F. Kennedy at a
podium and is labelled "The New Frontier." The third block contains a
starship and is labelled "The Final Frontier." And the fourth block
contains the EFF logo and is labelled "The Electronic Frontier."
Shirts are available in small and extra-large. To order the new t-shirts,
send a check for $10 for each shirt to EFF T-Shirts, 1001 G Street, NW,
Suite 950 East, Washington, DC 20001.
********************************
Computers, Freedom & Privacy '94
********************************
Conference Announcement
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy 1994
23-26 March 1994
The fourth annual conference, "Computers, Freedom, and
Privacy," (CFP'94) will be held in Chicago, Il., March 23-26, 1994.
The conference is hosted by The John Marshall Law School; George B.
Trubow, professor of law and director of the Center for Informatics
Law at John Marshall, is general chair of the conference. (E-Mail:
<7trubow@jmls.edu>). The program is sponsored jointly by these
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Special Interest Groups:
Communications (SIGCOMM); Computers and Society (SIGCAS); Security,
Audit and Control (SIGSAC).
The advance of computer and communications technologies holds
great promise for individuals and society. From conveniences for
consumers and efficiencies in commerce to improved public health
and safety and increased participation in government and community,
these technologies are fundamentally transforming our environment
and our lives.
At the same time, these technologies present challenges to the
idea of a free and open society. Personal privacy is at risk from
invasions by high-tech surveillance and monitoring; a myriad of
personal information data bases expose private life to constant
scrutiny; new forms of illegal activity may threaten the
traditional barriers between citizen and state and present new
tests of Constitutional protection; geographic boundaries of state
and nation may be recast by information exchange that knows no
boundaries in global data networks.
CFP'94 will present an assemblage of experts, advocates and
interest groups from diverse perspectives and disciplines to
consider freedom and privacy in today's "information society." A
series of pre-conference tutorials will be offered on March 23,
1994, with the conference program beginning on Thursday, March 24,
and running through Saturday, March 26, 1994.
The Palmer House, a Hilton hotel located in Chicago's "loop,"
and only about a block from The John Marshall Law School, is the
conference headquarters. Room reservations should be made directly
with the hotel after September 1, 1993, mentioning John Marshall or
"CFP'94" to get the special conference rate of $99.00, plus tax.
The Palmer House Hilton
17 E. Monroe, Chicago, Il. 60603
Tel: 312-726-7500; 1-800-HILTONS; Fax 312-263-2556
Communications regarding the conference should be sent to:
CFP'94
The John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Ct.
Chicago, IL 60604-3907
(Voice: 312-987-1419; Fax: 312-427-8307; E-mail: CFP94@jmls.edu)
CALL FOR CFP'94 PARTICIPATION AND PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS
It is intended that CFP'94 programs will examine the potential
benefits and burdens of new information and communications
technologies and consider ways in which society can enjoy the
benefits while minimizing negative implications.
Proposals are requested from those who desire to present an
original paper in a relevant area of technology, policy analysis or
law, or to suggest a program presentation. Any proposal (1) should
not exceed three typewritten double-spaced pages; (2) must state
the title of the paper or program; (3) briefly describe its theme
and content; and (4) set out the name, address, credentials and
experience of the author or suggested speakers. If a proposed paper
has already been completed a copy should be attached to the
proposal.
STUDENT PAPER COMPETITION
Full time college or graduate students are invited to enter the
student paper competition. Papers must not exceed 2500 words and
should address the impact of computer and telecommunications
technologies on freedom and privacy in society. Winners will
receive a scholarship to attend the conference and present their
papers. All papers should be submitted by November 1, 1993 (either
as straight text via e-mail or 6 printed copies) to:
Prof. Eugene Spafford
Department of Computer Science
Purdue University
West Lafeyette, IN 47907-2004
E-Mail: spaf@cs.purdue.edu; Voice: 317-494-7825
REGISTRATION
Registration information and fee schedules will be announced by
September 1, 1993. Inquiries regarding registration should be
directed to RoseMarie Knight, Registration Chair, at the JMLS
address above; her voice number is 312-987-1420.
*******************************************************
Local and Regional Groups Supporting Online Communities
*******************************************************
Below is the updated list of regional groups that support 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 have tried
to keep this list updated, but contact information changes frequently, and
new groups are emerging all the time. We apologize for any problems with
this list. If you notice any problems, or 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
ssteele@eff.org. Thanks!
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
Glenn Tenney -- tenney@netcom.com
Judi Clark -- judic@netcom.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington, DC, Area:
CapAccess
general -- capacces@gwuvm.gwu.edu
Taylor Walsh -- (202)466-0522 (voice)
(301)933-4852 (voice)
"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"
Msen Inc.
628 Brooks
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Phone: (313)998 4562 (voice)
(313)998 4563 (fax)
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:
IndraNet and NitV Data Center.
Stanton McCandlish -- anton@hydra.unm.edu
Bitnet: anton@unmb.bitnet, FidoNet: 1:301/2, IndraNet: 369:1/1
BBS: (505)246-8515 (1200-14400, v32/v32b/v42/v42b, N-1-8)
Stanton McCandlish
8020 Central SE #405
Albuquerque, NM 87108
Phone: (505)247-3402
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 Metropolitan Area:
Society for Electronic Access (SEA)
general -- sea@panix.com
Simona Nass -- simona@panix.com
Alexis Rosen -- alexis@panix.com
P.O. Box 3131
Church Street Station
New York, NY 10008-3131
OHIO
Cleveland:
Cleveland Freenet
The Cleveland Freenet can be reached by modem: (216) 368-3888
or by TELNET-ing to 'FREENET-IN-A.CWRU.EDU'.
OKLAHOMA
Stillwater:
Lonny L. Lowe -- u941013@unx.ucc.okstate.edu
Freelance Consulting
514 S. Pine
Stillwater, OK 74074-2933
Phone: (405)747-4242 (voice)
TENNESSEE
Nashville:
Craig Owensby -- basset@jackatak.raider.net
Craig Owensby
805 Harpeth Bend Drive
Nashville, TN 37205
Phone: (615)662-2011 home, (615)248-5271 work (both voice)
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)
CANADA
Ottawa, Ontario:
National Capital FreeNet
Victoria, British Columbia
VIctoria Free-net Association (VIFA) -- vifa@cue.bc.ca
VIFA
c/o Vancouver Island Advanced Technology Centre
203-1110 Government Street
Victoria, British Columbia V8W 1Y2
Phone: (604)384-2450 (voice)
(604)384-8634 (fax)
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published biweekly by:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Phone: +1 202 347 5400 FAX: +1 202 393 5509
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Shari Steele,
Director of Legal Services & Community Outreach (ssteele@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.
=============================================================
Mail to:
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Membership rates:
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
E-mail 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 nonprofit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate. Initials:______________________
lll
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 16 9/3/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Changes to EFFector Online 5.15
Outline of Testimony Before NIST Advisory Board
Telecommunications Radio Project Returns
Coming Soon: Commercial Version of PGP!
O'Reilly Announces the Global Network Navigator
ASIS 1994 Mid Year Call for Papers
Yet *Another* Job Opening at EFF!
Donate Your Old Computers
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
*******************************
Changes to EFFector Online 5.15
*******************************
Please note the following changes from EFFector Online 5.15.
Professor Spafford's address for the CFP'94 student paper competition is
(e-mail and phone were correct):
Professor Eugene Spafford
Department of Computer Sciences
1398 Computer Science Building
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1398
_____
EFF t-shirts are $10 with a $3 charge for shipping and handling. The
shirts are only currently available in extra large.
_____
The ASCII version of the Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet has already been
updated. The updated version is available by anonymous ftp from
ftp.eff.org. The location is still
***********************************************
Outline of Testimony Before NIST Advisory Board
***********************************************
On September 2, 1993, Jerry Berman and Bruce Heiman of the Digital Privacy
and Security Working Group, a coalition of over 50 telecommunications,
computer and public interest organizations chaired by EFF, testified before
the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board to NIST on the
Administration's Clipper/Skipjack proposal. Here is an outline of the
testimony.
_____
Before the
COMPUTER SYSTEM SECURITY AND PRIVACY ADVISORY BOARD
Baltimore, MD
Comments of the
DIGITAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY WORKING GROUP
September 2, 1993
The Digital Privacy and Security Working Group has been meeting for almost
half a year discussing options for a new policy on cryptography, privacy,
and security. These comments represent a summary of the Working Group's
progress and will be presented in more complete form in a report to be made
public early in the fall.
GOALS
A. The Digital Privacy & Security Working Group shares the Clinton
Administration's goal of promoting the development of the National and
International Information Infrastructure
B. Critical attributes of the emerging information infrastructure are:
o Interoperability across a network of networks
o Adherence to national and international standards
o Security
o Privacy
C. DPSWG conclusions regarding security and privacy policy
o Strong encryption must be widely available in the market for the
NII and the III to succeed as new pathways for commerce and communication.
o Encryption used must be TRUSTED and must accommodate FLEXIBLE
IMPLEMENTATIONS.
o Encryption policy must assure compliance with constitutional
privacy guarantees while meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement
and national security.
A PUBLIC POLICY AGENDA
We are aware that the Clinton Administration is in the process of
completing a comprehensive policy review in this area. Based on our common
goal of developing the National Information Infrastructure, we are hopeful
that we can reach agreement with the Administration on the following
principles as a framework for a new public policy on cryptography, privacy,
and security.
A. The private sector could accept Clipper/Slipjack as one of many
cryptographic systems, provided its use remains truly voluntary.
The user market must be allowed to pick the most appropriate cryptographic
tools, without undue interference of government purchasing power or
domestic legal barriers.
B. In order to promote the use and development of strong encryption
critical to the NII, the Administration should act swiftly to relax current
export controls on cryptography.
A critical indication of the voluntariness of Slipjack will be the
willingness of the Administration to relax export controls.
C. Even if a truly voluntary escrow system is proposed, many questions
must be answered by the Administration before any escrow system could be
accepted.
o Who will act as escrow agents?
o What public policy mechanism will guaranty that key escrow remains
a voluntary option?
o What public policy mechanism will guarantee the privacy and
security of escrowed keys?
o Who will be liable in the event of a security breach?
D. Before making a final decision on Clipper/Skipjack, a more complete
evaluation of law enforcement concerns must be presented publicly.
o No quantitative, cost-benefit analysis has yet been presented.
o No explanation of how a voluntary escrow system solves law
enforcement problems, given the continued availability of other
non-escrowed cryptography systems, has been offered.
o No public consideration of alternatives to escrow systems has been
undertaken.
E. Digital Telephony
o Documented problems have been rectified.
o There is a general willingness to establish a more formal
government-private sector consultation process to resolve any other
identifiable problems now or in the future.
o No justification for legislation exists at this time.
CONCLUSION
****************************************
Telecommunications Radio Project Returns
****************************************
The Telecommunications Radio Project at KPFA-FM in Berkeley is delighted
to announce the returen of our award-winning series "The Communications
Revolution."
Your support and participation with last year's series was fundamental
to its success both as it aired and afterwards as listeners called to
request tapes, transcripts, and resource guides in unprecedented
numbers. I hope that you will help us once again by sharing
information about "The Communications Revolution" with your friends,
colleagues, members, etc.
Following please find a list of this year's programs:
November 3, 1993 9am PST
Technophobia: The Social Disease of the '90s
Who invents these gadgets that come with a fifty page operator's manual?
Why is it that "user friendly" usaully isn't? Why do I need an
engineering degree to operate my VCR? And why aren't humane,
environmentally conscious values considered in the R&D of telecommunications?
November 10, 1993 9am PST
The New Sweatshops: The Glamour-less Electronics Industry
The popular image of hi-tech jobs doesn't include the segregated
workplace of immigrant workers in low pay, high stress, repetitive
and hazardous labor--all the ones who create the new gadgets and
gizmos of the computer age.
November 17, 1993 9am PST
Nintendo Over Baghdad: The Future of War
Will new hi-tech weaponry make the unthinkable thinkable? Can war now
be presented to the American public as a clean, sanitary affair,
causing minimal (and therefore acceptable) "collateral damage"? How are
telecommunications technologies contributing to a new mass
psychology regarding war?
November 24, 1993
When Your Health History Becomes Public Record
The federal government is talking about creating a centralized national
database for all our health records. They're already available to your
future employer, landlord, neighbor. What is your right to privacy
concerning your personal health history?
December 1, 1993
Art and Music through the Nets: The Death of Individual Creativity?
Interactive technologies increase accessibility to original art and music.
Will we see the end of copyrights? Who owns culture and what is
intellectual property in the age of electronic collaboration?
December 8, 1993
The New National Information Infostructure: What's in it for Me?
Internet, NREN, whatever you want to call it, an electronic interlink
between government, education, and business organizations is
rapidly taking shape. How are the big players jockeying for a
piece of the action, and will the average citizen be left out of the
game?
December 15, 1993
Electronic Porn and Computer Network Censorship
Cyberpunk culture dabbles in pornography and we have Playboy on
CD-ROM. Does anyone have a right to regulate or censor this material?
What are the issues surrounding the debate between civil liberties and
the protection of the public?
December 22, 1993
Occupational Hazards with Telecommunications Tools
Why is it that after years of repetitive motion on typewriters, carpal
tunnel syndrome is only now becoming widespread with the use of
computers? Is it something about the keyboards? What's the
latest on electromagnetic fields? VDT radiation?
December 29, 1993
Technology in the Classroom: No Substitute for Teachers?
Distance learning allows students from K through college access to
programs and materials not in their schools. A new global village
is being created in which kids learn from each other across continents.
Are these glitzy gadgets for the few or an answer to our national
crisis in education?
January 5, 1994
Update on Competition since Divestiture: Who Wins and Who Loses?
The phone companies are getting ready to compete for regional toll
calls, offer new services such as multiple TV channels and interactive
television. But some groups, such as rural residents, may be left
out. Basic and Lifeline rates may go up. What will be the
status of consumer protections with the new telecom technologies?
January 12, 1994
The Death of Privacy--and Forget About Anonymity too
Some workplaces now require that you carry a "smart card" so that you
can be located anytime. City employees in one western city were asked
to resign when the mayor read their e-mail messages--which were all
about him! What are our rights to privacy and anonymity in the
computer age?
January 19, 1994
Can Instant Global Telecommunications be a Tool for Social Change?
The environmental movement uses computer networks, fax, and
other telecom tools for organizing. But how effective are they really?
And how are conservative organizations networking in the '90s via
computer databases, fax, and modem?
January 26, 1994
Future Media: Instant News for Instant Views
Editorial control over content of news and increasing pressure on news
rooms to offer "infotainment" to the public is made easier by new
telecommunications news gathering tools. How is all this working and
what will be its effect on informing the public?
All shows will air at 9 am PST. For more information about the series
or for a list of stations carrying the show, please contact me at:
Kim Lau
Telecommunications Radio Project
KPFA-FM
1929 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Berkeley CA 94704
510-848-6767 ext. 264
510-883-0311 (fax)
***************************************
Coming Soon: Commercial Version of PGP
***************************************
Philip Zimmermann has signed an agreement with ViaCrypt, a division
of Lemcom Systems, Inc., to sell a commercial version of PGP. ViaCrypt
is a company in Phoenix, Arizona, that already has an RSA license from
Public Key Partners to sell products that use the RSA algorithm.
The freeware version of PGP will still be available and will be
maintained as well as the commercial version. Most corporations
were not willing to use PGP because it was not licensed by PKP
or RSA Data Security. With this commercial version of PGP, it will be
possible for PGP to enter commercial environments for the first time
and compete with other products such as PEM. This is expected to
enhance PGP's viability as a de facto standard in the long run.
ViaCrypt PGP will be available in the USA and Canada, for an introductory
price of $100 for a single user, with quantity discounts available.
For details, call ViaCrypt at (602) 944-0773, or contact Philip
Zimmermann at prz@acm.org.
**********************************
ASIS 1994 Mid Year Call for Papers
**********************************
Call For Participation
1994 Mid-Year Meeting, American Society for Information Science
Navigating the Networks
May 22 - 25, 1994
Red Lion Hotel, Columbia River
Portland, Oregon
With amazing speed electronic networking systems have grown up around us;
once simple roads leading directly to our destination have become a complex
of interchanges and intersections, whether seen or not. Networking has
experienced a phenomenal rate of growth (11,000 networks currently); the
need for road maps, directional signs and directories is painfully clear
and the implementation of wireless communications has barely begun.
What will the interfaces be in the future? Will there be "smart highways"
guiding drivers speed, direction, etc. and determining the best routing?
Will knowbots become the search vehicle of choice? Who, if anyone, will be
the electronic traffic cops and can we rely on either the legislatures or
the courts to determine our future? Will there be toll roads? Can the
electronic highways as we now know them (public networks) support both
individual users (passenger cars) and commercial users (the tractor
trailers of the digital highways)? What changes will take place in
publishing, both scholarly and commercial?
While online communicating via networks was once predominantly
academic/research, the corporate world is the fastest growing sector (over
500,000 users) of national and international network users. Commercial
growth, however, has been slowed by security concerns. How will legitimate
U.S. and corporate security concerns and individual privacy fears be
ameliorated in the new high speed data highway system? Will commercial
traffic fundamentally alter the education/research sense of community that
has grown up with Internet?
Will "sneaker nets," LANs and WANs, be replaced by wireless networks,
groupware and collaborative computer- supported work. What changes will
result in how we work and what we do? Will decisions inexorably become
more democratic but slower as has been predicted? Will the horns and
shouts of inner city traffic be a metaphor for the "white noise" of
computer lists and discussion groups? What tools exist for filtering out
"noise" and what impact will that have on our work?
Invitation
The 1994 ASIS Mid-Year Meeting, "Navigating the Networks" has as its focus
the human side of networks, the psychology and sociology of using networks.
What has been and will be the impact of networking technology on the
individual and on organizations, their structure and goals? Original
contributed papers are solicited on all aspects of networking use in
information management. Panel discussions exploring legal and
philosophical questions of use, quality, distribution, control, and
ownership are welcome. Presentations of new technologies or applications
to solve our information management problems are welcome. We invite
submissions of papers, panels, tutorials, demonstrations and original ideas
for programs on networking.
Types of Submissions
Contributed Papers
The initial intent to submit should include the title and an extended
outline or draft paper. Papers should address one or more of the issues
outlined above. Presenters of accepted papers will be allowed 15-25
minutes for delivery. All papers will be refereed. All intents to submit
papers must be received by September 1, 1993. Notification of acceptance
will be sent by December 1, 1993; camera ready papers will be due by
February 1, 1994.
Panel, Special Interest Group, and Other Presentations
Individual contributions and panel discussions are welcome. All intents to
organize sessions should include a description of 250 words indicating the
topic and proposed speakers to address the topic, with contact information
for all speakers. A form for proposing panel sessions is attached. All
intents to organize panel presentations and other program suggestions must
be received by September 30, 1993. Notification of acceptance will be sent
by December 1, 1993; a final list of speakers, with complete contact
information, and camera ready copy (full length if desired, or abstract)
will be due by February 1, 1994.
Two copies of your proposal and abstracts are required. A paper copy or
electronic copy (encouraged, e-mail or ASCII) should be sent to the
addresses below. You will receive instructions for submission of final
copy upon acceptance.
Pat Molholt
Asst. V.P. & Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources
Columbia University Health Sciences
Office of Scholarly Resources
701 West 168th Street, Room 201
New York, NY 10032
asis94my@columbia.edu
ASIS 1994 Mid-Year Meeting
8720 Georgia Avenue, Suite 501
Silver Spring, MD 20910
rhill@cni.org
In order to maintain the quality of ASIS meetings and to be sure that
meeting attendees can determine which presentations are most appropriate
for the individual needs, ASIS requires that all submissions/proposals
include the following information:
Name, job title, company and full address of each presenter.
Telephone, E-Mail, and fax number (if available) of each presenter.
A biographical sketch of each presenter (50 words max.).
The amount of time requested for the presentation (in 15 min. increments).
A session description that can appear in promotional materials.
Submissions without the above items will be returned for completion.
********************************
Yet *Another* Job Opening at EFF
********************************
Position Announcement
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, based in Washington, DC, is a public
interest organization that brings together legal, technical, and policy
expertise to address the democratic potential and social impact of new
computer and communications technologies. EFF has rapidly expanded its
influence in the national public policy arena, helping to find common
ground among the concerns of government, industry, and the public interest.
EFF promotes the broad social and economic benefits offered by new
information and communication technology while safeguarding principles of
freedom, openness, competitiveness, and the civil liberties of individual
citizens.
EFF is seeking an experienced Director of Communications to articulate and
communicate EFF's messages to a range of audiences. The Director of
Communications will work closely with the Membership Coordinator, who will
implement plans for membership development, and an Online Activist, who
will be responsible for getting EFF 's message out on electronic networks.
We're looking for an experienced wordsmith and ideasmith who can write and
edit a range of policy, press and promotional materials, help develop a
communication and membership strategy, define audiences, and develop themes
that speak to those audiences through the electronic, broadcast, and print
media. You must be an energetic, hands-on, team member who loves to write
on a range of topics with style, depth, and political sensibility, and you
should be comfortable with public speaking. Knowledge of public policy,
technology issues, and experience in a public interest setting preferred.
Applicants should be computer literate and have experience managing
multiple projects, deadlines, and collaborations. Minimum B.S./B.A. plus 5
years professional experience in a related field such as journalism,
politics, advertising, business communications, news or public relations.
A sense of humor is required. Excellent salary and benefits, and lively,
committed coworkers.
This position is in Washington, DC. No phone calls, please. To apply,
send resume, brief writing sample, cover letter and salary requirements by
September 27 to our recruiter:
Lisa Breit & Associates
54 Rich Valley Road
Wayland, MA 01778
You may apply by e-mail (ASCII only please). Address to: lbreit@eff.org
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an equal opportunity employer.
*************************
Donate Your Old Computers
*************************
The Institute of Diplomacy and International Relations in Nairobi is in the
process of establishing a computer center. The Institute educates young
diplomats from all of Africa and would like to promote the use of
computers. They are looking for second-hand computers or any other
computer equipment. Contact Jovan Kurbalija, the Institute's temporary
computer consultant at Olewe.Nyunya@p430.f4.n731.z5.gnfido.fidonet.org if
you can help.
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published biweekly by:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Phone: +1 202 347 5400 FAX: +1 202 393 5509
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Shari Steele,
Director of Legal Services & Community Outreach (ssteele@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.
=============================================================
Mail to:
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Membership rates:
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
E-mail 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 nonprofit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate. Initials:______________________
Comments
Post a Comment