EFFector Online Volume 08 No. 01

February 10, 1995
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
ISSN 1062-9424

[*] Top level of EFF WWW Server
Click HERE to download a plain ASCII text copy of this issue.

In This Issue:

Subject:ALERT: HR830 Would Cripple FOIA - Act NOW!

The recently proposed Paperwork Reduction Act, bill HR830, contains a disturbing section of language proposed by West Publishing, the government contractor that has a virtual monopoly on US federal legal case documents. The ulterior motive behind this appears to be an attempt by West to legislate away a longstanding lawsuit against West by Tax Analysts, a Virginia publisher attempting to establish in court that the Justice Department JURIS database of court decisions, administered by West, but paid for by the US public, is in fact in the public domain as are all government publications.

According to the House Regulatory Affairs Committee Chairman's Draft of the Section by Section Analysis, this special interest language simply clarifies existing law. This is also the position West has taken.

The Draft states:

"Section 3518 contains a new subsection which is intended to clarify that when public information, as defined in Section 3502, is disseminated or otherwise made available to the public, it ceases to be public information, when a person adds value to the public information. This resulting information product, including data, database, or method used to identify the data, database or information product, also ceases to be public information, and the government cannot claim a right to reacquire or use the resulting information product without the consent of the person adding value. The new subsection is designed to encourage the profit and non-profit sectors to make the widest possible use of public information released by the government."
The last sentence of this is incomprehensible in light of the fact that this poorly drafted section, designed to satisfy a major lobbyist, would in fact severely cripple the Freedom of Information Act, one of the hardest-won cornerstones of American public access to government-held information and records. Analysis by EFF staff and board members, as well as Taxpayer Assets Project, indicates that not only would FOIA requests and suits for US federal legal case documents be rejected, but so would any such attempts to obtain US government information if any "value added" content was provided by a private contractor, *even if that content is not subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection under law*. Attempts to obtain unclassified software paid for by US citizens' tax dollars but produced by govt. contractors rather than govt. employees would fail. Suits filed to obtain email or other records of government people suspected of abuse of authority would be ruled against if the system was designed or maintained by a contractor. Requests for information from massive and vitally important govt. information databases such as JURIS, ERIC and EDGAR, which were built in whole or in party by private sector contractors, would be rejected.

What West and other supporters of the bill describe as a minor clarification to current law is in fact a massive restructuring of the balance of power in the world of government information contracting, and more importantly, a stripping of citizen access to information paid for by the public, for the public. The bill would exclude *all* contractor- generated records, online or offline, from the Freedom of Information Act.

The bill was introduced, and a hearing held regarding it, Feb. 7, while subcommittee markup was scheduled for yesterday, Feb. 9. Full committee markup, apparently in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, is set for today, Fri. Feb. 10, at 9am, EST. It is rather obvious that this bill is being ramrodded through Congress as fast as possible, so that the public not only doesn't get a chance to look the bill or comment on it, but doesn't even know it exists until too late. You may wish to write to the Govt. Reform and Oversight Committee and let them know *politely and in clear, short statements* just how you feel about that. You should also write to your own Representatives, again in clear, simple, and calm words, why you think this bill as written is dangerous and why it should be opposed or stripped of the West special interest provision.

* The most important thing you can do from now until 9am EST Feb. 10: EFF, along with TAP, are asking people to send a brief message by fax to the members of the full committee, asking Congress to delete the West Publishing special interest provision of the Paperwork Reduction Act, HR830. A list of the committee members follows after the full text of the relevant section of the bill, below.

For more information on writing to your Representatives, see the "What YOU Can Do" section of this newsletter, below.

Contact: David Johnson, Sr. Policy Fellow, djohnson@eff.org , +1 202 861 7700

* Relevant Bill Text

(f)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or any
      other law--

     (1) any public information that an agency discloses,
         disseminates, or makes available to the public may be used by any
         person for profit or nonprofit activities; and
     (2) if any person adds value to the public information, the
         Federal Government shall not have any right to obtain, collect,
         acquire, disseminate, use, or convert --

             (A)  the resulting data, database, or other
                  information product, or
             (B)  any method used by the person to identify such
                  resulting data, database, or information
                  except under terms that are expressly agreed to by such 

* Committee members to send your fax to IMMEDIATELY

[List provided by Taxpayer Assets Project, a non-profit organization founded to monitor the management of government property, including information systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government assets. For more information, email tap@tap.org

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 104th Congress
** = Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs

[All phone & fax numbers are area-code 202.]


William Clinger, Jr. (PA) 225-5121 225-4681
Benjamin Gilman, (NY) 225-3776 225-2541
Dan Burton, (IA) 225-2276 225-0016
Constance Morella, (MD) 225-5341 225-1389
Christopher Shays, (CO) 225-5541 225-9629
Steven Schiff, (NM) 225-6316 225-4975
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, (FL) 225-3931 225-5620
William Zeliff, Jr. (NH) 225-5456 225-4370
John McHugh, (NY) ** 225-4611 226-0621
Stephen Horn, (CA) 225-6676 226-1012
John Mica, (FL) 225-4035 226-0821
Peter Blute, (MA) 225-6101 225-2217
Thomas Davis, (VA) 225-1492 225-3071
David McIntosh, (IA) 225-3021 225-3382
Jon Fox, (PA) ** 225-6111 225-3155
Randy Tate, (WA) ** 225-8901 225-3484
Dick Chrysler, (MI) 225-4872 225-3034
Gil Gutknecht, (MN) ** 225-2472 225-3246
Mark Souder, (IA) 225-4436 225-3479
William Martini, (NJ) 225-5751 225-3372
Joe Scarborough, (FL) ** 225-4136 225-3414
John Shadegg, (AZ) ** 225-3361 225-3462
Michael Flanagan, (IL) 225-4061 225-3128
Charles Bass, (NH) 225-5206 225-2946
Steve LaTourette, (OH) 225-5731 225-3307
Mark Sanford, (SC) 225-3176 225-3407
Robert Ehrlich, Jr. (MD) ** 225-3061 225-3094


Cardiss Collins, (IL) 225-5006 225-8396
Henry Waxman, (CA) ** 225-3976 225-4099
Tom Lantos, (CA) 225-3531 225-7900
Robert Wise, Jr. (WV) 225-2711 225-7856
Major Owens, (NY) 225-6231 226-0112
Edolphus Towns, (NY) 225-5936 225-1018
John Spratt, Jr. (SC) ** 225-5501 225-0464
Louise Slaughter, (NY) ** 225-3615 225-7822
Paul Kanjorski, (PA) ** 225-6511 225-0764
Gary Condit, (CA) ** 225-6131 225-0819
Collin Peterson, (MN) ** 225-2165 225-1593
Karen Thurman, (FL) 225-1002 226-0329
Carolyn Maloney, (NY) 225-7944 225-4709
Thomas Barrett, (WI) 225-3571 225-2185
Gene Taylor, (MI) 225-5772 225-7074
Barbara Rose Collins, (MI) 225-2261 225-6645
Eleanor Holmes Norton, (DC) 225-8050 225-3002
James P. Moran, (VA) 225-4376 225-0017
Gene Green, (TX) 225-1688 225-9903
Carrie Meek, (FL) 225-4506 226-0777
Frank Mascara, (PA) 225-4665 225-3377
Chaka Fattah, (PA) 225-4001 225-6466


Bernard Sanders, (VT) 225-4115 225-6790

[NOTE: If you will be faxing long distance, and cannot afford this many faxes, try contacting the Committee staff at 202-225-5074, and asking for the committee fax number. There is no guarantee your fax to this number will reach all members of the committee, but it is far, far better than nothing.]

Key Administration Officials:


Sally Katzen        voice: 202/395-4852

Bruce McConnell     voice: 202/395-3785

Department of Justice

Paul Friedman       voice: 202/514-1721

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: ALERT: S314 Online "Decency Act" Threatens All Service Providers

EFF is working with the Electronic Messaging Association and others to oppose the Exon bill, S314, the Communications Decency Act of 1995. We believe policy makers should take into account the ability of those using the net to avoid materials they find offensive. There will likely be increased use of labels and headers to help people avoid unwanted materials and guide their childrens' use of the net in the future. Meanwhile, it is simply a bad idea to make it a crime to "transmit" offensive material, especially when the "transmitter" is passive and not monitoring the content of "transmission".

This bill would perpetrate the online equivalent of making anyone who builds a street liable for the fact that you can go to the red light district on it. This bill if passed into law will gravely chill the free flow of information online and inappropriately criminalize sysops and sysadmins for wrongdoing over which they have no control.

It is clear from recent discussions with Sen. Exon and his staff that the sponsors of the bill were apparently unaware that the bill, as written, criminalizes essentially everyone involved in networking with the sole exception of govt.-decreed common carriers like telephone companies. The possibility of a re-write was being considered as of Feb. 8.

Contact: David Johnson, Sr. Policy Fellow, djohnson@eff.org , +1 202 861 7700

* Analysis and text of the bill

[This analysis provided by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a non-profit public interest organization. CDT's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance constitutional civil liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications technologies. For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger .]



Senators Exon (D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have introduced legislation to expand current FCC regulations on obscene and indecent audiotext to cover *all* content carried over all forms of electronic communications networks. If enacted, the "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) would place substantial criminal liability on telecommunications service providers (including telephone networks, commercial online services, the Internet, and independent BBS's) if their network is used in the transmission of any indecent, lewd, threatening or harassing messages. The legislation is identical to a proposal offered by Senator Exon last year which failed along with the Senate Telecommunications reform bill (S. 1822, 103rd Congress, Sections 801 - 804). The text of the proposed statute, with proposed amendment, is appended at the end of this document.

The bill would compel service providers to choose between severely restricting the activities of their subscribers or completely shutting down their email, Internet access, and conferencing services under the threat of criminal liability. Moreover, service providers would be forced to closely monitor every private communication, electronic mail message, public forum, mailing list, and file archive carried by or available on their network, a proposition which poses a substantial threat to the freedom of speech and privacy rights of all American citizens.

S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step backwards on the path to a free and open National Information Infrastructure. The bill raises fundamental questions about the ability of government to control content on communications networks, as well as the locus of liability for content carried in these new communications media.

To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital media, CDT is working to organize a broad coalition of public interest organizations including the ACLU, People For the American Way, and Media Access Project, along with representatives from the telecommunications, online services, and computer industries to oppose S. 314 and to explore alternative policy solutions that preserve the free flow of information and freedom of speech in the online world. CDT believes that technological alternatives which allow individual subscribers to control the content they receive represent a more appropriate approach to this issue.


S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and harassment on telephone services to all telecommunications providers and expand criminal liability to *all* content carried by *all* forms of telecommunications networks. The bill would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to prevent minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext and criminalizes harassment accomplished over interstate telephone lines. This section, commonly known as the Helms Amendment (having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms), has been the subject of extended constitutional litigation in recent years.


S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including telephone companies, commercial online services, the Internet, and BBS's) liable for every message, file, or other content carried on its network -- including the private conversations or messages exchanged between two consenting individuals.

Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication" which is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" using a "telecommunications device" would be subject to a fine of $100,000 or two years in prison (Section (2)(a)).

In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers would be forced to pre-screen all messages, files, or other content before transmitting it to the intended recipient. Carriers would also be forced to prevent or severely restrict their subscribers from communicating with individuals and accessing content available on other networks.

Electronic communications networks do not contain discrete boundaries. Instead, users of one service can easily communicate with and access content available on other networks. Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on the carrier as opposed to the originator of the content, would make the carrier legally responsible not only for the conduct of its own subscribers, but also for content generated by subscribers of other services.

This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to the free flow of information throughout the online world and the free speech and privacy rights of individual users. Forcing carriers to pre-screen content would not only be impossible due to the sheer volume of messages, it would also violate current legal protections.


S. 314 would also expand current restrictions on access to indecent telephone audiotext services by minors under the age of 18 to cover similar content carried by telecommunications services (such as America Online and the Internet). (Sec (a)(4)).

As amended by this provision, anyone who, "by means of telephone or telecommunications device, makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available to any person under the age of 18 years of age or to any other person without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication" would be subject of a fine of $100,000 or two years in prison.

This would force carries to act as private censors of all content available in public forums or file archives on their networks. Moreover, because there is no clear definition of indecency, carriers would have to restrict access to any content that could be possibly construed as indecent or obscene under the broadest interpretation of the term. Public forums, discussion lists, file archives, and content available for commercial purposes would have to be meticulously screened and censored in order to avoid potential liability for the carrier.

Such a scenario would severely limit the diversity of content available on online networks, and limit the editorial freedom of independent forum operators.


Section (6) of the bill would amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2511) to prevent the unauthorized interception and disclosure of "digital communications" (Sec. 6). However, because the term "digital communication" is not defined and 18 USC 2511 currently prevents unauthorized interception and disclosure of "electronic communications" (which includes electronic mail and other forms of communications in digital form), the effect of this provision has no clear importance.


Finally, section (8) would amend sections 611 and 612 of the Communications Act (47 USC 611 - 612) to allow any cable operator to refuse to carry any public access or leased access programming which contains "obscenity, indecency, or nudity".


Government regulation of content in the mass media has always been considered essential to protect children from access to sexually-explicit material, and to prevent unwitting listeners/views from being exposed to material that might be considered extremely distasteful. The choice to protect children has historically been made at the expense of the First Amendment ban on government censorship. As Congress moves to regulate new interactive media, it is essential that it understand that interactive media is different than mass media. The power and flexibility of interactive media offers a unique opportunity to enable parents to control what content their kids have access to, and leave the flow of information free for those adults who want it. Government control regulation is simply not needed to achieve the desired purpose.

Most interactive technology, such as Internet browsers and the software used to access online services such as America Online and Compuserve, already has the capability to limit access to certain types of services and selected information. Moreover, the electronic program guides being developed for interactive cable TV networks also provide users the capability to screen out certain channels or ever certain types of programming. Moreover, in the online world, most content (with the exception of private communications initiated by consenting individuals) is transmitted by request. In other words, users must seek out the content they receive, whether it is by joining a discussion or accessing a file archive. By its nature, this technology provides ample control at the user level. Carriers (such as commercial online services, Internet service providers) in most cases act only as "carriers" of electronic transmissions initiated by individual subscribers.

CDT believes that the First Amendment will be better served by giving parents and other users the tools to select which information they (and their children) should have access to. In the case of criminal content the originator of the content, not the carriers, should be responsible for their crimes. And, users (especially parents) should be empowered to determine what information they and their children have access to. If all carriers of electronic communications are forced to restrict content in order to avoid criminal liability proposed by S. 314, the First Amendment would be threatened and the usefulness of digital media for communications and information dissemination would be drastically limited.


The bill has been introduced and will next move to the Senate Commerce Committee, although no Committee action has been scheduled. Last year, a similar proposal by Senator Exon was approved by the Senate Commerce committee as an amendment to the Senate Telecommunications Bill (S. 1822, which died at the end of the 103rd Congress). CDT will be working with a wide range of other interest groups to assure that Congress does not restrict the free flow of information in interactive media.


For more information contact:

Jerry Berman, CDT Executive Director jberman@cdt.org
Daniel Weitzner, CDT Deputy Director djw@cdt.org

+1 202 637 9800


TEXT OF 47 U.S.C. 223 AS AMENDED BY S. 314

**NOTE:         [] = deleted
                ALL CAPS = additions

47 USC 223 (1992)

Sec. 223.  [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District
of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications]


   (a) Whoever--

   (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
       communication by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS

   (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
       obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

   [(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues,
        without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse,
        threaten, or harass any person at the called number;]


     communication by means of [telephone]

   (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
       obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

   [(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues,
        without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse,
        threaten, or harass any person at the called number;]


   (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
       continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the
       called number; or

   [(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation
        ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or]


   (2) knowingly permits any [telephone facility]
       TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used
       for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more
       than $[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned  not more than [six months] TWO
       YEARS, or both.

   (b)(1) Whoever knowingly--

   (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone]
       TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly or by recording device)
       any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person,
       regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the

  (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
      FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
      prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with
      title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two
      years, or both.

   (2) Whoever knowingly--

   (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone],
       TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly or by recording device) any
       indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available
       to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without
       that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such
       communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or

   (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
       FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
       prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than
       $[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months]
       TWO YEARS, or both.

   (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this
       subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited
       communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance
       with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the
       Commission may prescribe by regulation.

   (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever,
       within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph
       (1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $[50,000]
       100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
       day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2),
      and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1)
      or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000]
      100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
      day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either--

   (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or
       any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the
       Commission for such purposes, or

   (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative

   (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate
       district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice
       which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted
       in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   (c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or
      within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not,
      to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a
      communication specified in subsection (b) from the
      telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in
      writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the
      carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such
      communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the
      provider of such communication.

   (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may
       be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common
       carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers,
       directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on
       account of--

   (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good
       faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
       subsection; or

   (B) any access permitted--

   (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation
       by a provider of communications that communications provided by
       that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or

   (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not
        allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to
        restrict access to communications described in subsection (b).

   (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider
       of communications services to which subscribers are denied access
       pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action
       for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such
       action shall be limited to the question of whether the
       communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within
       the category of communications to which the carrier will provide
       access only to subscribers who have previously requested such


NOTE: This version of the text shows the actual text of current law as
it would be changed.  For the bill itself, which consists of unreadable
text such as:

             (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
                    (A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above
                  subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications device';
                    (B) by striking out `makes any comment, request,
                  suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
                  `makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any
                  comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
                    (C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the
                    `(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a


ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: EFF SF Bay Area Meetings Announced

EFF is pleased to introduce a series of monthly `BayFF' meetings in the San Francisco Bay Area. All EFF members, guests, and the public are invited.

The first meeting will be in San Francisco on February 15, 1995, at 7:30PM. The gracious donor of our first meeting place is:

Wired Magazine
520 Third Street, Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA
+1 415 222 6200 voice

John Gilmore and Cindy Cohn will speak on the constitutional issues around export controls on cryptography. John is a co-founder of EFF and Chair of the EFF Board's Crypto Committee. Cindy is an attorney in private practice at McGlashen and Sarrail in San Mateo. These controls inhibit free speech, publication of software and papers, academic freedom of inquiry, and personal privacy, as well as having a strong negative impact on computer security. We'll explore some of the implications and prospects for change.

Dave Farber will speak on "Living in the Global Information Infrastructure -- some concerns". Dave is an EFF Board member and has more years of experience in computers and networking than the total experience at many startup companies. Vice President Gore has proposed that the nations of the world undertake the building of a Global Information Infrastructure -- the GII. While most leaders agree with the sprit of the Gore proposal -- namely to provide a mechanism which could invigorate the world economy in the forthcoming information age, many disagree with his belief that it will bring democracy to the world. They interpret such statements as being another example of American colonialism. It is this basic lack of uniform global agreement on what terms mean, what rules apply to electronic commerce and what impact a GII will have on their nation that underlies the comments Dave will make. These raise questions about the universality of Cyberspace. He will seek to table a set of questions that may stimulate your thinking in this area.

There will also be plenty of time for general and specific questions, issues, discussion, meeting people, and socializing with frontier- minded folks.

We will schedule the second monthly meeting near the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference -- tentatively on Friday night, March 31. Watch this space for more information.

We hope to see you on Wednesday!

John Gilmore
Jane Metcalfe
Denise Caruso
(Bay Area members of the EFF Board)

Return to Table of Contents

Subject: Electronic Frontier Foundation Seeking Volunteer/Intern BBS Sysop

[For immediate release - please distribute to appropriate areas]

Jan. 20, 1994

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest civil liberties organization, was founded in July of 1990 to ensure that the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are protected as new communications technologies emerge.

EFF's BBS is in need of a sysop and/or co-sysops, on a volunteer basis, in the DC metro area. Needed especially: a responsible and helpful sysop with multi-line PC-Board DOS BBS experience and knowledgeable about some or all of the following: Fido-tech mail systems (FrontDoor/InterMail), UUCP gating for Usenet/Internet, crossgating between Fido, QWK, and Usenet/mailing list forums, DESQview multitasker experience. Some programming skills for making simple doors and utilities also of value.

Volunteer/intern would need to be onsite for at least some of the tasks, but may be able to do some maintenance remotely (e.g., via Doorway or similar programs). The BBS itself will remain on-site, and all equipment will, of course, be provided.

The person needed for this role should be willing to commit to fairly longterm involvement. (i.e., We don't need a Sysop of the Week situation. :)

Some projects this person may be involved in:

EFF cannot currently offer monetary compensation for this position, but the sysop would receive valuable work experience in information systems management and net-based research, an Internet email account, an EFF membership, etc. This experience may also qualify as externship experience at some schools, and EFF staff members will assist with paperwork and evaluations necessary for the sysop to receive proper credit.

To apply, please send a resume detailing general and relevant work, educational, and computing/networking experience, along with a cover letter explaining why you'd like to work here at EFF. (ASCII via Internet email preferred; see below for contact info.)

EFF is, of course, an equal opportunity employer and "interner".

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, attn: Stanton McCandlish


1667 K St. NW, Suite 801
Washington DC 20006-1605 USA

+1 202 861 7717 (voice)
+1 202 861 1258 (fax)
+1 202 861 1223 (BBS - 16.8k ZyXEL)
+1 202 861 1224 (BBS - 14.4k V.32bis)
Internet: mech@eff.org
Internet fax gate: remote-printer.SMcC/EFF@

Return to Table of Contents

Subject: Newsbytes

* The EFFector Online mailing list has been cleaned up. It was formerly maintained in several versions (some manually maintained, and others run via the EFF listserv.) The list is now entirely listserv-operated, and the recent rush of new EFF members have been added. However, there still may be some duplicate addresses, people who were on the manually maintained version of the list and tried to unsubscribe via the listserv but are still subscribed, etc. If you get EFFector twice from the effector-online mailing list, please let us know at bugs@eff.org . If you get EFFector and do not want to receive it, send a message body of:

unsubscribe effector-online

to listserv@eff.org . New subscribers: send a message body of:

subscribe effector-online

to listserv@eff.org and you'll be added to the list.

You may also note some format changes for EFFector, including this new newsbytes section, and reviews. Let us know if you like them (or don't) at editor@eff.org!

* PBS privacy snub: Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) in Jan. 1995 sent a letter and questionnaire to National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting System. According to an AP story, the questionnaire asked, among other things, names of employees who previously worked at Pacifica stations, names of employees who had worked for Christian stations, and names of employees who had contributed more than $250 to certain political causes, as well as age, gender and ethnic background information of NPR/PBS employees.

At a press conference Pressler stated he did not think this was an privacy invasion, and that the information would not only be made public, but printed in the _Federal_Register_. However, according a report by Brock Meeks of _Cyberwire_Dispatch_, on Feb. 2, Pressler recinded these requests in a letter to the Chair of CPB, stating, "I have given careful consideration the concerns you expressed about individual privacy. Accordingly, I do not want [these lists of names]..." and asked that CPB Chair Henry Cauthen have "no misunderstanding about my intentions in seeking information", while contradictorily criticizing CPB's "apparent unwillingness" to allow Pressler a "full fiscal picture" and a "careful understanding of the finances" of PBS, according to Meeks.

* Staff/Board changes at EFF: EFF's elected a new Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors: David Johnson of Lexis Counsel Connect, and Esther Dyson of EDventure, respectively. Former Chair and Vice-Chair, co-founders Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow, of course remain on the board and continue to play an active and vital role in directing EFF. EFF bookkeeper and office manager Doug Craven has taken over Membership Coordinator duties, Stanton McCandlish (formerly EFF Online Activist) is now the Manager of Online Services, and intern Eric Tachibana comes on staff at last as Online Services Coordinator. Those who call by voice phone are likely to encounter our new receptionist, Dana Lynn Kirvan.

EFF also welcomes several interns and volunteers, including Benoit Jacqmotte, Alex Lloyd, and Fred Bourgeois, who assist with various projects, from coordinating global contact and press lists, to maintaining lists of Congress contact information and government Internet servers.

Additionally, EFF Chair David Johnson is serving as EFF's Senior Policy Fellow to coordinate EFF's programmatic and policy goals, with the help of EFF's new Membership and Development Manager, Jo Acosta.

For more information on EFF Board, staff and volunteers/interns, see:

* Pensacola busts: Over two months ago, the homes and businesses of several BBS operators in Pensacola, Florida were raided, on suspicion of transmitting obscene materials. As of this date no charges have been filed, according to a _Pensacola_News_Journal_ article. Two of the suspect sysops maintain that their rights have been violated by "groundless" equipment seizures, which in at least one case is spelling rapid financial ruin for the sysop. Titan Software Solutions operator Clayton Mason stated "They bled my resources, totally", after his system was seized by agents from the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement and US Customs on Dec. 1, 1994, as was Cliff Hicks's Electric Blue BBS. Mason says he has had to close not only his BBS but also his retail computer store, and has been forced to take a minimum wage job to survive. "There's nothing I can do without an attorney," Mason said. "Without money, I can't get an attorney in this town." Hicks also indicated he would not be pursuing legal action.

Special Agent Supervisor Larry Smith of FDLE stated, "It just takes a while to review stuff that's in the hard drives", when asked about the delay in filing charges. The agents conducting the raid also inscrutably seized unopened boxes of modems that had nothing to do with the BBS system they were after, but were part of Mason's retail stock.

The system operators maintain that none of the material on their system was illegal. EFF's Dir. of Legal Services, Shari Steele, commented: "There are a lot of cases where...they're never indicted, but they never get their equipment back. It's kind of like being found guilty without a trial." Steve Jackson of Steve Jackson Games and the Illuminati Online Internet access service (who himself successfully fought a BBS search and seizure by the US Secret Service, who read and deleted private Illuminati BBS users' email, never filed charges, and refused to return the equipment) stated that law enforcement agencies have "figured out they can shut down a bulletin board...and the victims are usually too terrified and intimidated to do anything about it." Or too bankrupted one might add.

* _EFF's_Guide_to_the_Internet_ news: _Newsweek_ (week of Jan. 30), rated EFF's internet guidebook first in their article on "the best guides to getting online". The review says: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation sponsors this book and its online version. It also publishes updates, available free on the Net, that keep the information timely...The slim volume doesn't overburden the reader with Unix, but gives enough information to get started."

Also in the EGttI news: Hungarian and Italian versions are now available, the Hungarian one even in hardcopy.

To get a copy of the guide, send any message to " netguide@eff.org
Text versions of the guide are available at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Net_info/EFF_Net_Guide/
gopher.eff.org, 1/Net_info/EFF_Net_Guide

Hypertext, non-English, PostScript and misc. typeset versions are available in the Other_versions subdirectory. Update newsletters are in the Updates subdirectory, and can be had by subscription (send a message body of: HELP LONGINDEX to listserv@eff.org for more info on updates by subscription.) English-language hardcopy edition available as _Everybody's_Guide_to_the_ Internet_, Adam Gaffin, MIT Pr., 1994, from most good bookstores.

* AABBS Update: Keith Henson, who has been tracking the AABBS case, in which Calif. BBS sysops were tried in Memphis for alleged violations of Tennessee community standards, noted in a _Computer_underground_Digest_ article that as of Jan. 21, 1995, the AABBS co-sysops were denied bail, and that co-sysop Robert Thomas must report to a (possibly intentionally distant) federal prison in Springfield, MO on Feb. 8. Co-sysop Carleen Thomas, Robert's wife, was sentenced to two years and two months in a federal pennitentiary, and must report for incarceration on July 12 in Dublin, CA. The AABBS system continues to operate, and is their sole source of income and legal defense funding aside from donations from the online community.

It it probable that the AABBS operators' appeal will be hampered by this unreasonable incarceration, as it will be difficult if not impossible to prepare all the evidence, much of which requires access to the Thomases' computer equipment.

Carleen and Robert Thomas were found guilty in 1994 of several charges, including obscenity counts, despite the fact that the prosecution clearly perverted the purpose of the community standards processes of obscenity cases, which were intended to ensure that defendants are tried under the standards of their own communities, rather than those the government thinks are most conservative and will most easily generate a conviction; despite the fact that it is highly questionable whether the standards of a terrestrial community are at all logically applicable to a virtual community which is not tied to any particular physical political jursidiction; despite the fact that most legal commentators seem to agree that the case would not only have not resulted in a convinction in the Thomases' native Calif., but would not have even resulted in a trial; and despite fact that the technology in question requires that the recipient of the downloaded material search for and specifically request the material - the Thomases did not send obscene files to Tennessee; rather, Tennessee law enforcement purposefully selected and imported allegedly obscene material into Tennessee of their own free will and in full cognizance of their actions and the nature of the material.

EFF provided information for the Thomases' defense in the original case, and hopes to assist in their appeal.

* EFF membership news:

During the months of December and January, we saw a significant increase in EFF's membership renewals. Approximately 1400 renewal notices were sent to those EFF'ers whose membership had expired or that were about to expire and of those, approximately 80% have been returned to EFF with their membership renewal. This is a record for us. EFF also offered several new membership catagories ranging from $10 - $500 with an added bonus for those who upgraded their membership level to a higher catagory. Those that upgraded their membership received an official EFF t-shirt and a copy of EFF's "Frontier Files" disk. This resulted in approximately 60% worth of upgrades from the notices that were sent, far exceeding expectations. EFF would like to thank all of our members and donors, from students to industry and foundation sponsors!

The shirt/disk offer will continue until December 1995 and we will keep you updated as to the progress of this feature.

Along with the membership renewals, EFF aquired many new members during the month of December & January partly due to the Aerosmith Cybertour that EFF presented last Dec. That event produced approximately 75 new members.

As EFF's membership increases, so does our level of member relations. We are looking at ways to improve member relations and membership services. As always, any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated. Comments and suggestions can be directed to or membership@eff.org .

[See also article above on new Bay-area EFF meetings. In the future such meetings may also be held on the east coast, probably in DC, but also possibly NYC.]

* CA education code amended: According to an article by Linda Seebach, in _Measure_, the California state education code now guarantees students the same First Amendment freedom of expression, speech, and press rights on-campus that they have off-campus, regardless of the private or public nature of the schools, and even applying to high schools as well as higher education instututions. Students who file suit under these provisions are now also able to collect court costs and attorneys fees as well as statutory damages. Two schools have already settled such cases out of court apparently to avoid "almost certain loss in court".

The reaction has not been wholly positive, however. CSU-Northridge lifted a suspension imposed on a fraternity for a sexist flyer. Campus reaction was mixed, and included activist demonstrations against the settlement. Occidental College agreed to revise it's sexual harassment policy to conform to the new state regs. Previous policy had forbidden not only material that offended a third party, but also "voluntary relationships that might cause someone else to perceive a possibility of prejudicial treatment", wrote Seebach. Another fraternity was facing disciplinary action under this policy, but sued, and a settlement was reached. Student agitation for punishment of the fraternity continues, though.

The text of the amendment to CA Education Code is available at

ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/CA/
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/CA

* Censorship at UM: Jake Baker, who wrote a "sexually violent" story about a female classmate, with clear disclaimers that it was just a story, and a poor one at that, and posted it to the alt.sex.stories Usenet newsgroup, apparently via University of Michigan computers, was summarily suspended by the University President, James Duderstadt, without a hearing. Baker was forcibly removed from the campus by police offers with only some clothing, and forbidden re-entry, despite his being a campus resident.

A student coalition charges that the university seriously violated not only its own procedures, but also Baker's rights in suspending him. Duderstadt claimed that Baker posed an immediate threat to the female student, but the student opposition group, Students' Civil Liberties Watch, noted that the university both claimed Baker was an imminent threat, yet delayed for over a month before taking any action; when pressed, agreed to hold a (closed) hearing to consider reinstating him, yet also maintains that he is too dangerous to walk on campus property.

According to a local press summary by Peter Swanson, university spokesperson Lisa Baker stated, "It's not the policy of the university to punish people for pornographic messages. There are other issues around this that I can't discuss", while university law professor and "constitutional scholar" Catharine Mackinnon has called the issue one of violence against women rather than one of freedom of speech.

Following attention by the media, the university scheduled a hearing for Thur., Feb. 9. The hearing will be closed and Baker has been denied representation by an attorney, by school policy. The rammifications of this are particularly serious, since the standard of proof to be used in the hearing is lower than that in the US justice system, and any statements made by Baker can be used against him in a real legal proceeding. According to local articles, Baker is also under investigation by the FBI on the presumption that his Usenet posting violated federal anti-obscenity law. [One article referred to a "new computer-trafficking pornography law", but there is no such law. Cf. the article on the Exon bill - there may be such a law shortly...]

Both the ACLU and Student's Civil Liberties Watch have criticized UM's actions, and the ACLU has filed suit regarding the closed hearings and denial of legal representation. In a previous case, the ACLU found that the defendant in a hearing was subjected to open ridicule, and a single university representative acted as prosecutor, mediator and sole advisor to the jury. Participants in these closed hearings are also denied transcripts of the proceedings, and even in one open hearing have been forbidden to bring any kind of recording equipment to the hearing. Local press have labelled this system a "kangaroo kourt".

Student's Civil Liberties Watch can be contacted at ethank@umich.edu or keenan@umich.edu

[Disclaimer: EFF is not in any way supportive of hate speech. However, we believe that the solution for bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Sacrificing one right to protect another usually costs the loss of both.]

* LaMacchia decision will stand: On Dec. 28, 1994 US Dist. Court Judge Richard Stearns dismissed the indictment brought against David LaMacchia for alleged "massive" software piracy. LaMacchia ran an open BBS system, which was allegedly used by users for copyright infringement, though LaMacchia maintains he personally did not infringe. Judge Stearns noted in his decision that "the government's objective is a laudable one... if the allegations in the indictment are accurate, LaMacchia's actions were at best...heedlessly irresponsible, and at worst...nihilistic, self- indulgent, and lacking in any fundamental sense of values", and that "reasonable people might agree" that LaMacchia's actions deserve "the sanctions of the criminal law". However the case was dismissed because the law does not in fact permit presecution of copyright infringement under the wire fraud statute, the tactic chosen by US Attorney Donald Stern in this case. There was no evidence that LaMacchia had or had intended to profit by software piracy.

US Atty. Stern announced that the Justice Dept. would not appeal the court's decision, but would instead seek a legislative remedy. "Judge Stearns' opinion underscores the desirability of prompt Congressional action which would remove any uncertainty that willful, multiple infringements of copyrighted software, even where there is no commercial motive, is illegal...Large-scale software piracy is a serious problem. It will continue to be a priority of this office", stated Stern in a press release.

The defense counsel's own press release countered: "We hope and trust that when Congress takes up the question that the U. S. Attorney is posing -- that is, whether copying of computer programs without a profit motive should be a criminal violation of the Copyright statute -- the Congress be sensitive to the important civil liberties question posed by the LaMacchia prosecution: Whether a Systems Operator...who does not himself upload, download, copy, nor distribute software, but who merely operates the system, should be designated as a criminal. The need to protect SYSOPS from excessively harsh liability for the actions of others who log onto their BBS, is at least as important as the need to protect copyright holders from unfair losses of revenue. Given the explosive growth of the Internet, more and more ordinary computer users will be falling into the category of SYSOPS. Congress should be very careful before it seeks to hold them criminally liable for the actions of others who use the BBS but over whom the SYSOP does not have control."

More information on the case is available from the David LaMacchia Defense Fund on request at dldf@martigny.ai.mit.edu , or via the WWW at: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/dldf/home.html

Return to Table of Contents

Subject: Reviews

* _CYBERIA:_Life_in_the_Trenches_of_Hyperspace_
Douglas Rushkoff, 1994
Harper Collins Publishers, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022.

In Cyberia: Life in the Trenches of Hyperspace, Douglas Rushkoff massages to the surface hints - hints of our future. In the anthropological ethnographic style, Rushkoff scans culture, teasing out underlying and motivating themes.

However, Rushkoff is no traditional anthropologist. Rushkoff studies the "emerging" culture of Cyberia and opens the door for a realistic study of the future.

When we think about the future, what are we doing? How far into the future can we extrapolate from where we are? What will it mean to be sentient in 2012?

Thinkers from all quarters, from McLuhan to Toffler have called our attention the continuing transformation of our culture. Cultural givens, which have held together our cultural and individual identities, are disintegrating and new ones are solidifying. We are achieving a revolution analogous only to the industrial, agricultural revolutions...the age of enlightenment, the advent of Christianity.

Things are about to change SIGNIFICANTLY. And that doesn't mean that twenty years from now it will be us pasted onto nano-tech, genetic engineering, cold fusion, AI, etc. We will be fundamentally changed, or left behind. Our very conceptions of the world will be changed.

Like a Post Modern/collage artist, Rushkoff paints us a scene from a motley of scattered images- a scene of a culture in transformation, effected by non-linear science, quantum mechanics, interdependence, designer reality, rapidity of change, role playing games, comic books, Nintendo, MTV, Rave Culture, magik, and techno-paganism.

Rushkoff, whose style is readable and entertaining, continues his journey from the "Gen X Reader" through "Media Virus" in _Cyberia_, an insightful comment on modern culture and its future. And hey, he even quotes John Perry Barlow in the first chapter. :)

- Selena Sol selena@eff.org

Return to Table of Contents

Subject: Calendar of Events

This schedule lists imminent EFF events, and those we feel might be of interest to our members. EFF events (those sponsored by us or featuring an EFF speaker) are marked with a "*" instead of a "-" after the date. Simlarly, government events, such as deadlines for comments on reports or testimony submission, are marked with "!" in place of the "-" after the date.

If you know of an event of some sort that should be listed here, please send info about it to Stanton McCandlish

The latest full version of this calendar, which includes material for later in the year as well as the next couple of months, is available from:

ftp: ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/calendar.eff
gopher: gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF, calendar.eff

Feb. 8-                    ^
     11 * TWO BBSCon; Swissotel European Conf. Ctr. (Rheinpark Congress
          Centrum), Duesseldorf, Germany. European version of ONE
          BBSCon; seminar sessions & tradeshow.  Organized in part by
          EFF's Ether Dyson, as well as _BoardWatch_'s Jack Rickard, _PC_
          _Magazine_'s John Dvorak and many others.
          Contact: +41 75 373 28 32 (voice) +41 75 373 30 62 (fax)
                   +41 75 373 66 80 (BBS), (0228)46121005 (X.25 NUA)
          Email: twobbs@osis.li

Feb. 8-
     12 - Information Technology: Expanding Frontiers conf., sponsored by
          Association for Educational Communications and Technology;
          Anaheim, Calif.
          Contact: +1 202 347 7834

Feb. 14-
     16 - Networks Expo (NetWorld); Hynes Conv. Ctr., Boston, Mass.
          Contact: 1 800 829 3976 (voice, US-only), +1 201 346 1400 (voice)

Feb. 14-
     18 - The Winter School of Computer Graphics and Visualisation
          Third International Conference in Central Europe on Computer
          Graphics and Visualisation 95 (WSCG'95), U. of W. Bohemia,
          Plzen, Czechoslovakia.  Approx. 60 speakers.
          Contact: +42 19 2171 188, +42 19 2171 212 (voice)
                   +42 19 2171 170, +42 19 7220 019 (fax)
          email: WSCG95@KIV.ZCU.CZ

Feb. 15 * Bay Area EFF meeting; John Gilmore (Electronic Frontier Foundation
          co-founder and boardmember) and Cindy Cohn esq. (McGlashen &
          Sarrail) will speak on constitutional issues of crypto export.
          EFF boardmember David Farber (U.Penn.) will speak on "Living in
          the GII - some concerns". Plenty of time for general and
          specific questions, issues, discussion, meeting people, and
          socializing with electronic frontier-minded folks.  EFF boardmem-
          bers Jane Metcalfe (WIRED president) and Denise Caruso (tech-
          nology journalist) will be there.  Time: 7:30pm PST.  Where:
          offices of WIRED Magazine
          520 Third Street, Fourth Floor
          San Francisco, CA
          +1 415 222 6200  voice

        - Dealine for paper, poster & demo submissions for WWW '95 (see
          Apr. 10, below).

Feb. 15-
     16 - Launching & Managing a Virtual Office: Setting the State for a
          Distributed Workplace; Hyatt Regency, New Orleans, Louisiana.
          Sponsored by The International Quality & Productivity Center.
          Email: dsohn@earth.planet.net
          WWW: http://www.planet.net/iqpc/homepage.html/

Feb. 16-
     19 - CapriCon SF Convention (of interest as it features an educational
          Internet "track" of seminars/sessions with various subtopics and
          speakers, incl. Bruce Schneier to lecture on cryptography.)
          Speakers still needed for Internet track.  To be held in the
          Chicago metro area.
          Contact: Mike Bentley, +1 312 508 9009 (voice),
                   +1 312 465 2399 (fax)
          Email: bentley@crenelle.com, or crenelle!bentley@mcs.com

Feb. 20-
Mar. 16 - Online Seminar Series: the Law of Electronic Commerce; conducted
          on CompuServe by the Nat'l. Computer Security Assoc. Host:
          Benjamin Wright esq. (Note: most sessions are geared toward
          management, finance and commercial transactions).
          Contact: 1 800 488 4595 (voice, US-only), +1 717 258 1816 (voice)
          Email: 75300.2557@compuserve.com

Feb. 23-
     25 - The Alliance for Public Technology Annual Conference:
          Technologies of Freedom. Washington, DC
          Contact: +1 202 408 1403 (voice/TTY), +1 202 408 1134 (fax)
          Email: Ruth Holder 

Feb. 24 - New Mexico Regional Technology Business Summit, Sweeny Conv. Ctr.,
          Santa Fe, NM. Sponsored by the New Mexico Technology Consortium,
          "this day-long event is geared toward those in both large and
          small companies active in high-tech industries."
          Contact: +1 505 983 6767
          Email: nmtc@lanl.gov

Feb. 27-
Mar. 2  - ATM Year Three: The Definitive Conference on the Technology,
          Applications and Business Issues of Asynchronous Transfer Mode
          (ATM); San Jose, Calif.
          Contact: 1 800 200 4884 (voice, US-only)

Feb. 28-
Mar. 2  - NEPCON'95, "the trade show for anyone involved in electronics
          packaging, testing, assembly, design, and CAD/CAM...pick from
          over 114 seminars".  Anaheim, Calif.
          WWW: http://www.nyweb.com/nepcon

Mar. 1  - Proposal deadline for Virtual Futures '95 (see May 26 below).

Mar. 2-
     5  - National STS Meeting & Technological Literacy Conf., Arlington,
          Contact: +1 814 865 3044 (voice), +1 814 865 3047 (fax)
          Email: ejb2@psu.edu

Mar. 3-
     4  - Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment and Community,
          sponsored by the UIC Center for Urban Economic Development
          Deadline for proposals: Jan. 8, 1995
          Contact: +1 312 996 5463
          Email: jdav@mcs.com
          Conf. mailing list for discussion: listserv@uic, message body:
                "SUBSCRIBE JOB-TECH  " (w/o "quotes")

Mar. 5-
     8  - '95 PC Forum (incl. Local-Global Creative Tension conf.), Phoenix
          Contact: +1 212 924 8800 (voice), +1 212 924 0240 (fax)
          Email: daphne@edventure.com

Mar. 13-
     15 - Microcomputers in Education Conference. Arizona State University;
          Tempe, Arizona. "An opportunity to explore recent advances and hear
          about emerging technology in the educational arena."
          Contact: Pat Southwick, A.S.U., Box 870908, Tempe AZ USA 85287-0908

Mar. 14 - "Towards an Electronic Patient Record" conference, Orlando,
          Sponsored by the Medical Records Inst.
          Contact: +1 617 964 3926 (fax only)

Mar. 15 - Deadline for proposals, ICI'95 (see Sep. 21 for conf. details.)
          Contact: +1 800 301 MIND (voice, US-only), +1 202 962 9494 (voice)
                   +1 800 304 MIND (fax, US-only), +1 202 962 9495 (fax)
          Email: Dr. Dorothy Denning 

Mar. 17 - Access, Privacy, and Commercialism: When States Gather Personal
          Information; College of Wm. & Mary, Williamsburg VA.
          Contact: Trotter Hardy, +1 804 221 3826
          Email: thardy@mail.wm.edu

Mar. 27 * John Perry Barlow (EFF co-founder) seminar on "Cyberspace: the New
          Frontier",  4pm local time, NCB Auditorium, 71 Science Park Dr.,
          Singapore 0512
          Contact: Marvin Tay Eng Sin 

Mar. 27-
     30 - Geographic Information Systems '95, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
          Contact: +1 604 688 0188 (voice), +1 604 688 1573 (fax)
          Email: gis@unixg.ubc.ca

Mar. 28-
     31 * 5th Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP95), Burlingame
          /Palo Alto, Calif.  Sponsored by the Assoc. of Computing Machinery
          Featured speakers include EFF's Esther Dyson & Mike Godwin, plus
          Roger Wilkins of George Mason U., John Morgridge of Cisco Sytems,
          Margaret Jane Radin of Stanford, Willis Ware of of NAE, IEEE &
          AAAS, Phil Agre of UCSD, Stuart Baker ex- of NSA, David Banisar
          of EPIC, Chris Casey of Sen. Kennedy's office, Michael Froomkin
          of U. Miami, Phil Karn of Qualcomm, Jamie Love of TAP, Brock
          Meeks of _Inter@ctive_Week_ and _Cyberwire_Dispatch_, Lance Rose
          author of _SysLaw_, Dick Sclove of Loka Inst., Brad Templeton of
          ClariNet, Ross Stapleton-Gray of TeleDiplomacy, Glenn Tenney of
          Fantasia Systems, Kim Taylor-Thompson of Stanford U., Alan Westin
          of Columbia U., Mitch Ratcliffe of _Digital_Media_, Matt Blaze
          of AT&T Bell Labs, Kent Walker Asst. US Atty. of the Dept. of
          Justice, David Smith of EFF-Austin, Christine Harbs of Privacy
          Rights Clearinghouse, Peter Harter of NPTN, Barbara Simons of the
          US ACM, Roger Clark of Australian Nat'l. U., and many others.
          Contact: Carey Heckman, +1 415 725 7788, fax: +1 415 725 1861,
          Email: info.cfp95@forsythe.stanford.edu
          WWW: http://www-techlaw.stanford.edu/CFP95.html
          Gopher: www-techlaw.stanford.edu, "CFP95" menu item
          FTP: www-techlaw.standord.edu, /CFP95

Mar. 29-
     30 - ETHICOMP95 - Int'l. Conf. on the Ethical Issues of Using
          Information Technology; DeMontfort U., Leicester UK.
          Contact: Simon Rogerson, +44 533 577475, +44 533 541891 (fax)
          Email: srog@dmu.ac.uk

Apr. 5-
     7  - National Net '95 (Net'95), Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, Washington
          DC; sponsored by Educom, ALA, ARL, CAUSE, CNI, CSN, CRA, CREN,
          FARNET, ISoc, NASULGC.  Featured speakers: Ron Brown (US Sec'y.
          of Commerce), Richard McCormick (US West), Molly Broad (CSU),
          Larry Irving (NTIA), Andrew Blau (Benton Found.), Steve Cisler
          (Apple), Marty Tennebaum (EIT/CommerceNet), Peter Lyman, Marc
          Rotenberg (EPIC/PI), + others incl. "public interest
          representatives". Sessions on the underprivileged & the NII,
          net surveillance, network challenges for business, int. property.
          Contact: Elizabeth Bernhart, +1 202 872 4200 (voice),
                   +1 202 872 4318 (fax)
          Email: net95@educom.edu

Apr. 10-
     14   3rd Int'l. WWW Conference: Technology, Tools & Applications;
          Darmstadt, Germany.  Organized by Fraunhofer Inst. for Computer
          Graphics.  Feb. 15 submission deadline (for posters & demos as
          well as papers.
          Email: www95@igd.fhg.de (?), www95_webmasters@igd.fhg.de
          WWW: http://www.igd.fhg.de/www95.html

Apr. 26-
     29 - USAIN: Cultivating New Ground in Electronic Information Use of the
          Information Highway to Support Agriculture; Lexington, Kentucky.
          Proposals due by 12/31/94.
          Email: librgrf@gaes.griffin.peachnet.edu

Apr. 27-
     29 - CCUMC (Consortium of College and University Media Centers). Utah
          State U., Logan, Utah
         Contact: +1 515 294 1811 (voice)
Return to Table of Contents

Subject: What you can do

* S314: This bill could pass in a matter of WEEKS, or added to any legislation pending on the Senate floor. Business/industry persons concerned should alert their corporate govt. affairs office and/or legal counsel. Everyone should write to their own Senators and ask them to oppose this bill. Explain, quickly and clearly, why this bill is dangerous, and urge efforts to stop this legislation or revise it to fix its numerous problems.

* HR830: This bill would horribly cripple the Freedom of Information Act, one of the most important laws protecting citizen access to government information. Again, alert your business contacts, and write, phone, and fax your Representatives.

* HOW TO FIND YOUR CONGRESSFOLKS: EFF has lists of the Senate and House with contact information, as well as lists of Congressional committees. These lists are available at:

ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Issues/Activism/Congress_cmtes/
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Issues/Activism/Congress_cmtes

The full Senate and House lists are senate.list and hr.list, respectively.

"If five years from now we [the FBI] solve the access problem, but what we're hearing is all encrypted, I'll probably, if I'm still here, be talking about that in a very different way: the objective is the same. The objective is for us to get those conversations whether they're by an alligator clip or ones and zeros. Whoever they are, whatever they are, I need them."
           - FBI Director Louis Freeh, clarifying statements that the 
             FBI may seek legislation to ban strong encryption, in an Oct. 
             1994 interview with Steven Levy.

Ensuring the democratic potential of the technologies of computer-mediated communication requires active participation in the political processes that shape our destinies. Government agencies, legislatures and heads of state are accustomed to making decisions about the future of technology, media, education, and public access to information, with far-reaching and long-lasting effects on citizens and their lives, but are accustomed to doing so with little input or opposition from anyone but the largest of corporations, and other government representatives.

Now, more than ever, EFF is working to make sure that you can play an active role in making these choices. Our members are making themselves heard on the whole range of issues. EFF collected over 5000 letters of support for Rep. Maria Cantwell's bill to liberalize restrictions on cryptography. We also gathered over 1400 letters supporting Sen. Leahy's open hearings on the proposed Clipper encryption scheme, which were held in May 1994. And EFF collected over 90% of the public comments that were submitted to NIST regarding whether or not Clipper should be made a federal standard. Additionally, EFF has worked for the passage of legislation that would ensure open access to the information infrastructure of today and tomorrow, and continues to provide some of the best online resources on privacy, intellectual freedom, the legalities of networking, and public access to government representatives and information.

You *know* privacy, freedom of speech and ability to make your voice heard in government are important. You have probably participated in our online campaigns and forums. Have you become a member of EFF yet? The best way to protect your online rights is to be fully informed and to make your opinions heard. EFF members are informed and are making a difference. Join EFF today!

For EFF membership info, send queries to membership@eff.org, or send any message to info@eff.org for basic EFF info, and a membership form

Return to Table of Contents


EFFector Online is published by:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF)
1667 K St. NW, Suite 801
Washington DC 20006-1605 USA
+1 202 861 7700 (voice)
+1 202 861 1258 (fax)
+1 202 861 1223 (BBS - 16.8k ZyXEL)
+1 202 861 1224 (BBS - 14.4k V.32bis)
Internet: ask@eff.org
Internet fax gate: remote-printer.EFF@

Editor: Stanton McCandlish, Online Services Mgr. <mech@eff.org>

Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements may be reproduced individ- ually at will.

To subscribe to EFFector via email, send message body of "subscribe effector-online" (without the "quotes") to listserv@eff.org , which will add you to a subscription list for EFFector.

Back issues are available at:

ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector

To get the latest issue, send any message to effector-reflector@eff.org and it will be mailed to you automatically. You can also get the file "current" from the EFFector directory at the above sites at any time for a copy of the current issue.

Internet Contact Addresses

Membership & donations: membership@eff.org
Legal services: ssteele@eff.org
Hardcopy publications: pubs@eff.org">
Technical questions/problems, access to mailing lists: eff@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@eff.org

Return to Index