EFFector
Online Volume 7.06EFFector
Online Volume 7.06![[*]](/pub/Graphics/Icons/home_blue_tiny_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Top level of EFF WWW Server
Download a plain ASCII text copy of this issue.
EFF Alerts
In This Issue:
Subject: Summary of Revisions to House Bills 3636 and 3626Floor votes on HR 3626 and 3636 may be scheduled as early as late April.
Both bills are designed to provide more opportunity for competition in long-distance telephone, cable television, and cellular communication services. HR 3636 would allow cable and telephone companies to compete in each other's lines of business. HR 3626 is a major antitrust reform measure and would allow the regional Bell telephone operating companies, known as Baby Bells or RBOCs, to offer long-distance services.
HR 3636
HR 3636 proposes a major restructuring of the Communications Act of 1934 to account for changes in technology, market structure, and people's increasing needs for advanced telecommunications services. HR 3636 includes EFF's Open Platform provisions and supports an open, accessible network with a true diversity of information sources. Open Platform service is designed to give residential subscribers affordable access to voice, data, and video digital telephone service on a switched, end-to-end basis. Open Platform service would provide residential and business customers access to a variety of applications on the information highway, including distance learning, telemedicine, telecommuting, the Internet, and many more.
HR 3636 directs the FCC to investigate the policy changes needed to make Open Platform service widely available at reasonable rates.
The bill promotes the entry of telephone companies into video cable service and seeks to benefit customers by spurring competition in the cable television industry. Telephone companies that want to provide video programming would be required to provide video services through a "video platform," which would be open to all bona fide requests from other video programming providers. The markup bill substitutes a contract carriage regime for the original bill's common carriage regime by dropping the original bill's requirement that 75% of a telephone company's video platform channels must be reserved for competitors. Instead, the markup bill would require that video platforms have a suitable margin of capacity to meet reasonable growth in demand. To promote local competition in telecommunications services, the bill requires that local telephone companies open their networks to competitors who wish to interconnect with the public switched telephone network. The bill also would establish a Joint Federal-State Board (made up of FCC members and state regulators) to devise a framework for ensuring continued universal service. The Board would be required to define the services encompassed within a telephone company's universal service obligation and to promote access to advanced telecommunications technology.
Several amendments were approved during markup of HR 3636 to address a myriad of issues. Some of these amendments are designed to facilitate the deployment of advanced telecommunications services. For example, Rep. Boucher's (D-Va.) amendment would accelerate FCC approval of common carrier facilities' applications to provide video dialtone services under section 214 of the Communications Act. Rep. Swift's (D-Wash.) amendment would require telephone companies to provide at-cost preferential rates to noncommercial and governmental entities for advanced, non-video platform services. Rep. Schaefer's (R-Colo.) amendment would prohibit the imposition of fees on new telecommunications providers that are not imposed on existing service providers.
Other amendments address common carrier rate regulation. Rep. Tauzin (D-La.) sponsored an amendment requiring that a common carrier with more than 1.8 million access lines be "subject to alternative or price regulation, and not cost-based rate of return regulation," when it has implemented equal access, openness, and accessibility provisions. Another Tauzin amendment would allow broadcasters to use spectrum for ancillary services and provides that the FCC would collect fees generated from any broadcasts made using advanced services. Rep. Wyden (D-Ore.) sponsored an amendment requiring that telephone rate increases for residential customers who opt out of advanced telecommunications services must be implemented over a period of 5 years if they are more than an inflation adjustment. To address cross-subsidy and franchising requirements, Rep. Synar (D-Okla.) sponsored a ban on cross-subsidies between regulated telephone service and competitive telecommunications, information, and video services. In addition, Rep. Fields' (R-Tex.) amendment would preempt state and local governments' ability to extend their franchising authority over cable television providers to cover any telecommunications services offered by cable television operators.
HR 3626
This bill would phase out the limitations placed on the Baby Bells under the modified consent decree that resulted in the antitrust agreement that broke up AT&T in 1982 (the "MFJ" or "Modification of Final Judgment"). The MFJ currently precludes Baby Bells from providing long distance service and manufacturing telephone equipment. Until two years ago, the Bell Companies were precluded from electronic publishing.
The bill gives the Attorney General and the FCC the authority to make a public interest determination before a Baby Bell could offer competitive long distance services. The bill requires the Attorney General to make a finding that there is no substantial possibility that the Baby Bell or its affiliates could use monopoly power, for example by preventing access to networks or using profits earned, to impede competition in the market it seeks to enter. HR 3626 also would lift MFJ restrictions and allow Baby Bells to engage in manufacturing telephone equipment, electronic publishing, and burglar alarm services.
Two different versions of HR 3626 emerged from the Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Dingell, and the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Brooks. The two Committee chairs had previously reached a compromise on the conditions under which Baby Bells should be allowed into interstate resale and intrastate service. However, the Judiciary Committee's version would tighten the requirements for Baby Bells to enter intrastate long distance and interstate resale.
Rep. Dingell's bill would allow Baby Bells to provide incidental services across the LATA boundaries that currently divide their regions. An amendment sponsored by Rep. Markey would list privacy requirements for common carriers and require the FCC to study the impact of converging technologies on consumer privacy. Rep. Markey also introduced an amendment to expand the definition of electronic publishing.
An amendment to both HR 3636 and 3626 would authorize additional FCC appropriations as necessary to carry out the acts and their amendments.
Return to the Table of Contents
Subject: NII Public Interest Summit Announcement - 03/29/94ANNOUNCEMENT
NOTE: Use this electronic mail address for contact by clickingftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Open_Platform/nii_summit.kit
For discussion and debate on these matters, send a subscribe request to
majordomo@civicnet.org:
subscribe nii_agenda
Consider the following panel description, and let the panelists know --and each
to all -- what you think.
Description of the First Panel:
"Delivering the Goods: Meeting Public Needs?"
The NII could have profound impacts on the way we learn, how we stay
healthy or get well, how and where we work, and how we communicate within
our community and beyond. Or it could be saturated with TV reruns and
movies, home shopping, electronic games and gambling. What services,
information and programming do we want delivered over the NII? What needs
will not be met in the commercial marketplace? Once the hardware is in
place, how will we guarantee that the information, health, education,
cultural and other public interest benefits are available?
WHAT DO YOU THINK? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR A PANELIST?
During the course of the all-day Summit, four panel discussions will cover
the impacts, promises and dangers the information superhighway poses for
individuals, our homes, jobs, education and health, the future of our
democracy and our way of life. Topics will include public interest
applications, Universal Service, communities and the economy, and making
democracy work.
The Summit will bring major consumer and public interest advocates
together with key Administration officials. Panelists and moderators will
include C. Everet Koop, Jean Armour Polly, Connie Stout, Pat Waak, Rev.
Ben Chavis, Morty Bahr, Randy Ross, Mitch Kapor, Ralph Nader, Nadine
Strosser, Sonia Jarvis, Linda Tarr-Whelan,Woody Wickham, Andrew
Schwartzman, Peter Goldmark and many others.
The Summit is supported by private foundations and organized by a
broad-based coalition of public interest and non-profit organizations.
The Summit will set a new process in motion that will bring a strong
public voice to the critical communications legislation that is moving
through Congress this year. Many of the activities we can begin over the
next week will carry on after the Summit itself is over. We are dropping
a pebble into a very big pond. Help turn the ripples into a wave of change.
In addition to televised segments, panelists will also answer questions
from callers and through the Internet on a special edition of the Derek
McGinty Show. This joint effort of WAMU, Washington DC, and the National
Federation of Community Broadcasters will be made available to stations
nationwide over the Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS) during the Summit.
Further announcements from the Summit production staff will be made early
next week. Press releases, the full agenda, a recently published survey
of how Americans view the NII and other materials will become broadly
available shortly. A gopher server will be established for the Summit,
and pointed to from many gopher sites around the country and the Summit
will be live on the Net during the event. Stay tuned!
Return to the Table of Contents
Nominations for the Pioneer Awards were carried out over several national
and international computer-communication systems from December 1993 to
February 1994. A panel of six judges selected the winners from these
nominations.
The Pioneer Award Recipients
In a world in which many computer enthusiasts seem to worship technology
for its own sake, Lee Felsenstein has been a pioneer in bringing
computers to the general public. For decades he has been outspoken in his
commitment
to the ideal of making computers work for communities and individuals
rather than against them. Through his work on the Bay Area's Community
Memory project, his critical role in developing computer user groups, his
development of the seminal portable microcomputer, the Osborne I, and of
the Pennywhistle modem, Felsenstein has consistently shown himself to be
an exemplar of the pioneer spirit on the electronic frontier.
JUDGES
This year's judges for the Pioneer Awards were: Mike Godwin, online
counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who coordinated the
judging process, Jim Warren, Pioneer Award recipient from 1992
and founder of Infoworld, Mary Eisenhart, editor of Microtimes, Steven
Levy, author of HACKERS and Macworld columnist, technology writer Paulina
Borsook, and Mark Graham of Pandora Systems.
For further information, contact Mike Godwin or Stanton McCandlish at
202-347-5400. Internet: ask@eff.org
Return to the Table of Contents
Be sure to look for out membership booth in the exhibits hall to pick up
our latest literature and t-shirts. There is a "Meet the EFF" BoF session
tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, April 6 at 8pm. Hope to see you
there!
For information on attending BBS Expo '94 contact the conference coordinators at
+1 609
953 5955
Return to the Table of Contents
CONTACT: Sharon K. Tison
Public & Private Organizations Join Together to Prototype the Info Highway in
New
Mexico
Los Alamos National Laboratory, the New Mexico Free-Net Alliance, the New
Mexico Technology Consortium and New Mexico Technet are among a dozen public
and private agencies and organizations that are joining together to develop
prototypical models of the National Information Infrastructure (the
so-called "information highway").
The first step in this state-wide initiative for New Mexico is a joint proposal
to create a state-wide info highway prototype. The organizations are requesting
about a million dollars in matching funds from the US Department of Commerce's
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
According to John R. Grizz Deal, director of the New Mexico Technology
Consortium: "The call for proposals from NTIA is nation-wide and competition
among states will be fierce. The only way New Mexico can effectively participate
is by bringing together all interested parties into one comprehensive
proposal."
Deal goes on to say, "...this [joint proposal] will include community
networks, the laboratories, educational institutions and several state agencies
as
well as private organizations dedicated to providing access to all those that
want it."
Several organizations in the state have already established, or are in the
process of establishing, a connection to world-wide information networks. The
joint proposal is an opportunity to bring together all of these groups to
provide the basis of a state-wide, community-based initiative.
The inter-organization NTIA proposal group will meet in Santa Fe during the
second week of April. The proposal is due mid-May. All organizations and
community-based computing networks interested in participating in the joint
proposal are invited to attend. Contact the New Mexico Technology Consortium
in Santa Fe at +1 505 983 6767 or here or by
e-mail
to
grizz@lanl.gov for more information.
J. R. Grizz Deal comments further:..
"The idea is to split NTIA funds based on regional populations and
matching/in-kind funds. I have hired a professional grant writer to bring
this all together. All we will need from each participating group or agency
is a single point of contact, a letter stating the organization's intent to
participate and information on your group. Each participating group's budget
and responsibilities (as it relates to the NTIA prototype) will be developed
out of the joint meeting in April and continuing conversations while the
proposal is being prepared".
"Let me emphasize that the New Mexico Technology Consortium will NOT take
any grant money from NTIA. We will facilitate this process as part of our
on-going efforts to bring advanced telecommunications to New Mexico. We are
still looking for participation [from] more federal agencies and industry."
Readers may also be interested that Lew Newby of UNM and others are setting
up a New Mexico Free-Net. Mail Return to the Table of Contents
In Feb. 1994, EFF asked the net to help us show support for the Cantwell
bill, HR 3627, which would liberalize export controls on cryptography.
Thousands of you sent your letters in to this campaign, as well as to our
parallel Leahy Clipper hearings campaign which was also a success. But the
story doesn't stop there, and neither does the action. Co-sponsors or
lack thereof can be the life or death of a bill, and the more co-sponsors
HR 3627 has, the more likely it is to pass the House. Shabbir Safdar and
many others have done some great work in this area, and one message
indicating how effective personal grassroots activism can be was sent to
us from Colin Campbell, whose Representative Karen Shepherd has agreed to
co-sponsor the bill.
We reproduce the letter below so you can see for yourself.
From: Colin Campbellccampbel@dsd.es.com
----- ----- ----- Text of Letter ----- -----
-----
Rep. Karen Shepherd
Dear Rep. Shepherd:
I would like to register my strong support for H.R. 3627, Legislation to Amend
the Export Administration Act of 1979. The bill proposes to end the ban on the
export of
privacy and data-security software from the U.S.
As a longtime worker in the software industry, I can attest to the senseless and
counter-productive effects of the current export restrictions on cryptographic
software.
For me, the issue is simple:
1) The current ban is ineffective. There is no way to control the
availability of privacy software in other countries. Software is not a
commodity that is
consumed and continually reexported to replenish supply; it is information and
technology.
The
encryption technology in question is already fully available wherever there are
computers.
Whether we like it or not, the genie is out of the bottle and will not be put
back.
2) The U.S. software industry is severely hampered by not being able to
export
products with privacy and data-security features. This is about jobs.
I think cryptography has a bit of an image problem. I think it is inaccurately
associated in popular thinking with secrecy, espionage and even crime or
terrorism. In fact,
privacy software is just an electronic "envelope." It is as common and
unexotic as paper
envelopes or locking file cabinets.
I regularly send my mail sealed in envelopes made of opaque paper, and no one
would interpret this practice as evidence of criminal intent. Similarly, I file
my
business documents in a locking file cabinet. In the future, nearly all
electronic
communication will
be enclosed in secure, software "envelopes." This is proper, natural and in no
way suspect.
And it is a growth industry for the U.S., if we are only sensible enough to
recognize and take
advantage of the opportunity .
I believe that the arguments of national security offered by opponents of the
proposed legislation are not compelling. I suspect that many in the law
enforcement and
national security communities, who pursued the majority of their careers with
the technology
and
politics of the Cold War, regret the wide availability of electronic privacy;
undeniably, it
does make their job harder. However, whether or not we allow privacy software
to be
exported will
not change this.
Classifying privacy software as a "munition" makes about as much sense as
classifying personal computers and photocopy machines as implements of war. Are
we
willing
to forbid the export of personal computers and photocopy machines for national
security
reasons as well?
Now is an opportunity for progressive, forward-thinking approaches to
electronic communications and the software industry. Our national policy should
reflect
the realities of the technology and the public interest. Needlessly crippling
one of our most
vital
industries with a policy which is ineffective at meeting its stated goals is
not in that interest.
I urge you to support and even co-sponsor H.R. 3627. This is an issue that is
very important
to the
software community.
If there is any way I can help you in your effort pass HR 3627, please let me
know.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
The list is founded to provide a forum for discussion and planning, idea-
sharing and bulletin posting, among activists on the electronic frontier,
as well as a place for EFF volunteers to gather, plan, and execute
projects, from helping stuff envelopes to programming and
net.dissemination of files and information. We ask that people stay
focussed and on topic, and resist any temptation to flame. The
eff-activists list is a workgroup. For free-sprited debate and
higher-bandwidth general discussion of EFFly issues, see Usenet's
comp.org.eff.talk, available as the eff-talk@eff.org mailing list.
To subscribe to eff-activists, send a request to ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/EFF/Misc/pgpkey.eff
Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet, which can be found at:
Sponsored by MD House Delegate Joan Pitkin, bill HB1627 had several
landmark provisions for consumer privacy protection, including a
definition of "interception" that protected 2-way data over cable networks;
a requirement that nonbroadcast telecommunications providers remove from
their records and databases personal information of ex-customers; and
language prohibiting cable, satellite, and related data services from
monitoring users for "viewing patterns or practices", and from building
databases of, or even collecting, personal user information, without the
user's written consent (excepting certain types of information, such as
that required for billing and to ensure "system integrity"). Monitoring
to obtain viewer stats in the aggregate, without recording personal
details, would have still been allowed by the bill.
The legislation, though weak in some areas (notably, by focusing on the
passive aspects of little more than cable and satellite tv viewing),
nonetheless did have many provisions hinting at a wider market in the
future, including upstream use of heretofore one-way bandwidth, and the
use of television technology for person-to-person communication.
Del. Pitkin had been interested in making the text of the bill, already
becoming subjected to weakening amendments in committee, available on the
Internet, and had hoped to generate comment from net users.
Unfortunately, the lack of internet access at MD government offices
prevented our receipt of the bill until after it had already died in
committee, as it had to be ground-shipped. Her staff indicates that she
is likely to re-propose a version of the bill next session. Pitkin says
she first proposed this sort of legislation in MD some twenty years ago.
"Back then, no one knew what I was talking about," she said. "Many still
don't." She also said that MD legislation tends to build in stages, with
the passage of general frameworks happening intially, to be built upon in
layers by amendment over the years.
Before the bill failed to pass committee it had been subject to heavy
amendment, removing large sections. However, its provisions were also
generalized to include other communications providers, and audio or video
monitoring, without permission, of customers was added to the list of
"don'ts".
Given this, and the fact that the bill came under harsh crossfire from most
major telcos and cable companies (who have a vested interest in retaining
their ability to build, and rent and sell, databases of personal customer
info), Maryland telecommunications users may wish to watch for this
legislation's next incarnation, and lend their support, knowing that even
if it is missing a few pieces to the puzzle there is room for improvement
after the basic legal "infrastructure" is laid down. Del. Pitkin expressed
interest in hearing from constituents about these issues, and would
probably be heartened to learn of wide support for the next go-around. Her
office can be reached at:
+1 410 841 3105 (voice)
The full text of the bill is available at:
The amendments to the bill are available in hb1627.amend (same paths).
EFF is interested in hearing about other local and state legislation of
relevance. Send info to Return to the Table of Contents
PATENT OFFICE REJECTS COMPTON'S NEWMEDIA PATENT
March 24, 1994--The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the
controversial Compton's NewMedia patent during a re-examination.
The patent covers basic techniques for searching and
retrieving information from CD-ROM data bases. It has generated
wide criticism in the computer and technology fields as a symbol
of the problems with software patents. Some critics say the
techniques were not new at the time of the patent filing. A
minority of critics say patents should not cover software.
Most or all of the 41 claims were rejected on the basis that
they were not novel or were obvious. The rejection was delivered
to Encyclopaedia Britannica, one of the patent owners, last
Wednesday.
Encyclopaedia Britannica and Tribune Co., the other patent
owner, will have at least once chance to persuade the office that
its rejection is wrong. Afterward, the owners can appeal either
to federal court or to an appellate tribunal within the patent
office.
Examiner Archie Williams cited a popular computer book, The
HyperCard Handbook, and several patents as evidence that
Compton's NewMedia was not the first inventor of the CD-ROM
techniques.
Patent Commissioner Bruce Lehman took the rare step of
ordering the re-exam after industry protest over how
the patent would upset the advance of multimedia and interactive
technologies.
Return to the Table of Contents
You've been following the newspapers and reading EFFector Online.
You know that today there are several battles being fought over the future
of personal privacy. The Clipper Chip, export restrictions, the Digital
Telephony Proposal - the arguments are numerous and complex, but the
principles are clear. Who will decide how much privacy is "enough"?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation believes that individuals should be
able to ensure the privacy of their personal communications through any
technological means they choose. However, the government's current
restrictions on the export of encrytion software have stifled the
development and commercial availability of strong encryption in the U.S.
Rep. Maria Cantwell has introduced a bill (H.R. 3627) in the House that
would liberalize export controls on software that contains encryption, but
needs vocal support if the bill is to make it out of the committee stage.
The decisions that are made today will affect our futures indefinitely.
EFF is a respected voice for the rights of users of online technologies
and EFF members receive regular online updates on the issues that affect
our online communications and particpate in shaping the future.
Now, more than ever, EFF is working to make sure that you are the one that
makes these decisions for yourself. Our members are making themselves heard
on the whole range of issues. To date, EFF has collected over 4800 letters
of support for Rep. Cantwell's bill to liberalize restrictions on
cryptography. We also have over 1400 letters supporting Sen. Leahy's
open hearings on the proposed Clipper encryption scheme.
If you'd like to add your voice in support of the Cantwell bill and the
Leahy hearings, you can send your letters to:
Your letters will be printed out and hand delivered to Rep. Cantwell and Sen.
Leahy by EFF.
You KNOW privacy is important. You have probably participated in our
online campaigns. Have you become a member of EFF yet? We feel that 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!
-------- 8< ------- cut here ------- 8< --------
================================================
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
================================================
Print out and mail to:
I wish to become a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I enclose:
Special Contribution
I wish to make an additional tax-deductible donation in the amount of
$__________ to further support the activities of EFF and to broaden
participation in the organization.
PAYMENT METHOD:
___ Enclosed is a check payable to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
___ Please charge my:
Card Number: ___________________________________________
Expiration Date: _________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________________
NOTE: We do not recommend sending credit card information via the
Internet!
YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION:
Name: _________________________________________________
Organization: ____________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Phone: (____) _______________ FAX: (____) _______________ (optional)
E-mail address: __________________________________________
PREFERRED CONTACT
___ Electronic: Please contact me via the Internet address listed above.
___ EFFector Online - EFF's biweekly electronic newsletter
(back issues available from ftp.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/E
FFector
).
___ Online Bulletins - bulletins on key developments
affecting online communications.
NOTE: Traffic may be high. You may wish to browse these publications in
the Usenet newsgroup comp.org.eff.news (also available in FidoNet, as
EFF-NEWS).
___ Paper: Please contact me through the U.S. Mail at the street
address listed above.
PRIVACY POLICY
EFF occasionally shares our mailing list with other organizations promoting
similar goals. However, we respect an individual's right to privacy and
will not distribute your name without explicit permission.
___ I grant permission for the EFF to distribute my name and contact
information to organizations sharing similar goals.
This form came from EFFector Online (please leave this line on the
form!)
-------- 8< ------- cut here ------- 8< --------
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:
HTML editions available at:
Return to the Table of Contents
On March 24, at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference in
Chicago, Illinois, the Electronic Frontier Foundation presented
its Third Annual Pioneer Awards to eight individuals or institutions
who were judged to have made significant and influential contributions to
computer-based communications or to the empowerment of individuals in
using computers. The 1994 Pioneer Award recipients are Ivan Sutherland,
Bill Atkinson, Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman, Murray Turoff and
Starr Roxanne Hiltz, Lee Felsenstein, and the WELL (the Whole Earth
'Lectronic Link).
Subject: Third Annual EFF Pioneer Awards Announced
EFF will be sending several staffers and its membership booth to the BBS
Expo '94 Conference held from April 5-7, 1994 at the Sheraton Washington in
Washington, DC. EFF's Executive Director, Jerry Berman, will be giving the
keynote address, and staffers Shari Steele and Mike Godwin will both be
hosting panels.
Subject: EFF Attending BBS Expo '94 in Washington, DC - 04/94
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 16 March 1994
Subject: Inter-Organization NTIA Workgroup Formed to Bring NII to New
Mexico
New Mexico Technology Consortium
+1 505 983 6767 (voice)
Activism works! Writing to your representatives in goverment is
not a waste of time or paper. It is effective, and it does produce
results.
In many cases, your Senators, Representatives, Assemblymembers, Delegates,
etc., are not only unopposed to a bill, they may not even be aware of it
or the issue at all.
Subject: H.R. 3627 co-sponsored by Rep. Karen Shepherd (D-UT)
To: Jerry Berman
jberman@eff.org
Subject: H.R. 3627 will be co-sponsored by Rep. Karen Shepherd (D-UT)
Dear Mr. Berman:
I recently sent the following letter to my district's delegate in the House of
Representatives, Rep. Karen Shepherd (D-UT) in support of H.R. 3627. Her
office later
telephoned me to say that before my letter she had been unaware of the issue,
but after
studying the issue she will be co-sponsoring the bill.
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC
Colin Campbell Return to the Table of Contents
EFF now has an EFF Activist and Volunteers mailing list, eff-activists@eff.org
Subject: New features at EFF Online, EFF PGP Public Key & Activist
List
A Maryland state legislature bill, the Nonbroadcast Telecommunications
Privacy Act, failed to survive committee markup on Feb. 24, 1994.
Subject: Maryland Telecom Privacy Bill Fails
+1 410 841 3104 (fax)
A Voorhees Report, redistributed with permission (c) 1994 Mark Voorhees
Subject: Compton's/Britannica/Tribune Multimedia Patent
Rejected
Controversial CD-ROM filing falls during re-exam
Subject: What YOU Can Do"The defendents objections to the evidence obtained by
wire-tapping
must, in my opinion, be sustained. It is, of course, immaterial where the
physical connection with the telephone wires leading into the defendant's
premises was made. And it is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid
of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to
protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to
freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by
evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
- Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277
U.S. 479
(1928)
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, NW, Suite 950 East, Washington, DC 20001
$__________ Regular membership -- $40
$__________ Student membership -- $20
___ MasterCard ___ Visa ___ American Express
I would like to receive the following at that address:
EFFector Online is published by:
Administrivia
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
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)
Membership & donations:
membership@eff.org
Legal services: ssteele@eff.org
Hardcopy publications: pubs@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries:
ask@eff.org
Editor: Stanton McCandlish, Online Services Mgr./Activist/Archivist
(mech@eff.org)
This newsletter printed on 100% recycled electrons.
To get the latest issue, send any message to
effector-reflector@eff.org
(or er@eff.org), and it will be mailed to
you automagically. 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.
ftp.eff.org,/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/
gopher.eff.org,1/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/HTML/
at EFFweb.