EFFector Online Volume 7.13

• EFF Organizational Changes: New Exec. Dir., New Privacy Project
• Rep. Edwards Announcement on Digital Telephony, Oct. 7, 1994
• National Research Council Study of National Cryptography Policy
• Computers, Freedom and Privacy '95 - Call for Participation
• EFF's Godwin to Speak at Criminal Law in Cyberspace Conf., 10/27/94
• OTA Report - Information Security & Privacy in Network Environments
• GPO Puts Bills Online, but Wants You to Pay for Them Twice
• Horde of New NII Documents Online at EFF
• What YOU Can Do
• Administrivia

Subject: EFF Organizational Changes: New Exec. Dir., New Privacy Project

September 28, 1994
The Chairman and Board of Directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today announced the immediate appointment of Andrew E. Taubman as Executive Director of EFF. The Board of Directors approved the hiring of Mr. Taubman at its most recent meeting in mid-July. At the same time, Jerry Berman, Executive Director since January 1992, was appointed the Director of Policy. The move was made to effect the best placement of talents and experience. Mr. Taubman will focus on EFF as an organization, while Mr. Berman's role in policy and legislative development will continue in recognition of the increased significance of EFF's political role in Washington.

"I am delighted to welcome Drew to EFF, where we expect him to play a major role in orchestrating the next phase of development of the organization. The Board went through a long and thoughtful process to find the best candidate, and in Drew we believe we have him," said Mitchell Kapor, co-founder of EFF.

Prior to joining EFF, Mr. Taubman was the President/Managing Partner of The Taubman Group, a Cleveland-based management consultancy created in 1985 for public sector and related organizations. His professional positions include appointments as Vice President of the Cleveland Institute of Music, Ohio; Executive Director of The Ohio Caring Foundation's Caring Program For Children, Cincinnati; Director of Development and Alumni Affairs/Associate Director of the University of Cincinnati Foundation, Ohio; Associate Director of Development at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio; Cultural Arts Director of The Leo Yassenoff Center, Columbus, Ohio; and Development Officer, Public Television and Radio at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. His community involvement as a committee member/officer or trustee has been regular and diversified in health care and the arts. He has consulted and testified on healthcare reform, social service, education, and the arts.

Mr. Taubman received his BA in Arts Administration from Michigan State University and has continued his professional education with a focus on the non-profit sector.

EFF Privacy and Technology Project

An additional organizational change at EFF was the creation in May of the Privacy and Technology Project. This project is headed by Janlori Goldman, former Director of the Privacy and Technology Project at the ACLU. Ms. Goldman is assisted by Staff Counsel Deirdre K. Mulligan, a 1994 graduate of Georgetown Law School, who assisted on the ACLU project while a Public Interest Law Scholar in law school.

Legal Services and Community Building

Concurrent with the implementation of these recent changes, EFF's Board of Directors is committed to continued support for Legal Services and increased development of the Community Building aspect of EFF's mission.

"I am very optimistic about this change," said co-founder John Perry Barlow. "Jerry Berman needs to be in a position to focus on policy, and we think we've built an organization that can support his efforts rather than require his continuous attention to administrative detail. EFF has a revitalized focus on community services and understanding the issues involved in civilizing cyberspace. Drew Taubman is exactly the person to run this phase of EFF."

For further information, please contact Kathleen Zaffina at kzaffina@eff.org or 202/347-5400.

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: Rep. Edwards Announcement on Digital Telephony, Oct. 7, 1994

This memo does not represent EFF statements or policy. Please direct any comments to the office of Rep. Edwards.

Please feel free to distribute this document widely.
Thank you

Date: October 7, 1994
To: Persons Interested in the Digital Telephony "Wiretap" Bill
From: Don Edwards
Chairman
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights
House Judiciary Committee

My legislation, H.R. 4922, would be a major improvement over the current relationship between the telecommunications industry and law enforcement. Currently, the FBI holds the upper hand regarding decisions about security and privacy, in a relationship that is shielded from public scrutiny.

In my estimation, there should be no doubt that future telecommunications systems and services will be designed with law enforcement wiretap needs in mind. Indeed, in opposing my bill the phone companies argued that no legislation was needed because they were working to accommodate law enforcement's demands without legislation. For me, therefore, the key questions were whether that accommodation would be developed in the sunshine and whether privacy would be a requirement given equal status with the requirements of law enforcement.

Closed Door Meetings or Sunshine

For over a year, an industry committee that includes all of the major phone companies, cellular providers and equipment manufacturers has been working with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to develop design proposals to ensure wiretap accessibility in new and existing systems.

The sloe mission of the committee is to satisfy law enforcement's stated "needs". Privacy is not within the charter of standards for digital switches, cellular systems, evolving Personal Communications Services, the Advanced Intelligent Network, and cable TV systems. The process is totally closed to the public. All participants in the meetings are required to sign non-disclosure agreements. Without legislation, that process will continue behind closed doors.

Three Principles of Accountability

This status quo is unacceptable. Deliberations of industry and law enforcement regarding the future of the telecommunications system should be controlled in three ways, which my legislation would achieve:

(1) Statutory parameters must be set on the scope of what can be required of telephone companies. Under current practice, law enforcement is defining its "needs" to industry, which accepts them without question. Our bill, in contrast, has substantially narrowed law enforcement's capability requirements, setting a floor. In terms of capacity, our bill specifically requires a notice and comment rule-making in the Federal Register, so the whole country can know what law enforcement is doing.

(2) Privacy must be a requirement on an equal footing with law enforcement interests. Our bill, for the first time ever, requires telephone companies to affirmatively protect the privacy and security of communications not authorized to be intercepted, and gives the FCC regulatory authority over industry compliance with privacy standards. Up until now, phone companies have had no duty to protect privacy. Whether communications were secure or not had been an artifact of telephone technology.

(3) There must be sunshine and accountability. Without H.R. 4922, the phone companies will never have to tell anybody what they have done to "accommodate" law enforcement. My bill requires that industry standards be published. It gives any member of the public the right to challenge any standard before the FCC and in court if it does not adequately protect privacy. All FCC proceedings will be on the public record. The General Accounting office will report every two years on what modifications have been made in telecommunications systems and what modifications are being sought.

Internet Exempted from Wiretap Requirements in HR 4922

Finally, I should remind all interested persons that the bill does not cover the Internet. The report on the bill clearly states:

"The definition of telecommunications carrier does not include persons or entities to the extent that they are engaged in providing information services, such as electronic mail providers, on-line services providers such as Compuserve, Prodigy, America-On-Line, or Mead Data, or Internet service providers."

For a copy of the latest version of the bill, see: