EFFector, Vol. 14, No. 33; Oct. 25, 2001

EFFector Vol. 14, No. 33 Oct. 25, 2001 editors@eff.org

A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424

In the 193rd Issue of EFFector (now with over 29,400 subscribers!):

To join EFF or make an additional donation:
http://www.eff.org/support/
EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!

EFF Condemns "Anti-Terrorism" Bill

Legislation Dramatically Curtails Online Civil Liberties

An overreaching "anti-terrorism" bill passed Congress today without adequate hearings and debate at the urging of the Bush Administration. Both houses have passed the bill, now called the USA PATRIOT Act. The president will likely sign it into law by Friday.

EFF is preparing further commentary and analysis for publication on our website.

About EFF:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the most linked-to websites in the world:
http://www.eff.org/

EFF Protects Scientists' Speech in RIAA Case

Government, Record Industry Disagree on Digital Copyright Law

Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release

For Immediate Release: October 25, 2001

Contacts:

Trenton, NJ - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today replied to the US Department of Justice's request to dismiss a digital copyright law dispute. EFF explained that the vagueness of the law, known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), prevents even the DOJ and the recording industry from agreeing on their interpretation of the law in the Felten v RIAA case.

The DOJ's dismissal request claims that the DMCA does not preclude scientists from pursuing and publishing research on digital copy prevention schemes, while the recording industry seeks to dismiss the case on grounds that they have withdrawn legal threats against the scientific papers already written by Felten and his team. These papers discussed the weaknesses in the music industry's proposed SDMI technology designed to control consumers' use of digital music.

EFF points out that the case must go forward in spite of both dismissal arguments. First, the DOJ's argument that the DMCA exempts scientific research is not binding on them and is not supported by any court ruling or by the recording industry. Second, although the recording industry threats against publication of this scientific research were withdrawn, industry representatives have insisted that the DMCA permits them to review and censor future research on a case-by-case basis.

"Since the government and industry cannot agree on what the DMCA means, it is not surprising that scientists and researchers are confused and decide not to publish research for fear of prosecution under the DMCA," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Regardless of specific government or industry threats in the past, scientists should not have to experience the ongoing chilling effects of this vague digital copyright law."

Together with USENIX, an association of over 10,000 technologists that publishes such scientific research, Princeton Professor Edward Felten and his research team have asked the court to declare that they have a First Amendment right to discuss and publish their work, even if it may discuss weaknesses in the technological systems used to control digital music. The DMCA, passed in 1998, outlaws providing technology and information that can be used to gain access to a copyrighted work.

"Three more independent scientists today joined six other scientists and the Association for Computing Machinery and the Computer Research Association in filing declarations explaining to the court the ways in which scientific inquiry and freedom of speech have been chilled by the DMCA," said EFF Intellectual Property Attorney Robin Gross. "The chill continues because neither the recording industry nor the government has agreed to be bound to an interpretation of the DMCA that does not threaten normal, scientific publication."

Recording industry attorneys will not agree to stop future threats against scientists for discussing the insecurities in recording industry security systems. Even the government admits this possibility, stating in its brief that: "It is possible that making available a publication that describes in detail how to go about circumventing a particular technology, if written or marketed for the express purpose of actually circumventing that technology, would be prosecuted under the statute."

The chill felt by researchers working in this scientific discipline continues to grow. As Plaintiff Scott Craver says in his Supplemental Declaration, "We do not write and use programs such as tinywarp.c because we view breaking a technology as an end unto itself. To the contrary, breaking a technology is nothing more than a crucial step either in attempting to improve the technology or in attempting to prove that the technology cannot be made to do what it is supposed to do. Both, of course, are legitimate research objectives, and in either case, writing and using tools to circumvent access or copy control technologies is essential to our work. If we can no longer use the necessary instruments of science, then our field of scientific work will be paralyzed."

Oral argument on the both the government and recording industry motions to dismiss the scientists' case has been scheduled for November 28 before Judge Garrett E. Brown in Trenton, New Jersey.

For EFF's filing in opposition to the Department of Justice dismissal motion in Felten v RIAA as well as for other motions and declarations in the case: http://www.eff.org/sc/felten/

About EFF:

Chilling Effects of Anti-Terrorism: "National Security" Toll on Freedom of Expression

Especially now during the US Congress's passage of the most restrictive measures on online civil liberties yet experienced in the United States, it is important to note that the right to free speech faces the strongest challenges during times of crisis. Whether or not any of us agree about each particular decision made to prevent public access to sensitive information, it is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's responsibility to chart any such efforts so that we as a society are at least aware of what is no longer available to us.

A new EFF web page attempts to convey the chilling effect that responses to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have had on information availability on the Internet as well as some sense of the effect on people trying to provide this information.

Currently, this page tracks websites shut down or partially removed by governments, ISPs, and website owners, as well as government requests to remove information, media professionals or other employees terminated or suspended for exercising free speech in response to anti-terrorism, and other related incidents and links.

If you know of any anti-terrorism chilling effects that should be listed, please let us know by email at freespeech@eff.org

EFF Contest: Announcing the Big Winners!

Despite a technological glitch, the EFF Contest of the Century (or at least of the week), is proud to announce the following three winners of vintage EFF T-shirts:

Those on Netscape web browsers who reported the technological glitch, we appreciate your support. Instead of suing you like some companies we know would do, :-) we will reward the first two people who reported the bug with vintage EFF T-shirts too!

Please stay tuned and read the EFFector careful to find out when the next EFF Contest of the Century (or at least of the week) will reach your inbox.

Administrivia

The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
http://www.eff.org/

Editors:
Katina Bishop, EFF Education & Offline Activism Director
Stanton McCandlish, EFF Technical Director/Webmaster
editors@eff.org

Membership & donation queries: membership@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@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 & articles may be reproduced individually at will.

To subscribe to EFFector via e-mail, send to majordomo@eff.org a message BODY (not subject) of:
subscribe effector
The list server will send you a confirmation code and then add you to a subscription list for EFFector (after you return the confirmation code; instructions will be in the confirmation e-mail).

To unsubscribe, send a similar message body to the same address, like so:
unsubscribe effector

(Please ask listmaster@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if this does not work for you for some reason.)

To change your address, send both commands at once, one per line (i.e., unsubscribe your old address, and subscribe your new address).