EFFector Online Volume 7.11

• ALERT: Open Platform Update - House Vote on HR3636,HR3626 06/28/94
• Oregon PUC Request for Comments on ISDN Deployment
• House Intelligence Committee Just Says No to Crypto Export
• Republican Party Texas Denouces Clipper, DigTel, and ITAR Regs
• PSI and Canter & Siegel Negotiate Net Access: No Spamming
• SunFlash E-Journal Call for Papers: "UNIX and the Law" Symposium
• "How Do I Get the Most Current EFFector?"
• What YOU Can Do
• Administrivia

ALERT: Open Platform Update - House Vote on HR3636, HR3626 06/28/94

House Prepares to Vote on Landmark Communications Bills EFF's Open Platform Language Remains a Central Aspect

On June 28, 1994, the full House of Representatives will vote on landmark telecommunications legislation. Two bills will be considered: H.R. 3636, the "National Communications and Information Infrastructure Act of 1994" (which contains EFF's Open Platform Proposal), and H.R. 3626, the "Antitrust and Communications Reform Act of 1994" (which will permit RBOCs - local-loop telephone companies - to re-enter the long distance, manufacturing, and information services markets). Together, these bills represent the most dramatic restructuring of communications law in more than 60 years.

Both bills are expected to pass easily, but your supporting faxes and calls to your Representatives are still important. Click here for a full list of Congressional fax numbers.

H.R. 3636, THE NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 1994

H.R. 3636 seeks to promote the development of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) through a combination of increased competition and a new regulatory framework. The bill would require local telephone monopolies to provide equal access and interconnection to their network, remove restrictions preventing telephone companies from providing video services, and preserve and enhance the universal provision of telecommunications services at affordable rates.

There have been no major changes to the legislation since it was marked up by the Energy and Commerce Committee on March 16, 1994.

Key points of the bill are analyzed below:

1. Open Platform Service

EFF believes that open platform service, available to all Americans in the near-term at low cost, is key to promoting the democratic potential of the NII. Open platform service is designed to give residential and commercial subscribers access to voice, data, and video services over digital lines on a switched, end-to-end basis. With open platform service widely available, individuals and organizations would have access to a variety of important applications, including telemedicine, telecommuting, and distance learning. Open Platform services enable any user on the network to reach any other user or information source on the network, without having to pass through any bottlenecks that might be erected by vertically integrated network operators. Today, many carriers are only building capacity for primarily one-way services such as video-on-demand, home shopping, and 500 channels of entertainment. Open platform architecture is a strong safeguard against anti-competitive behavior and will promote the First Amendment goal of access to a diversity of information sources.

EFF has been working closely with Rep. Markey and other members of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee to ensure that the open platform philosophy was incorporated in NII legislation.

Open platform service, as defined in section 101 (3)(ii) of H.R. 3636, refers to --

...a switched, end-to-end digital telecommunications service that is subject to Title II of [the Communications Act of 1934: Common Carriers]; and that
(1) provides subscribers with sufficient network capability to access multimedia information services,
(2) is widely available throughout a State,
(3) is provided based on industry standards, and
(4) is available to all subscribers on a single line basis upon reasonable request.

Section 102 (d)(3) of H.R. 3636 directs the FCC to conduct an inquiry in order to determine what regulations and policies are necessary to make open platform service available to subscribers at reasonable rates. Based on the inquiry, the FCC is then directed to prescribe regulations to ensure the deployment of open platform services. The FCC may also require carriers to file tariffs for open platform service as soon as such service is economically feasible and technologically reasonable.

The FCC is also directed to establish procedures for granting carriers a temporary waiver from complying with the open platform requirements. Carriers would be granted a waiver if they could demonstrate that compliance with the open platform requirements would (1) be economically or technically infeasible, or (2) would materially delay the deployment of new facilities with improved capabilities or efficiencies that will be used to meet the requirements of open platform services.

Access to open platform service at affordable rates is also a key part of the definition of universal service in H.R. 3636.

2. Universal Service

Universal access to telephone service has long been a cornerstone of Federal and State telecommunications regulatory policies. Because residential local telephone service is provided by a monopoly carrier, maintaining universal service has not been difficult. As the ability to participate in society becomes increasingly more dependent on access to information, the need to preserve and maintain universal service becomes more and more important. However, as competition in the local exchange increases the diversity of communications services providers, the old systems for maintaining universal service will become more and more ineffective. H.R. 3636 seeks to establish a mechanism that ensures universal service is preserved as competition increases in the telecommunications market.

H.R. 3636 does not attempt to establish a statutory definition of universal service. Instead, the bill establishes a process which allows the definition of universal service to evolve as new technologies and services emerge.

3. Federal-State Joint Board to Determine the Definition of Universal Service

The bill establishes a Federal-State Joint board (composed of representatives from the FCC and State public utility commissions) to determine what policies and regulations are necessary to preserve and enhance universal service. In determining the nature and extent of universal service, the Federal-State board is directed to consider several factors. These include the extent to which:

(1) a telecommunications service has, through the operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers;
(2) the possibility that denial of access to such service to any individual would unfairly deny that individual educational and economic opportunities;
(3) such service has been deployed in the public switched telecommunications network;
(4) inclusion of such service within a carriers' universal service obligations is otherwise consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

The bill states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to the preservation of universal service.

4. Local Competition: Equal Access and Interconnection

In order to promote competition in the local telecommunications market, H.R. 3636 requires local exchange carriers to provide equal access and interconnection to their networks. The equal access and interconnection requirements will allow competitors, such as cable companies, long distance providers, and others, to compete with local telephone monopolies without requiring competitors to build their local network from scratch.

5. Regulations Required

The bill directs the FCC to establish regulations that require reasonable and nondiscriminatory equal access and interconnection with the facilities of a local exchange carrier's network. Such regulations must allow a competitor to place any equipment necessary for interconnection to the network on the premises of a local exchange carrier. The FCC is also directed to prescribe regulations requiring reasonable compensation to the exchange carrier providing equal access and interconnection.

6. State Preemptions

H.R. 3636 preempts existing State and local regulations prohibiting competition in the local exchange, while maintaining a State's ability to enforce consumer protection laws, protect public safety and welfare, and regulate interstate rates and quality of service.

7. Exemptions

Finally, small and rural telephone companies (those with fewer than 500,000 access lines) are not required to comply with the equal access and interconnection requirements unless the FCC determines that complying would not be unduly economically burdensome, unfairly competitive, technologically infeasible, or otherwise not in the public interest.

8. Provision of Video Services by Telephone Companies

H.R. 3636 removes restrictions preventing telephone companies from providing video services within their service area. In order to provide video services within its service area, a telephone company would be required to: (1) establish a separate video programming affiliate; and (2) establish a video platform.

9. Separate Video Programming Affiliate:

H.R. 3636 requires separate video programming affiliates to maintain separate books and records from their affiliated telephone company, and conduct its own separate promotion (with certain exceptions). The bill also contains prohibitions against cross subsidies. The separate affiliate requirements are intended to prevent a telephone from using its power as a monopoly from impeding competition in the market.

10. Video Platform

H.R. 3636 requires any common carrier that provides video programming to its subscribers in its telephone service area to establish a video platform. Any carrier establishing a video platform is required to grant, on a nondiscriminatory basis, access to all bona fide requests for carriage. The FCC is also directed to prescribe regulations to prohibit video platform providers from imposing discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions on access to the video platform.

In order to promote competition in the delivery of video services, H.R. 3636 also prohibits (with exceptions for small and rural areas) any common carrier that provides telephone exchange service (or its affiliates) from purchasing an existing cable system located within its telephone service area.

11. Extension of Regulations to Other High Capacity Systems

This section extends the video platform requirements of H.R. 3636 to cable systems that operate switched broadband delivery systems. Such systems are required to establish a video platform, and are prohibited from discriminating among program providers with respect to carriage, and requires that the rates and conditions for carriage of video programming are just and reasonable.

The FCC is also directed to study whether it is in the public interest to extend the video platform requirements to other cable operators though they may not have switched broadband video delivery systems.

12. Interactive Services and Critical Interfaces (Set-top Boxes)

The bill states that set-top boxes and other interactive communications devices may be "a critical gateway" to American homes and businesses. The bill states that, "In order to promote diversity, competition, and technological innovation among suppliers of equipment and services, it may be necessary to make certain critical interfaces open and accessible to a broad range of information providers", the FCC is directed to identify "critical interfaces" that allow end users to connect information devices to networks and information service providers to transmit information to end users.

The bill directs the FCC to conduct an inquiry, to examine the convergence of interactive technologies. The FCC would examine the costs and benefits of establishing open interfaces between, on the one hand, the network provider and the set-top box, and on the other, between network providers and information service providers. The FCC would also determine how to ensure the interoperability of converter boxes with interactive networks.

The bill instructs this FCC to report to Congress within one year of the date of enactment of this section on the results of its inquiry. Finally, the FCC is instructed to make such changes in its regulations as deemed necessary in order to implement the findings of its inquiry.

13. Broadcast Spectrum Flexibilty

If the FCC decides to issue additional licenses for advanced television services (such as HDTV) H.R. 3636 allows the FCC to prescribe regulations that would permit broadcasters to use spectrum for "ancillary and or supplementary services". Such ancillary or supplementary services will be treated as broadcast services and are subject to all regulations applicable to broadcast services

14. Public Access

H.R. 3636 requires the FCC to prescribe regulations to provide access for the public on video platforms and cable systems at preferential rates. The FCC is directed to determine the appropriate capacity consistent with the video platform requirements of the bill.

15. Civic Participation on the Internet

The bill directs the FCC in consultation with the NTIA, to conduct a study of policies that will enhance civic participation on the Internet. In conducting this study, the FCC and NTIA are directed to request public comment on whether common carriers should be required to provide citizens with a flat rate service for gaining access to the Internet.

For More information on EFF's Open Platform Proposal, contact
Jerry Berman, Executive Director, jberman@eff.org
Danny Weitzner, Deputy Policy Director djw@eff.org
Jonah Seiger, Project Coordinator, jseiger@eff.org

For the most up-to date version of the bills and the reports, call the Telecommunications Subcommittee at +1 202 226 2424

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: House Intelligence Committee Just Says No to Crypto Export

The Intelligence Committee substituted the cryptography study previously adopted by the Senate. So, instead of getting strong encryption in the international information infrastructure, we'll get a nice big study to read and debate.

The next phrase of this fight will be in the House Rules committee, which will have the job of resolving the dispute between the Foreign Affairs Committee, which approved the Cantwell bill, and the Intelligence Committee version, which removed it. The Rules Committee will decide which version, if any, goes to the floor of the House for vote.

Stay tuned for further news and action alerts...

The members of the House Rules Committee are listed below. You may wish to send them letters and faxes supporting retention of the language supporting the export of cryptographic products, in the version of the bill passed by the House Foreign Affairs Cmte.

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: Oregon PUC Request for Comments on ISDN Deployment

Oregon Public Utility Commission May 26,1994

TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES

The Public Utility Commission of Oregon has been sponsoring a series of workshops concerning the deployment of an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) in Oregon. Through the workshop process, the Oregon ISDN working group has established the feasibility of ISDN deployment by local exchange carriers (LECs) within the state. The Commission now seeks comments on ISDN deployment from the work group and any other interested parties on the following issues and questions. If parties have comments on any issues or concerns not covered in the questions, they are encouraged to add them to the issues list.

Issues and Ouestions:

1. Does the Commission have jurisdiction to compel the provision of ISDN? Explain the basis of your position.

2. What policies should the Commission adopt regarding the deployment of ISDN? Should the Commission mandate deployment or encourage deployment to be driven by customer demand?

3. Should ISDN-based services be considered a replacement for, or an evolution of, current services?

4. Should all Oregon subscribers have access to ISDN? What policies should be adopted concerning the general availability of ISDN to customers?

5. Assuming that all central office switches in Oregon are either digital or analog electronic, what network upgrades are necessary to deploy ISDN?

6. What is the cost of these upgrades? Are these upgrades necessary exclusively for ISDN, or will they be shared by other services? Explain.

7. What digital switches are currently incapable of providing ISDN? Are there plans for making them ISDN-capable? In what time frame?

8. Are there methods of providing ISDN from ISDN-incapable switches? Explain in detail.

9. If overlay methods are used to provide ISDN in certain exchanges, how will this affect the current structure of local, EAS, and toll services within Oregon?

10. What policies regarding ISDN standards should be adopted by the Commission? Please explain.

11. Should the Commission require that certain services or capabilities be provided by ISDN? What are they? Why?

12. What is the appropriate time frame for ISDN deployment in Oregon? Why?

13. How should ISDN services be priced? Should there be a residential/business price differential? Why?

14. Should there be a voice/circuit data price differential? Why?

15. Should there be flat rate/measured rate pricing options? Why?

16. How should features be priced? Should they be provided in packages, unbundled, or both? Why?

17. How should the policies regarding ISDN be implemented by the Commission? If tariff filings are required, what should they contain? Why?

18. To which local exchange carriers should rules and policies on ISDN apply? Why?

19. Should the LECs be required to provide ISDN services in a manner that is conducive to the competitive provision of ISDN? Why? If so, how?

20. Should there be a mandated interconnection and interoperability of competitively provided ISDN services? Why? If so, how and by whom?

21. Are there any other aspects or characteristics of providing ISDN that should be considered by the Commission? If yes, describe each and explain why.

Please mail one copy of your comments by July 22, 1994, to:
Woody Birko
Oregon PUC
550 Capitol St. NE
Salem, OR 97310-1380

and one copy of your comments to everyone on the attached ISDN work group mailing list. If you are not on the ISDN work group mailing list and would like to receive a copy of everyone's comments, please call Woody Birko at (503) 378-6122.

Reply comments should be mailed in a similar manner by August 30, 1994. The next meeting of the Oregon ISDN work group is tentatively scheduled for September 14, 1994, to discuss the comments and reply comments and to see if a unified position paper can be written to the Commission on ISDN deployment in Oregon.

If you have any questions concerning this, please call me at (503) 378-6122.

Wolodymyr Birko
Sr. Utility Engineering Analyst
Telecommunications Division
(503) 378-6122

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: Republican Party Texas Denouces Clipper, DigTel, and ITAR Regs

This is comes as something of a surprise given the unanimous House Intelligence Committee Vote to retain export restrictions on cryptographic products - a vote which included the ballot of Rep. Larry Combest (R/TX). [see previous article in this issue]

The relevant section of the RPT 1994 Platform is reproduced here:

"Electronic Privacy-The Party believes that no governmental trapdoor encryption standards should be advanced for use in any civilian communication system (eg Clipper Chip, Digital Telephony Act) and that the US patent office should limit the RSA patent to allow individuals to secure their own communications systems. We believe that encryption systems publicly available outside the US should not be classified as munitions."

More info will follow when available.

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: PSI and Canter & Siegel Negotiate Net Access: No Spamming

This is just an informational forward, and is not an EFF document, nor does it reflect official EFF positions or statements Better education will be key to Internet evolution with books like "NET Etiquette" and the Internet Business Association (IBA) of Washington, DC facilitating those changes. In addition, mediation and discussion instead of unilateral confrontation, threats, and disconnection will be required to develop the general framework for operating on the Internet as it continues to evolve. Several other application-oriented Internet service providers have taken this approach successfully with C&S and others in parallel with PSI.

PSI's headquarters are located at 510 Huntmar Park Drive, Herndon, VA 22070.

Canter & Siegel is located at 3333 East Camelback Road, Suite 250, Phoenix, AZ 85260.

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: SunFlash E-Journal Call for Papers: "UNIX and the Law" Symposium

Excerpted from The Flordia SunFlash: The Electronic Journal for Sun Users - Since 1988,
Vol. 66, No. 54, June 1994.

Theme:UNIX and the Law

• Security
  

  Computers and Privacy
  

  UNIX and the Government
  

  Copyrights and Licensing

The Sun User Group is pleased to announce its First Annual Technical Symposium, which will address the important issues of legality and morality that face computer users every day. Technical papers and presentations concerning this topical issue, as well as other topics of interest to the Sun/SPARC community, are invited. Manufacturers of computer equipment and software based on SPARC/Solaris technology are encouraged to participate in this conference with presentations, and technical talks.

CALL FOR PAPERS

SUN USER GROUP
First Annual "UNIX and the Law" Symposium

November 14-18, 1994 Austin, TX

SUG conferences are attended by members from all over the world. Past conferences have drawn upwards of 4000 attendees from 43 countries and 43 states. We expect this timely topic to generate even more interest than usual.

Submission Guidelines:

Submissions should be in the form of extended abstracts (750 to 1000 words) and be sufficiently complete to allow the committee to understand and evaluate the submission. Abstracts should include:

1. Author name(s), postal and e-mail address(es), and telephone number(s).

2. Presenter name(s), postal and e-mail address(es), and telephone number(s).

3. Title of the paper

4. Time needed for presentation/questions. (30,45,60,90 Min. time slots)

5. Audio-visual requirements.

6. Student paper entry (Full time students only)

Authors whose submissions are accepted will receive instructions for the preparation of final papers which will be published in the conference proceedings. The Presenter will receive one free registration for the conference. Any tutorial attendance must be purchased.

IMPORTANT! All presentations will require a paper submission for inclusion in the conference proceedings.

Deadlines:

Abstracts Due: July 8, 1993

Notifications to Authors: August 22, 1993

Final Papers Due: September 12, 1993

Student Papers:

There will be an award for the best student paper. Be sure to indicate with your submission if you are a full time student. A cash prize and free registration will be awarded by the Conference Program Committee.

Submit one hardcopy and one electronic copy to the Sun User Group office:

Sun User Group
Conference Committee
1330 Beacon Street
Suite 315
Brookline, MA 02146
Email: office@sug.org

Click here to email or phone: (617) 232-0514 Fax: (617) 232- 1347

The Program Committee will select presentations from among those submitted. It includes experts from many areas of the Sun/Sparc world. It will be aided by:

S. Lee Henry - SUG board liaison - Johns Hopkins University
Peter Galvin - SUG board liason - Brown University
Alex Newman - SUG liason - Sun User Group

Possible themes and topics are listed below. These are only for reference, however, and all submitted papers will be considered for presentation at the conference.

Thematic Track

Topics directly related to the theme of the program: System Security; Software law for businessmen; Copyrights vs Copylefts; Encryption Sytems; Public and private keys; Clipper chips; Digital signatures; Designing software for export; Carjacking on the Information Superhighway;

Mini-Tutorials and Q&A

These sessions should be designed to directly address Sun user's needs. They could include step-by-step guides to administration, networking, programming in various tools, and understanding aspects of system operation such as performance and utilities. Q&A sessions are important and interesting to attendees because of their interactive, problem solving and question-resolving nature. Previous talks in this vein have included "securing your environment" and "system administration tips and tricks".

System Administration, System Security

Talks in this area should address the interests of those who have been Sun users for a year or more. Some of the more in-depth topics: mixed environments/mixed operating systems, backups, PPP/Slip, automounter, perl, tools for problem troubleshooting, and remote off-site administration.

Technical Product Information

This topic provides a chance for vendors to toot their own (technical) horns and describe the compelling technical advantages of their products. Panels of competitive products will be assembled when it seems appropriate to do so. No sales-oriented or non-technical talks will be accepted.

Alex Newman
Sun User Group
1330 Beacon St.
Suite #315
Brookline, MA 02146
(617) 232-0514 voice (617) 232-1347 fax

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: "How Do I Get the Most Current EFFector?"

 Simply send any message to effector-reflector@eff.org (or er@eff.org for short), and you'll get the latest issue mailed to you. For ftp users, ftp.eff.org,/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/current will always contain the most recent issue of this newsletter.

Reminder: the info@eff.org infobot will send you basic EFF info and membership form in response to any email, while the netguide@eff.org infobot will likewise send you the current version of EFF's Guide to the Internet, and pgpkey@eff.org will send you our PGP 2.6 public key for encrypting sensitive messages (e.g. membership forms that bear a credit card number) to us. Queries that need answers from a real live person should be sent to ask@eff.org.

Return to the Table of Contents

Subject: What YOU Can Do

"If you say to people that they, as a matter of fact, can't protect their conversations, in particular their political conversations, I think you take a long step toward making a transition from a free society to a totalitarian society."
- Whitfield Diffie of Sun Microsystems, world renowned cryptographer, MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Thursday, 4/7/94

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.

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 5000 letters of support for Rep. Cantwell's bill (HR3627 - Sen. Murray's companion bill is S1846) to liberalize restrictions on cryptography. The bill's provisions, now part of the more general HR3937, will need your immediate and vocal support to succeed. We also gathered over 1400 letters supporting Sen. Leahy's open hearings on the proposed Clipper encryption scheme, which were held in May 1994.

If you'd like to add your voice in support of the Cantwell bill's language, which is in danger of being stripped from HR3937, fax the members of the House Rules Committee [see above for fax number] immediately!

You KNOW privacy is important. You have probably participated in our online campaigns. 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!

-------- 8< ------- cut here ------- 8< --------

================================================

MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION

================================================

Print out and mail to:
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, NW, Suite 950 East, Washington, DC 20001

I wish to become a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I enclose:
$__________ Regular membership -- $40
$__________ Student membership -- $20

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:
___ MasterCard ___ Visa ___ American Express

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.
I would like to receive the following at that address:

___ EFFector Online - EFF's biweekly electronic newsletter (back issues available from ftp.eff.org/ pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector).

___ 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< --------

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.

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/
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/

HTML editions available at:

http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/HTML/ at EFFweb.