=========================================================================
________________ _______________ _______________
/_______________/\ /_______________\ /\______________\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ ||||||||||||||||| / ////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||||||||||||||| / ////////////////
\\\\\\_______/\ ||||||_______\ / //////_____\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ |||||||||||||| / /////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\/____ |||||||||||||| / /////////////
\\\\\___________/\ ||||| / ////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ ||||| / ////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||| \////
=========================================================================
EFFector Online Volume 08 No. 01 February 10, 1995 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
In This Issue:
ALERT: HR830 Would Cripple FOIA - Act NOW!
ALERT: S314 Online "Decency Act" Threatens All Service Providers
EFF SF Bay Area Meetings Announced
Electronic Frontier Foundation Seeking Volunteer/Intern BBS Sysop
Newsbytes
Reviews
Calendar of Events
What YOU Can Do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
product,
except under terms that are expressly agreed to by such person."
* 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.]
REPUBLICAN
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
DEMOCRAT
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
INDEPENDENT
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:
OMB
Sally Katzen voice: 202/395-4852
sally.katzen@eop.sprint.com
Bruce McConnell voice: 202/395-3785
bruce.mcconnell@eop.sprint.com
Department of Justice
Paul Friedman voice: 202/514-1721
friedman@justice.doj.gov
------------------------------
Subject: ALERT: S314 Online "Decency Act" Threatens All Online 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 .]
CDT POLICY POST 2/9/95
SENATOR EXON INTRODUCES ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION
A. OVERVIEW
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.
B. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF S. 314
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.
* CARRIERS LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ALL USERS ON THEIR
NETWORKS
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.
* CARRIERS REQUIRED TO ACT AS PRIVATE CENSOR OF ALL
PUBLIC FORUMS AND ARCHIVES
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.
ADDITIONAL NOTABLE PROVISIONS
* AMENDMENT TO ECPA
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.
* CABLE OPERATORS MAY REFUSE INDECENT PUBLIC ACCESS
PROGRAMMING
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".
C. ALTERNATIVES TO EXON: RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE USER CONTROL
CAPABILITIES OF INTERACTIVE MEDIA
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.
D. NEXT STEPS
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
Daniel Weitzner, CDT Deputy Director
+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]
OBSCENE OR HARASSING UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICES AND FACILITIES 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
DEVICE--
(A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST,
SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION which is
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;]
"(B) MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR UTILIZES A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICE, WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATIONS
ENSUES,WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS IDENTITY AND WITH INTENT TO ANNOY,
ABUSE, THREATEN, OR HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO
RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION;
(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]
(D) MAKES REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS OR REPEATEDLY INITIATES
COMMUNICATION WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, DURING WHICH
CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATION ENSUES, SOLELY TO HARASS ANY PERSON
AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION,
(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
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 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],
makes BY MEANS OF TELEPHONE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, MAKES,
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
proceedings.
(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
access.
*********************************************
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
communication';
(C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
`(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a
[...]
See:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
------------------------------
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)
------------------------------
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:
* setting up and maintaining EFF's new BBS (the old one is just not
serving our, or our members, needs);
* contacting BBS-based networks, and getting the BBS involved in their mail
forums;
* creation of a new EFFNet for BBS operators - including gating of EFF mailing
lists and newsgroups to and from FTN & QWK nets, as well as posting of EFF
files to software distribution nets;
* passing on EFF alerts and announcements to relevant online forums in the BBS
community;
* helping coordinate EFF's sysop membership program;
* routing legal and other queries from BBS forums to the apropos EFF staff
member;
* mirroring EFF's Internet archives on the BBS;
* documenting the BBS setup so that other EFFers can operate it properly in
intern sysop's absence;
* coordinating volunteer co-sysops;
* surveying the BBS community, searching for user groups and sysop
associations, and otherwise making contacts and finding and sharing
information.
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@8.5.2.1.1.6.8.2.0.2.1.tpc.int
------------------------------
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:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/staff.eff
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/bios.eff
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF, staff.eff
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF, staff.eff
http://www.eff.org/homes/homes.html
* 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
http://www.eff.org/pub/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
dcraven@eff.org 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
http://www.eff.org/pub/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 prosecution 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
------------------------------
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. :)
- Eric Tachibana
------------------------------
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
http://www.eff.org/pub/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
packagi
