EFF News February The Electronic Fr

Found at: gopher.meulie.net:70/EFFector/effect01.02

***           EFF News #1.02 (February 1, 1991)          ***
***       The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.       ***




Editors:	Mitch Kapor (mkapor@eff.org) 
		Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org)

REPRINT PERMISSION: Material in EFF News may be reprinted if you 
cite the source. Where an individual author has asserted copyright in 
an article, please contact her directly for permission to reproduce.

E-mail subscription requests:	effnews-request@eff.org
Editorial submissions:		effnews@eff.org

We can also be reached at:

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Cambridge, MA 02141

(617) 864-0665
(617) 864-0866 (fax)
USENET readers are encouraged to read this publication in the moderated 
newsgroup comp.org.eff.news. Unmoderated discussion of topics discussed 

This publication is also distributed to members of the mailing list 


[Editors' Note: The EFF believes it is important to establish a dialog 
between the law enforcement community and those who are concerned that 
law enforcement's investigation and prosecution of computer crimes 
	A step toward such a dialog was taken recently on The Well (Whole 
Earth 'Lectronic Link), the Sausalito-based BBS/conferencing system 
associated with the Whole Earth Review. Gail Thackeray, an assistant 
attorney general  from Arizona who has been central to Operation Sun 
Devil, initiated an exchange about search-and-seizure procedures that 
	Although Thackeray was bound by the confidentiality obligations of 
offer her position on several general issues raised by computer searches 
and seizures.]

#191: Gail Thackeray (gailt) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (11:23) 23 lines

A general comment on search warrants: from some of the mail I've 
there have been "no-knock" warrants in hacker cases. I do not know of 
ANY, served by ANY agency. A "no-knock" warrant requires special 
(and I have witnessed more than I can count, both state & fed.) is to 
try to time it so that someone (preferably a grownup) is home, often a 
LOCAL unformed officer goes to the door, so that the occupants will 
knock, explain that they are there to serve a search warrant, and the 
next step is to let the person read the warrant and ask questions.

The first thing which happens inside is called "securing the scene"  -- 
the people in the residence/business are gathered together away from the 
(preferably not, in high-volume white-collar cases -- the search is 
usually NOT done at the "end" of an investigation, but is part of the 
overall investigation.)

Most departments have established policies governing this issue. Until 
the "scene is secure" the cops may have their guns out -- this phase 
usually takes about 2 minutes in the usual residence search -- it 
there is no danger. The single most dangerous police function (greatest 
number of police deaths) is the traffic stop: the lowest level of 
offense, in most states not really a crime, even. The second most 

they have the readiest access to weapons. That's when most danger to 
cops & bystanders arises. Miami Vice has it all backwards -- hardly any 

Contrary to the underground-board chatter, it is not S.O.P. to hold 
one thing, their arms would get tired! I know of one incident where an 
adult who wouldn't calm down and sit and talk had to be physically 

Then the search team goes to work, while the people either leave or 
sn't one there, we try to reach them and get them to come over) and

Another commonly-asked question is, why was it necessary to have 5, 10 
etc. people on the search team? Usually, as soon as the scene has been 
taken, and others to pack them up and put them in the vehicles.

There will also be someone, usually, with the occupants, identifying 
them and answering questions. If we brought only two officers, the 
ntrusion into the home would last longer than it does when we have half
a dozen. The search teams in our office (led by very experienced) 
officers) generally complete a residence search in somewhere around 
three hours -- from knocking on the door to leaving a copy of the 
nventory of items seized. Every case is different, and we never know

When everything works well, that's it. It is a good idea not to throw 
things at the officers -- it makes them nervous, and they make more 
mistakes when they're nervous...

And finally, we really, truly, do a certain amount of "counselling"  -- 
especially where the likely target is a juvenile, whose parents have no 
dea what he's been up to. We explain the nature of the investigation,
usually have to explain how the crime under investigation occurred, and 
answer lots of questions like, "what happens next?" Yes, we do, 
encourage this, as it reassures them about the process). We answer as 
many questions as we can and refer them to available services. 
Obviously, no one enjoys the experience of having their home/office 
they handled the situation. (Cross my heart & hope to die, it's true.)

Of course it doesn't always work this smoothly. But then, I am fortunate 
n working with outstanding officers, who are very good at this aspect
of their jobs.

#194: Bob Bickford (rab) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (13:28) 29 lines

n the Sun Devil cases and in many other sets of cases. You may protest
that these examples are "atypical" but as far as those people are 
concerned the only thing that was 'typical' was what happened to them. 
Your perspective is that of someone who sees these frequently, and is 
nvasions of their homes have a very different story to tell.

Some of the most egregious examples of such "non-smooth" searches happen 
n drug cases, where it always seems that the officers in question
entirely forget such niceties as the Constitutional rights of the 
accused, or indeed even those of the property owner or his/her guests. 
Even if we assume, arguendo, that there is some rational basis for the 
existing and rather extreme anti-drug laws, still there ought to be some 
AND against the responsible officers and officials; that might tend to 
force the problem people back into line.

(Uh, none of the latter is directed at Gail; I have no particular reason 
to think that she has had any unusual involvement in drug cases, nor to 
think that she would have behaved in the grossly unConstitutional ways I 
allude to even if she was involved.)

(I hate having to make disclaimers, you know that?)

#196: Gail Thackeray (gailt) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (16:04) 30 lines


SUNDEVIL: a primarily-Secret-Service investigation into financial crimes 
(fraud, credit-card fraud, communications service losses, etc.) led by 
the Phoenix Secret Service office, with task force participation by the 
Arizona U.S. Attorney's office and the Arizona Attorney General's 

The Neidorf case was an independent investigation handled by the Secret 
Service and the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago; the L.O.D.(BellSouth) 
cases were handled by the Secret Service/U.S. Atty in Atlanta. Other 
non-Sun Devil cases are several separate investigations centering around 
New York (NY State police, et al.), California, and points in between. 
You would never figure this out from the mainstream press, because no 
matter how many times they're told, they go for the sound bite (sound 
byte?) and not the facts. What I described above in my "search warrant" 
Sundevil group of cases -and, if you check with your local P.D., 

As to last comment, I can't think offhand what is meant by "forced 
entry" -- most search warrants permit that if all else fails, but since 
the kind of cases we're especially interested in here.  If by "forced 
entry" is meant the "sorry, don't want any" reaction to salesmen, then I 
accounts of anything are those tested in court & passed on by the trier 
of fact (jury, judge) -- in legalsystem terms. (Within that system, 
until it's been so tested, it's only opinion, no matter whose.)

#199: Craig M. Neidorf (knight) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (19:58) 23 lines

Operation Sun-Devil. However, I personally doubt that any kid's parents 
are thanking the Secret Service for raiding their homes or wherever.

Even if they appear to thank you, it is probably just their way of 
trying to make it look like they are being cooperative and hoping the 

Believe me, my parents do not thank Foley or Bill Cook for the hell they 
for all involved.

Even the Secret Service admits that their standard operating procedures 
like restraining everyone involved and shoving their faces into the 
floor are out of place when dealing with these computer kids, but they 
they don't care and a bunch of middle class kids who are more worried 
about convictions are not going to start a fight over being man-handled 
They just want to be left alone.

#200: Glenn S. Tenney (tenney) Sat, Dec 1, '90 (23:43) 24 lines

the fence (regardless of which side you are on) you will understand the 
other side.

Sure, every young cracker you (generic you) know isn't going to pull a 
things from the other side.  If it were you putting your life on the 
line, all it takes is once.

Beyond the initial phase, the evidence has to be gathered. Now you might 
think, for example, why take a laser printer or a fax machine or an 
answering machine? Come on, open your view and see that during an 
nvestigation your computer might not start up properly if the printer
sn't attached (I've known some gear that way), or the fax machine might
nasty message... Again, I'd hate to be on the wrong side of a seizure, 
but much of what happens makes sense.

Sheesh! Am I sounding conservative? Uh, oh -- better turn in my old ACLU 
card :-)

#201: Emmanuel Goldstein (emmanuel) Sun, Dec 2, '90 (02:47) 61 lines

Almost EVERY case I've been acquainted with over the years involves some 
miscarriage of justice somewhere along the line. We simply cannot ignore 
the plain and simple fact that the punishment inflicted in these cases 
far outweighs whatever offense has been committed, if any. And that 
officers do not pull their guns every time they pull over a motorist. 
They don't have guns drawn when they respond to a domestic argument. I 
making free calls.  It tells me that law enforcement has absolutely no 
dea what they're getting into when they encounter such a case. Is it a
think law enforcement is capable of telling the difference.

Why was it necessary in the summer of 1987 for agents to pretend they 
think they'd be refused entry if it was known they were the law? Or were 
they just having a good time playing with the perpetrators? How come it 
York City with a battering ram? The family came home to find their door 
leaning against the wall! Is that a proper way to carry out a search 

But that's minor compared to the numerous cases of guns being pulled.  
York this past summer, the kid's mother was terrified when a dozen 
dentify themselves. She thought they were about to be murdered and
cried out to her neighbors to call the police before someone finally 
thought to say, "We ARE the police." This kind of treatment is 
nexcusable. Sooner or later somebody is going to get killed because of

Then there are the countless cases of equipment being mishandled, 
abused, and damaged. I'm sure Steve Jackson can fill in some of those 
floor and then saying "So sue me" to the suspect. There are so many more 
cases but I really think I've made the point. That being that law 
enforcement is handling this all wrong. You must remember the different 
view of the world than most of us. They believe themselves to be 
nvincible much of the time. They do not respond well to "messages"
beamed at them through the media.  It does not apply to them, in their 
view. To break through this, you have to reach them on a personal level, 
to show them that they are in very real danger. There are many ways of 
extreme methods.

What do you think happens to someone who has been through a traumatic 
experience like the above? Do they suddenly fall into step and become 
legal system is full of hypocrisies and double standards. You cannot 
they undergo such an experience. I am thankful that I don't.  But too 
many young kids today know this fear -- it's becoming almost normal in 
the hacker world. By using this approach, and by pledging to send 
these people, but intimidation and incarceration are two strikes against 
that goal.

--End of Article 1--


[Editors' Note: In EFF News 1.00, we editorialized about the Sears/IBM-
editorial policies and suggested that Prodigy's problems signify a need 
for government policies that promote the establishment by private 
entities of more responsive information services. The following are two 
Jerry Berman of the American Civil Liberties Union and Marc Rotenberg of 
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.]


first to congratulate you on the quality of both the layout and the 

Article 6 observes that the Prodigy debacle "illustrates the fallacy 
that 'pure' market forces always can be relied upon to move 
manufacturers and service providers in the direction of open 
communication," and calls for a national network-access policy. But 

The market *is* providing open communications. Only ten years after the 
appearance of personal computers, we have thousands of BBSs, the fidonet 
nstitution of higher education is connected to BitNet or the Internet,
and provides more or less unrestricted access to faculty, and slightly 
more limited access to students. Soon, children in elementary and 
there are all of the abuses and crimes and generally rowdy activities 
that one would expect in such a situation.

A national network-access policy, would regulate services offered to the 
confidentially, and to ensure that everyone was charged a fair price.  
Such regulations would have a chilling effect on the emerging Cyberspace 
free zones. They would ensure that we get what the bureaucrats think we 
need, rather than what we want.

the emergence of any policy--national, state, or local--on networking.  
Let's not civilize the frontier. Let's push back its boundaries, all the 

 --John Ahrens
| BitNet: ahrens@hartford            | Snail: Department of Philosophy |
|  ahrensj@sjc                       |  University of Hartford         |
| Phone: 203-243-4743                |  West Hartford, CT 06117        |
|  203-236-6891                      |                                 |


Subject: EFF and Prodigy

>Although EFF is not involved at the moment in any activities 
>directly relating to the Prodigy dispute, we believe that the dispute 
>touches some basic issues with which we are very concerned, and that it 
>illustrates the potential dangers of allowing private entities such as 
>large corporations to try and dictate the market for online electronic 

My personal opinion is that the EFF can do little but stand (almost) 

That means full first amendment protection for electronic publication, 
and no government interference. We must realize that the 1st amendment 
to your constitution is a double-edge sword, however. You must be 

edited publication. I feel it goes against what I feel are the EFF's 
operate as they see fit. Only the market and the will of Prodigy's 
owners should influence it.

(I do not say that Mitch was attempting to tell Prodigy what to publish 
and what not to. I merely say that I think the EFF's role should be to 

The one mitigating factor here is that Prodigy made a serious mistake 
and actually told people to take discussions into E-mail. They did not 
thousands of messages per day. So we can sympathise with those users who 
open to them at a high added cost. But this was a bad business decision, 
and nothing more, in my opinion. It will lose them customers.

Many people don't realize the economics of offering flat-rate service.  
Flat-rate services only pretend to offer unlimited use. They do this 
under the assumption that few, if anybody, we really take them to the 
limit.  If too many people take you up on it (as happened with PC 
fact of business life.

The problem is that computers magnify this difficulty. With a computer 
you can use far more of a flat rate service than a human being could 
alone.  Thus PC-Pursuit broke down when people started making permanent 
connections or running USENET feeds.

We can, of course, encourage Prodigy to offer a more unrestricted 
out of the fact that their new flat-rate service offers things that are 
more a forum than a magazine. But it must be up to the market, in the 
end, to decide between Prodigy, GEnie and a zillion other forum services 
of all kinds.  -Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp.  Waterloo, 
Ontario 519/884-7473


Marc Rotenberg writes:

Jerry Berman (ACLU) and I wrote a short article that appeared in the New 
York Times this morning (Sunday, 1/6/91, business section).  It was a 

Here's the NYT article:

"Business Forum: Free Speech in an Electronic Age", The New York Times, 
January 6, 1991

- Three weeks ago, Geoffrey E. Moore, director of marketing and 
communications at Prodigy Services Company, wrote in the Forum that 
Berman of the American Civil Liberties Union and Marc Rotenberg of 
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility argue that there is 
more to the controversy. 

       "Prodigy's Forum article on its electronic service and the First 
Amendment tells only part of the story.  The recent criticism that 
brought Prodigy into the national spotlight was not about Prodigy's 
ncrease in the cost of electronic mail.

       "When some of Prodigy's subscribers learned of the proposed rate 
available to other subscribers.  In early November, Prodigy told 
messages about Prodigy's fee policy.  So Prodigy subscribers turned to 
the private electronic mail to continue their protest.  Besides sending 
messages to businesses which sell or advertise products on Prodigy.  
Then prodigy stepped in and ended the protesters' memberships without 
notice.  Recently, Prodigy instituted a rule prohibiting all electronic-
mail communications with merchants except those directly related to 
orders and purchase.

       "The Prodigy dispute resembles some of the free speech cases 
nvolving shopping centers.  Although shopping centers are private
exercised.  As services like Prodigy attract more and more people to 
that electronic shopping networks like Prodigy are the public forums of 
the 21st century.

       "Prodigy contends that there are many other electronic forums to 
operations that can hardly compete with Prodigy which has invested about 
one billion dollars to reach a mass market with its easy-to-use service.  
companies, required to carry all messages.  That may be true, but it 
networks are run on Prodigy's "family hour"  principles, and if the 
networks are carved-up among private providers with no common carrier 
obligations, electronic free speech and public debate will be 

       "Prodigy's dispute with its subscribers show why, to protect 
First Amendment rights in the electronic age, we need to press Congress 
to establish the infrastructure for an accessible public form and 
electronic mail service operating under common carrier principles."

--End of Article 2--


                    *       The First Conference       *
                    *                on                *
                    *   COMPUTERS, FREEDOM & PRIVACY   *

               Pursuing Policies for the Information Age in the
                   Bicentennial Year of the Bill of Rights

              Tutorials & Conference, Limited to 600 Participants
                     Monday-Thursday, March 25-28, 1991

SFO Airport Marriott Hotel, Burlingame, CA, On the San Francisco 

Co-sponsors & cooperating organizations include:
  Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA
  Association for Computing Machinery      Electronic Networking 
  Electronic Frontier Foundation           Videotex Industry Association
  American Civil Liberties Union           Cato Institute
  IEEE Intellectual Property Committee     ACM SIG on Software
  ACM Special Interest Group on Computers & Society
  ACM Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights    
  IEEE-USA Committee on Communications and Information Policy
  Autodesk, Inc.   Apple Computer, Inc.   The WELL   Portal 

Sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
  A nonprofit, educational corporation          (415)322-3778
  e-mail: cfp@well.sf.ca.us                fax: (415)851-2814

The sponsoring & cooperating organizations support this project to 
enhance communication, understanding and consensus about these crucial issues, 
but do not necessarily endorse views that may be expressed by participants.


  We are at a crossroads as individuals, organizations and governments 
ncreasingly use and depend on computers and computer networks.  Within
ten years, most information will be utilized and exchanged 

We are in the pivotal decade when computer facilities and 
access to and useof great  information processing and networking power, 
and control potential

  For potent personal benefit, business improvement and national well-
being,information and its efficient access are becoming economically 
available to individuals, organizations and governments.  Such access 
can greatly enhancesound decisions based on timely access to essential 

  Data on individuals and groups is being collected, computerized 
andexchanged at an exponentially increasing rate within numerous 
agencies and organizations.This has great legitimate value, but has also 

  To assure sound and equitable decisions, the public, the press and a 
broad range of policy-makers must understand and openly discuss these 
ssues, their interactions and their implications for the future.

  To protect the fundamental freedoms and personal privacy that are the 
foundation of any free people, all parties must be informed, and all 
must share in shaping and enhancing the great potential of the 


  Seminars on March 25th offer parallel introductions to different 
ndividuals not already expert in the topics presented.  They are half-
to change.

  This reviews investigation, search, seizure and evidence requirements 
for pursuing computer crime.  It is for computer users, computer owners, 
BBS sysops and investigators and attorneys unfamiliar with computer 
crime practices. [p.m.]
-- Don Ingraham, nationally-known computer crime prosecutor,
Asst. District  Attorney, Alameda County, California.

  A primer for managers, lawyers and educators, this surveys computer 
crime,risks, due care, trusted systems, safeguards & other security 
-- Donn Parker, a leading consultant in information security
and computer crime, SRI International.

  Reviews real cases and how to recognize, prevent and investigate 
computer security breaches.  For computer center managers, 
administrators, sysops, law enforcement and press .  [a.m.]
-- Russell Brand, computer security specialist; programmer, Reasoning 

  Survey of electronic-mail and teleconferencing services,  access to 
networked information services and remote computing applications, and an 
overview of the worldwide computer matrix.  [a.m.]
-- John Quarterman, author of, *The Matrix: Computer Networks & 
Conferencing Systems Worldwide*; Texas Internet Consulting.

  Electronic-mail, bulletin board systems and tele-conferencing 
alternatives with personal computers; outlines low-cost PC networks and 
-- Mark Graham, co-founder of Institute for Global Communications, 
-- Tim Pozar, well-known expert on the 10,000-computer FidoNet.

  Detailed review of landmark federal statutes impacting access to 
nformation, privacy of personal information, computer security and
computer crime.  [p.m.]
-- Marc Rotenberg, former congressional counsel and expert on federal 
computer legislation, CPSR, Washington DC.
  Survey of states' differing statutes that impact access to 
nformation, privacy of information, computer security and computer
crime.  [a.m.]
-- Buck Bloombecker, nationally-known researcher, lecturer and 
consultant on computer security, crime & legislation.

  European Economic Community and other international privacy and data 
communications, greatly impacting U.S. information practices and 
nternational business.  [a.m.]
-- Ron Plesser, former General Counsel,  U.S. Privacy Protection Study 
Commission; attorney, Piper & Marbury, Washington, DC.


  Single-track Conference & banquet sessions Mar.26th through Mar.28th 
offer diverse speakers & panel discussions including:

Key speakers include:

*    Laurence H. Tribe,
"The Constitution in Cyberspace:  Law & Liberty Beyond the Electronic 

*    Eli M. Noam, 
Director, Center for Telecommunications & Information Studies, Columbia 
University    [Tuesday banquet]:
"Network Environments of the Future: Reconciling Free Speech and 
Freedom of Association".

*    William A. Bayse,
FBI's Assistant Director, Technical Services Division   [Wednesday 
"Balancing Computer Security Capabilities with Privacy and Integrity".

  Introductory remarks.  Major policy proposals regarding electronic 
communications and Constitutional protections, by Prof. Laurence Tribe.  

  Freedoms and responsibilities regarding electronic speech, public and 

  Monitoring electronic-mail, public & private teleconferences, 
electronic bulletin boards, publications and subscribers; monitoring 
ndividuals, work performance, buying habits and lifestyles.

  Government and private collection, sharing, marketing, verification, 
use, protection of, access to and responsibility for personal data, 
ncluding buying patterns, viewing habits, lifestyle, work, health,

  Ethical principles for individuals, system administrators, 
organizations, corporations and government; copying of data, copying of 
education and computer law.

  Overview and prognosis of computing capabilities and networking as 
they impact personal privacy, confidentiality, security, one-to-one and 
many-to-one communications, and access to information about government, 
business and society.

  Issues relating to investigation, prosecution, due process and 
aid law enforcement.

  Interaction of computer crime, law enforcement and civil liberties; 
ssues of search, seizure and sanctions, especially as applied to shared
or networked information, software and equipment.

  Legislative and regulatory roles in protecting privacy and insuring 
access; legal problems posed by computing and computer networks; 
approaches to improving related government processes.

  Implementing individual and corporate access to federal, state & local 
nformation about communities, corporations, legislation,
administration, the courts and public figures; allowing access while 

  Other nations' models for protecting personal information and 
communications, and for granting access to government information; 
existing and developing laws including EC'92; requirements for trans-
national data-flow and their potential impacts; implications for 

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?    [closing session]
  Perspectives, recommendations and commitments of participants from the 
major interest groups, proposed next steps to protect personal privacy, 

ALSO:  Tuesday and Wednesday will include structured opportunities for 
attendees to identify groups with whom they want to establish contact 
and, if they wish, announce topics they would like to discuss, one on 


Ken Allen, Senior Vice President for Governmental Relations, Information 

Sharon Beckman, civil rights and criminal defense attorney and 
Electronic Frontier Foundation litigation counsel, Silverglate & Good.

Jerry Berman, Director of the ACLU's Project on Information Technology 
and Communications Policy Fellow, Benton Foundation.

Sally Bowman, promotes responsible computing practices through school 
teaching units; Director, Computer Learning Foundation.

David Burnham, author, *Rise of the Computer State*; former New York 
Times investigative reporter; specialist in IRS & Freedom of Information 

Mary Culnan, co-authored major credit reporting policies presented to 
Congress; School of Business Administration, Georgetown University.

Dorothy Denning, received Aerospace's 1990 Distinguished Lecturer in 
Computer Security award; author, *Cryptography & Data Security*.

ACM; founding Director, RIACS; editor, *Communications of the ACM*.

Dave Farber, co-founder, CSNET; member, National Research Council's 
Computer Science & Telecommunications Board; University of 

Cliff Figallo, Director of the WELL (the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link), 
one of the best-reputed of the public teleconferencing systems.

David Flaherty, Canadian surveillance expert, Professor of History and 
Law at the University of Western Ontario.

John Ford, Public Relations Director for Equifax, one of the nation's 
largest providers of personal and credit information.

Bob Gellman, Chief Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Governmental 

Janlori Goldman, Director of the ACLU's  Project on Privacy and 
Technology, Washington, DC.

Harry Hammit, Editor, Access Reports, focusing on access to and freedom 
of information, Washington, DC.

Martin Hellman, identified potential hazards in federal DES national 
encryption standard; co-invented public-key encryption; Stanford.

Evan Hendricks, Editor/Publisher *Privacy Times* newsletter, Washington, 

Lance Hoffman, public policy researcher and Professor of Electrical 
Engineering  & Computer Science at George Washington University.
Don Ingraham, wrote the first-ever search warrant for magnetic media, 
computer crime prosecutor; Asst. District Attorney, Alameda County.

Bob Jacobson, former Prin. Consultant, California State Assembly 
Utilities & Commerce Committee; drafted landmark computer 
communications legislation.

Mitch Kapor, co-founder, Electronic Frontier Foundation; founder, Lotus 
Corp.; received DPMA's 1990 Distinguished Information Science Award.

Tom Mandel, Director of the Leading Edge Values & Lifestyles Program at 
SRI International.

John McMullen, well-known on-line journalist; co-authors "Newsbytes" 
column on GEnie and Online America.

Risk* comm.; Chair, ACM Comm.on Computers & Public Policy; moderates 
RISKS Forum.

Donn Parker, perhaps the best-known international consultant and author 
on information security and computer crime, SRI International.

Ron Plesser, former General Counsel, U.S. Privacy Protection Study 
Commission; attorney, Piper & Marbury, Washington DC.

John Quarterman, author of the definitive study, *The Matrix: Computer 
Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide*; Texas Internet Consulting.

Jack Rickard, Editor of *Boardwatch* magazine,  perhaps the best news 

Tom Riley, Canadian specialist in international computer communications 
and privacy issues; Riley Information Services, Inc.

Lance Rose, co-author of *Syslaw*, about the law applied to on-line 

Marc Rotenberg, expert in federal computer and privacy law; Computer 

Noel Shipman, attorney for plaintiffs in electronic-mail privacy 
landmark 1990 litigation against Epson America.

Harvey Silverglate, Electronic Frontier Foundation litigation counsel, 

Gail Thackeray, computer crime prosecutor; involved in Secret Service's 
"Operation Sun Devil", former Arizona Asst. State Attorney General.

Robert Veeder, Acting Chief, Information Policy Branch, Office of 

Willis Ware, Chair, U.S. Computer Systems Security & Privacy Advisory 
Board established by Congress in 1987; Fellow, RAND Corporation.

Alan Westin, leader in early privacy legislation; co-authored landmark 
*Equifax Report on Consumers in the Information Age*; Columbia 

Sheldon Zenner, former federal prosecutor in Chicago; defended *Phrack* 
electronic publisher, Craig Neidorf; Katten, Muchin & Zavis.

Jim Warren, Autodesk, Inc. & MicroTimes
  415-851-7075,  jwarren@well.sf.ca.us / e-mail

Dorothy Denning, Digital Equipment Corporation
Les Earnest, Midpeninsula ACLU & Stanford U., ret.
Elliot Fabric, Attorney at Law
Mark Graham, Pandora Systems
Don Ingraham, Alameda County District AttyUs Office
Bruce Koball, Motion West
Marc Rotenberg, Comp. Prof. for Social Responsibility
Glenn Tenney, Fantasia Systems & The Hackers Conf.

Ron Anderson, ACM SIGCAS & Univ. of Minnesota
John Perry Barlow, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Jerry Berman, ACLU & Benton Foundation
Dave Caulkins, USSR GlasNet
Vint Cerf, Corp.for National Research Initiatives
Margaret Chambers, Electronic Networking Assn.
Steve Cisler, Apple Computer, Inc.
Whit Diffie, Northern Telecom
Mary Eisenhart, MicroTimes
Dave Farber, University of Pennsylvania
Cliff Figallo, The WELL
John Gilmore, Cygnus Support
Adele Goldberg, ParcPlace Systems
Terry Gross, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, et al
Keith Henson, consultant & Alcor
Lance Hoffman, George Washington University
Dave Hughes, Chariot Communications
Bob Jacobson, Human Interface Technology Lab.
Mitch Kapor, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Roger Karraker, Santa Rosa College
Tom Mandel, SRI International
John McMullen, NewsBytes
Dave Redell, Digital Equipment Corporation
Ken Rosenblattt, Santa Clara Cnty. Dist. Atty's Office
Gail Thackeray, Arizona Attorney GeneralUs Office
Jay Thorwaldson, Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Terry Winograd, CPSR & Stanford University
Sheldon Zenner, Katten, Muchin, & Zavis
  Affiliations are listed only for identification purposes.

                        *   Application to Attend  *

First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy,     March 25-28, 1991
Monday: Tutorials,    Tuesday-Thursday: Conference Sessions & Banquets
SFO Marriott Hotel, 1800 Old Bayshore Hwy., Burlingame CA 94010
For hotel reservations at a special $99 Conference rate, call: (800)228-

Due to the size of the facility, Conference registration is limited to 
  Interested individuals should apply early to assure 
acceptance.Applications will be accepted primarily on a first-come, 
first-served basis, while encouraging balanced participation.

REGISTRATION FEES: If  payment received:  by Feb.8  2/8-3/15  after 3/15
Conference (3 days, incl.luncheons, banquets) $295      $350        $400
Tutorials (full day, 1 or 2 seminars)          $95      $145        $195
be voided and promptly returned.)

  Check the "[x]" if information should NOT appear in the published 
Attendee Roster.  (Roster will greatly assist ongoing communications.)
[ ]  name:
[ ]  title:
[ ]  organization:
[ ]  mailing address:
[ ]  city ST Zip:
[ ]  phone(s):
[ ]  fax:
[ ]  e-mail:
Name-tag name:
Name-tag title:
Name-tag organization:
Expect to stay at SFO Marriott?     [ ]yes     [ ]no

To aid in balancing participation among groups,
[ ]  user of computers or computer networking
[ ]  user of electronic-mail services
[ ]  user of teleconferencing services
[ ]  user of direct marketing services
[ ]  user of computerized personal information
[ ]  user of government information
[ ]  computer professional
[ ]  BBS sysop (bulletin board system operator)
[ ]  systems administrator / infosystems manager
[ ]  network administrator
[ ]  computer / communications security specialist
[ ]  provider of data communications services
[ ]  provider of electronic-mail services
[ ]  provider of teleconferencing services
[ ]  provider of direct marketing services
[ ]  provider of computerized personal information
[ ]  provider of government information
[ ]  legislative official or staffqfederalqstate
[ ]  regulatory official or staff  [ ]federal  [ ]state
[ ]  law enforcement               [ ]federal  [ ]state  [ ]local
[ ]  prosecutor                    [ ]federal  [ ]state  [ ]local
[ ]  judicial representative       [ ]federal  [ ]state  [ ]local
[ ]  criminal defense attorney
[ ]  corporate or litigation attorney
[ ]  civil liberties specialist
[ ]  journalist  [ ]newspaper  [ ]television  [ ]radio  [ ]other
[ ]  other:
[ ]  other:

This information will not be sold, rented, loaned, exchanged or used for 
any purpose other than official CPSR activity.  CPSR may elect to send 
nformation about other activities, but such mailings will always
originate with CPSR.

  Please mail form and payment to Conference office:
CFP Conference, 345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062
  e-mail: cfp@well.sf.ca.us;  fax: (415)851-2814
  Conference Chair: Jim Warren,    (415)851-7075

Sponsor:  Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, 
Revenue Code 501(c)(3)]

  This is an intensive, multi-disciplinary survey Conference for those 
concerned with computing, teleconferencing, electronic mail, 
computerized personal information, direct marketing information, 
legislation, regulation, computer security, law enforcement and national 
and international policies that impact civil liberties, responsible 
exercise of freedom and equitable protection of privacy in this global 

  For the first time, this 4-day event will bring together 
at one time.

  Many of the recognized leaders and strongest advocates among the 
various groups interested in the issues of the conference will discuss 
their concerns and proposals.

  Attendance will be limited to 600 people.  Balanced representation 
from the diverse groups interested in these issues is being encouraged.  

  To inform participants about topics beyond their specialties, a number 
of half-day seminars are scheduled in parallel for the first day 
(Monday, March 25th).  These tutorials will explore relevant issues in 
computing, networking, civil liberties, regulation, the law and law 
enforcement.  Each tutorial is designed for those who are experienced in 
one area, but are less expert in the tutorials' topics.

  To explore the interactions and ramifications of the issues, 
conference talks and panel discussions are scheduled in a single track 
for the remaining three days (Tuesday-Thursday, March 26th-28th).  These 
ncluding probing questions and discussion.

  Explicit Conference events to foster communication across disciplines 
are planned.  Working luncheons, major breaks and two evening banquets 

--End of Article 3--