=========================================================================
________________ _______________ _______________
/_______________/\ /_______________\ /\______________\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||||||||||||||| / ////////////////
\\\\\________/\ |||||________\ / /////______\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\/____ |||||||||||||| / /////////////
\\\\\___________/\ ||||| / ////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||| \////
=========================================================================
EFFector Online Volume 08 No. 18 Nov. 6, 1995 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
ALERT: Net Censorship: Christian Coalition Tops Even Exon
The Latest News
What You Can Do Now
The letter & suggested legislation from Ed Meese and the Christian Right
Chronology of the CDA
For More Information
List Of Participating Organizations
ALERT: Digital Telephony Action - Nov. 15 Deadline!
Background: FBI Draft Capacity Requirements
What You Can Do Now
Congress May Just Not Buy It
House Rejects First DT/CALEA Funding Attempt
Sen. Leahy Definitely Not Buying It
Canadian Law Enforcement Taking the FBI Hint
The Text of the FBI's Federal Register Notice
Newsbytes
EFF Relocation Complete
EFF Rated in Top 5% of the Net by Point Survey
Commerce Dept. IPWG Report on Online Intellectual Property Meets Resistance
IPWG Report's Suggested Legislation: Passed and Pending (+ Canada Tie-In)
Upcoming Articles
Upcoming Events
Quote of the Day
What YOU Can Do
Administrivia
* See http://www.eff.org/Alerts/ or ftp.eff.org, /pub/Alerts/ for more
nformation on current EFF activities and online activism alerts! *
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: ALERT: Net Censorship, and Christian Coalition v. Human Rights Watch
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
(SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END)
Update: -Latest News:
The Christian Coalition is pushing Congress to censor
the net more heavily than even Sen. J.J. Exon ever imagined.
There is the very real possibility that they may succeed.
You should be very worried. We are.
-What You Can Do Now:
Follow the directions below and call House Speaker
Gingrich and Senate Leader Dole. Implore them
to allow parents to make choices for their children,
instead of government censors.
Volunteer to join the fight by helping organize in your
home town.
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
Nov 2, 1995
PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL December 1, 1995
REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS
________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
The Latest News
What You Can Do Now
The letter & suggested legislation from Ed Meese and the Christian Right
Chronology of the CDA
For More Information
List Of Participating Organizations
________________________________________________________________________
THE LATEST NEWS
Since the very first day that Senator J.J. Exon (D-NE) proposed censorship
legislation for the Internet, the Christian Right has pushed for the most
The Religious Right (which does not necessarily speak for all religious
to Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) and Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA) requesting
a new and more restrictive net censorship proposal.
There are essentially three new dangerous elements of their campaign
to shut down cyberspace:
EXPRESSION ONLINE
The Religious Right has proposed to hold anyone who provides access to the
carried on the network.
forced to monitor user's electronic communications to be assured that
no "indecent" material is transmitted across their networks.
This proposal is MORE RESTRICTIVE than the Exon Communications Decency Act,
or any other net censorship legislation currently in Congress.
[Providers] would simply be required to avoid KNOWING violations of
the law. [emphasis added]
However, the "knowing" standard is vague enough that the mere knowledge
that such material exists could be sufficient to trigger criminal liability.
A single complaint or even a news report could force a service provider to
take down a web page, remove posts to chat rooms or other discussion
forums, or shut down listservs in order to avoid going to jail and facing
A STANDARD FOR INDECENCY
The proposals pushed by the Christian Coalition relies on the
unconstitutional "indecency standard". Like the Exon Communications
Decency Act, the Christian Coalition seeks to regulate all indecent
"seven dirty words" to such classic novels and "The Catcher in the Rye" and
"Lady Chatterly's Lover".
The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on indecent speech are
Constitutional only if they rely on the "least restrictive means". Broad
ndecency restrictions on interactive media do not satisfy the "least
Any legislation which attempts to apply an indecency restriction to the
The Christian Coalition's proposal that relies on an indecency
newsgroup, and mailing list on the Internet to the level of what is
not offensive to children.
What kind of discussions between adults are possible in an arena
UNPRECEDENTED CONTROL OVER ONLINE SPEECH FOR THE FCC
The Christian Coalition would give the FCC broad jurisdiction over
cyberspace. It would allow the FCC jurisdiction over your online
filtering programs that parents can use to control their children's
access to the Internet.
The Internet has developed from a government project to a market-driven
economic boom for thousands of businesses. Giving the FCC authority over
this medium would significantly hinder the growth of this new industry.
________________________________________________________________________
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
speech as we know it. The odds of stopping this are not certain.
There is a very real chance that this legislation will pass, and
we will experience a period of uncertainty and chilling of speech
while an appropriate test case attempts to reach the Supreme Court
(should it even get there!)
The Religious Right has a strong grass-roots network. We need to
counter their energy and ensure cyberspace is not lost due to them.
IMMEDIATELY CALL House Speaker Gingrich (R-GA) and Senate Leader
Dole (R-KS) and urge them to oppose the Christian Coalition's
proposal.
Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax
======================== ============== ==============
R GA Gingrich, Newt 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656
R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952
If you're at a loss for words, try one of the following:
Please oppose the recent proposal from the Religious Right to
censor the Internet. The only effective way to address children's
access to the Internet is through parental control tools outlined
by the Cox/White/Wyden approach.
or
As a religious person and a parent, I oppose the Religious Right's
attempts to censor the Internet. I am the best person to monitor
my child's access to the Internet using parental control tools
as outlined in the Cox/White/Wyden approach.
Check to see if your legislator is in the list below. If they are
not, consult the free ZIPPER service that matches Zip Codes to
Congressional districts with about 85% accuracy at:
URL:http://www.stardot.com/~lukeseem/zip.html
The conference committee legislators are:
House: Barr (R-GA), Barton (R-TX), Berman (R-CA), Bliley (R-VA),
Boucher (D-VA), Brown (D-OH), Bryant (D-TX), Buyer (R-IN),
Conyers (D-MI), Dingell (D-MI), Eshoo (D-CA), Fields (R-TX),
Flanagan (R-IL), Frisa (R-NY), Gallegly (R-CA), Goodlatte (R-VA),
Gordon (D-TN), Hastert (R-IL), Hoke (R-OH), Hyde (R-IL),
Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Klug (R-WI), Lincoln (D-AR), Markey (D-MA),
Moorhead (R-CA), Oxley (R-OH), Paxon (R-NY), Rush (D-IL),
Schaefer (R-CO), Schroeder (D-CO), Scott (D-VA), Stearns (R-FL),
White (R-WA)
Senate: Burns (R-MT), Exon (D-NE), Ford (D-KY), Gorton (R-WA),
Hollings (D-SC), Inouye (D-HI), Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ),
Pressler (R-SD), Rockefeller (D-WV), Stevens (R-AK)
If your legislator is on the conference committee, you have a chance
to influence their vote on this issue with your power as a constituent.
Volunteer to help educate your legislator by sending mail to
volunteer@vtw.org. A coalition volunteer will be in touch with you.
You can starting working to help spread the word in your district by
sending this letter to five friends. Ask them to call Dole and Gingrich
as well.
Union are organizing a letter from ORGANIZATIONS to the Conference
Committee to oppose the censorship provisions.
If you are a representative of an organization that would like to
signon to this letter, you should contact jlesser@pfaw.org IMMEDIATELY.
the risk is too great. Everything now hangs in the balance.
________________________________________________________________________
THE LETTER & SUGGESTED LEGISLATION FROM ED MEESE AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT
October 16, 1995
The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Chairman
Committee on Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Larry Pressler, Chairman
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Computer Pornography Provisions in Telecommunications Bill
Dear Mr. Chairmen:
We are writing to urge the conference committee seeking to reconcile the
telecommunications bills passed by the House and Senate include in the
final bill the strongest possible criminal law provisions to address the
exemptions, defenses, or political favors of any kind accorded to those
ndecency to children. While there is no perfect solution to the problem
of computer pornography, Congress could not hope to solve this problem by
The recent Justice Department prosecution project targeting those who
violated federal child pornography law using America On-Line is
nstructive in this regard. More than ninety individuals were targeted for
one press report, were originally targeted by the Department of Justice as
limited. Since there are insufficient resources to investigate and
available to investigate and prosecute those involved in obscenity and
ndecency.
Thousands of individuals both in this country and abroad are regularly
make anything more than a dent in the serious problem of computer
exemptions or defenses to service or access providers who profit from and
are instrumental to the distribution of such material. The Justice
Department normally targest the major offenders of laws. In obscenity
cases prosecuted to date, it has targeted large companies which have been
large profits by violating federal laws. Prosecution of such companies has
made a substantial impact in curbing the distribution of obscenity, with
many such offenders going out of business altogether. So too will
of a person who places one or a few prohibited images on the Internet.
Such a person could not traffic in pornography without the aid or
facilitation of the service or access providers. Indeed, if Congress
ncludes provisions protecting access or service providers in whatever
bill is finally passed, it is likely that most in this country who are
trafficking in indecency to children or obscenity would continue to do so
those currently involved in this activity. It is also likely that those
outside our country who are engaged in these activities would continue to
States for prosecution. Thus, unless all who knowingly participate in such
matters are subject to the law, the Internet will remain the same and
Congress will have failed in its responsibilities to the children and
families of America.
Federal law has traditionally assigned equal liability both for those who
commit a crime and those who aid and abet a crime. See Title 18 U.S.C.
Code Section 2: "(a) whoever [sic] commits an offense against the United
States or aids, abets, councils [sic], commands, induces, or procures its
commission, is punishable as a principle [sic]." Service or access
children or in obscenity to anyone are aiders and abettors in the
commission of those crimes and thus should have liability under any law
Congress passes. Current federal law on child pornography provides no no
exemption or defense for access providers. Thus, the child pornography law
those who would otherwise knowingly participate in its distribution by
computer whether pedophile or access provider.
The changes in law which we support would not hold an access provider
criminally liable for all illegal pornography on the Internet which their
check all communications to ensure that no violations of the law are
occurring. They would simply be required to avoid knowing violations of
the law. This is an obligation imposed on all citizens. Technology exists
today for access providers, through a simple process, to target or flag
and remove files containing objectionable material.
We support the House-passed language insofar as it addresses obscenity by
amendment Title 18, Sections 1462, 1465, and 1467 of the United States
Code. The provision restricting transmission of indecency in the House-passed
bill, an amendment to Section 1465, is inadequate, and we urge that it be
Attached is the specific language we support which includes the House
Senate-passed language on indecency, which would amend Title 47. The
combination of these provisions, we believe, would provide effective laws
to curb obscenity and indecency on the Internet by establishing that all
to anyone or indecency to children would be subject to the law.
Thank you for your concern and attention to this matter.
[signed]
Edwin Meese III
Ralph Reed
Christian Coalition
Donald E. Wildmon
American Family Association
Alan Sears, Former Executive Director
Atty General's Commission on Pornography
Eagle Forum
Beverly LaHaye
Concerned Women for America
Reverend Louis P. Sheldon
Traditional Values Coalition
Jay Sekulow
American Center for Law and Justice
Free Congress Foundation
Morality in Media
Len Munsil
National Family Legal Foundation
Robert Peters
Morality in Media
Kenneth Sukhia
Former United States Attorney, N.D., FL
Former Chairman, Atty General's Advisory Committee
Subcommittee on Child Exploitation and Obscenity
__________________________
Section 1465 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended to punish
end the following:
Whoever knowingly communicates, transmits, or makes available for
communication or transmission, in or effecting interstate or foreign
commerce an indecent communication by computer to any person the
communicator or transmitter believes has not attained the age of 18 years
of age, knowing that such communication will be obtained by a person
believed to be under 18 years of age, shall be fined under this title or
mprisoned not more than five years, or both.
TITLE IV -- OBSCENE, HARASSING, AND WRONGFUL UTILIZATION OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE
This title may be cited as the "Communications Decency Act of
Sec. 402. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended --
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu of [sic]:
``(a) Whoever--
``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
communications --
``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly--
``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
``(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass
another person;
``(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a
telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or
communication 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 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 telecommunications facility
under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by
paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for
such activity,
shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more
than two years, or both.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(d) Whoever--
``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign
communications with the United States by means of
telecommunications device makes or makes available any
indecent communication in any form including any comment,
request, suggestion, proposal, or image, to any person under
18 years of age regardless of whether the
maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the
communication; or
``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility
under such person's control to be used for an activity
prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be
used for such activity,
shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more
than two years or both.
``(e) Defenses to subsections (a) and (d), restrictions on
access, judicial remedies respecting restrictions for
persons providing information services and
access to information services--
"(1) It is a defense to prosecution that a person has complied
with regulations designed to restrict access to indecent
communications to those 18 years old or older as enacted by the
Federal Communications Commission which shall prepare final
regulations within 120 days of the passage of this bill. Until
such regulations become effective, it is a defense to
prosecution that the person has blocked or restricted access
to indecent communications to any person under 18 years
of age through the use of verified credit card, adult access
code, or adult personal identification number (PIN).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to treat
enhanced information services as common carriage."
"(2) No cause of action may be brought in any
court or any administrative agency against any person on account
of any activity which is not in violation of any law punishable
by criminal or civil penalty, which activity the person has taken in
good faith to implement a defense authorized under this section or
otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to,
a communication specified in this section.
(f) Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any State or
local government from enacting and enforcing laws and regulations
which do not result in the imposition of inconsistent obligations on
the provision of interstate services. Nothing in this subsection
shall preclude any State or local government from governing conduct
not covered by subsection (d)(2)."
(g) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), or (e) or in the
defenses to prosecution under (e) shall be construed
to affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other
Federal law.
(h) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this
section shall not impose new obligations on (one-way) broadcast
radio or (one-way) broadcast television operators licensed by the
Commission or (one-way) cable services registered with the
Federal Communications Commission and covered by obscenity and
indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act.
Sec. 403. OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION.
Section 639 (47 U.S.C. 559) is amended by striking "10,000" and
nserting "$100,000"
Sec. 404. BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON THE RADIO.
Section 1466 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by
Sec. 405 SEPARABILITY
"(a) If any provision of this Title, including amendments to this
Title of [sic] the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
thereby."
________________________________________________________________________
CHRONOLOGY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
Sep 26, '95 Sen. Russ Feingold urges committee members to drop
Managers Amendment and the CDA from the Telecommunications
Deregulation bill
Aug 4, '95 House passes HR1555 which goes into conference with S652.
Aug 4, '95 House votes to attach Managers Amendment (which contains
new criminal penalties for speech online) to
Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555).
Aug 4, '95 House votes 421-4 to attach HR1978 to Telecommunications
Reform bill (HR1555).
Jun 30, '95 Cox and Wyden introduce the "Internet Freedom and Family
Empowerment Act" (HR 1978) as an alternative to the CDA.
Jun 21, '95 Several prominent House members publicly announce their
opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA),
Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Jun 14, '95 The Senate passes the CDA as attached to the Telecomm
reform bill (S 652) by a vote of 84-16. The Leahy bill
(S 714) is not passed.
May 24, '95 The House Telecomm Reform bill (HR 1555) leaves committee
in the House with the Leahy alternative attached to it,
thanks to Rep. Ron Klink of (D-PA). The Communications
Decency Act is not attached to it.
Apr 7, '95 Sen. Leahy (D-VT) introduces S.714, an alternative to
the Exon/Gorton bill, which commissions the Dept. of
Justice to study the problem to see if additional legislation
(such as the CDA) is necessary.
Mar 23, '95 S314 amended and attached to the telecommunications reform
bill by Sen. Gorton (R-WA). Language provides some provider
protection, but continues to infringe upon email privacy
and free speech.
Feb 21, '95 HR1004 referred to the House Commerce and Judiciary committees
Feb 21, '95 HR1004 introduced by Rep. Johnson (D-SD)
Feb 1, '95 S314 referred to the Senate Commerce committee
Feb 1, '95 S314 introduced by Sen. Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA).
________________________________________________________________________
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Web Sites
URL:http://www.vtw.org/exon/
URL:http://epic.org/
URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html
URL:http://outpost.callnet.com/outpost.html
FTP Archives
URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/policy/freespeech/00-INDEX.FREESPEECH
URL:ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
Gopher Archives:
URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon
URL:gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/Alerts
Email:
vtw@vtw.org (put "send alert" in the subject line for the latest
alert, or "send cdafaq" for the CDA FAQ)
cda-info@cdt.org (General CDA information)
cda-stat@cdt.org (Current status of the CDA)
________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
Communications Decency Act.
American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association *
American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association
of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Boston
Coalition for Freedom of Expression * Californians Against Censorship
Together * Center For Democracy And Technology * Centre for Democratic
Communications * Center for Public Representation * Citizen's Voice -
New Zealand * Cloud 9 Internet *Computer Communicators Association *
Computel Network Services * Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility * Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer
Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * ECHO Communications Group,
Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers
Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New
Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free
Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against
Censorship * FranceCom, Inc. Web Advertising Services * Friendly
Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands Off! The Net * Inland
Book Company * Inner Circle Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global
Communications * Internet On-Ramp, Inc. * Internet Users Consortium *
Joint Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action Committee * The
Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project * Metropolitan Data
Networks Ltd. * MindVox * MN Grassroots Party * National Bicycle
Greenway * National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National
Coalition Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force *
National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon
Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way
* Republican Liberty Caucus * Rock Out Censorship * Society for
Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network * The WELL *
Voters Telecommunications Watch
(Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities,
not EFF chapters or divisions.)
________________________________________________________________________
End Alert
------------------------------
Subject: ALERT: Digital Telephony Action - Nov. 15 Deadline!
------------------------------------------------------------
comments *due November 15 1995* and a request for surveillance capacity.
This is the first major step, since passage of the Digital Telephony
legislation in 1994, in setting up the FBI's dream and our nightmare:
forced compliance with law enforcement and intellegence demands to make
all communications networks wiretappable.
* Background: FBI Draft Capacity Requirements
The 1994 "Digital Telephony and Privacy Improvement Act" (DT), passed as the
more honestly-titled "Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act"
(CALEA), did add significant statutory privacy protections and public
oversight provisions for surveillance actions, but in essence requires
telecommunications carriers including "plain old telephone service"
companies and related telphonic services, to make their networks
1) Approval of capability requirements (can the network be tapped?)
2) Approval of capacity requirements (how many wiretaps can be done?)
3) Approval of funding to pay for this mess
The subject of the FBI's request, reproduced below, is capacity. The
capacity request specifies the number of simultaneous wiretaps (by which
term we simplify a bit: it includes actual communications intercepts, pen
the government estimates that it will need to conduct authorized
final notice published after the public comment period, and outline what
t slide.
The demanded capacities range from .05% of "engineered capacity" (which
according to the FBI initially means the maximum number of subscribers to a
city block could be wiretapped at all times - or, enough to wiretap 20,000
targetted for the higher capacity. According to industry executives,
there have never been more than 7 simultaneous wiretaps conducted from a
tap per 170,000 phone lines. Isn't increasing wiretapping capacity more
than a thousand times over a just a wee bit excessive? Clark Matthews,
many as 500,000 to 1,500,000 simultaneous wiretaps could be conducted
nation-wide, given sufficient law enforcement resources. Compare this to
the average of less than 1000 court-authorized wiretaps annually (though
up to 1730 in 1994), less than half of them done for federal law enforcement.
Recent reports indicate that there may have been an error in someone's
figures somewhere (perhaps even in the Fed. Register notice, which pretty
clearly states "1%"), and that the real number is 1 out of 1000 *lines*,
but 1 out of 100 phone *calls*. Even if this is true, that's a
Considerably after-the-fact, the FBI revised its statements of what
"engineered capacity" means, saying it means "total number of
be a smokescreen, and is irrelevant anyway: the capacity to tap 1% of all
ongoing phone calls is still frighteningly Big-Brotherish. And EPIC claims
that the FBI's estimate of how many calls correspond to how many lines may
be at least 100% less than the real figures.
Even using the lowest of the percentages, .05% in rural areas until 1998
(five times that, later), the Bureau wants the capacity to conduct
calls. Again, the current ratio is 1 to 170,000 or thereabouts. Even in
the deepest woods of Maine or the deserts of Nevada, the FBI wants to
tap more than 8 times as many people as it currently can spy on -
FBI director Louis Freeh continues to deny, deny, deny, saying "We have not
and are not asking for the ability to monitor 1 out of every 100
telephone numbers or any other ridiculous number like that. To obtain
that many court orders and conduct that extent of wiretapping would be
nearly impossible." His denials, however, simply don't match the Fed.
Register notice, and furthermore ignore the fact that warrants only need
be sought when the evidence to be gained from the surveillance is to be
used in court (to quote from the statute itself: wiretaps conducted
"pursuant to a court order *or other legal authorization*", emphasis
added.) Not to mention that this legislation isn't for this year,
t's for the future. Who knows what will be possible under a bloated FBI
budget in future years?
An AP article quotes Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick as saying,
"There is no intention to expand the number of wiretaps or the extent of
about that."
Well, please forgive us if we "worry". The capability to tap one out of
every 100 or 1000 phone lines simultaneously, even in "high crime areas", is
truly wretched excess, even presuming that wiretaps are a good idea in
the first place. As Brock Meeks reported ("Riding a Straw Horse",
_Cyberwire_Dispatch_, Sept. 13 1994), "In 1991, the latest year figures
are available, most Americans, across all age groups, disapproved when
asked the question: 'Everything considered, would you say that you
approve or disapprove of wiretapping?' Some 67% of all 18-20 year olds
The _New_York_Times_ reports that the FBI refuses to elaborate on its
nternally perceived need to increase wiretapping capacity to this
extent, saying only that "The full implementation is absolutely essential
for law enforcement and public safety. We are in ongoing discussions with
the communications industry. Therefore it would be inappropriate to
comment further at this point." Apparently the FBI considers their
even be on the subject of negotiating, outside of public review, for even
*more* wiretapping capacity that the Bureau has already asked for in the
Federal Register. Enough is enough.
DT/CALEA's *capability* requirements are still under development. In short,
the FBI will state what it wants, and the industry must try to comply with
this, within certain limits, including the right of members of the public
to challenge the requirments before the FCC.
The funding issue: Congress authorized but did not appropriate US$500million
to implement CALEA in 1994. The Justice dept. has proposed that a 30%-40%
extra fine ("surcharge") be attached to all civil and criminal penalties
and fines to pay for this, and has attached this proposal to both the
and a pending appropriations bill.
EFF is committed to opposing any such funding efforts for the wiretap
bill's provisions.
* What You Can Do Now
See the FBI Federal Register notice below. It includes instructions on
NOV. 15! Act now, or perhaps forever hold thy peace!
Remember that FBI director Louis Freeh himself states:
"There is no intention to expand the number of wiretaps or the
extent of wiretapping. Those who use the public comment notice
to argue the contrary are wrong."
capacity in the first place if the FBI doesn't intend to use it.
Remember, you have them, either way. The current proposal is simply
Next steps: Contact your legislators, and keep an eye on the progress of
bills that the FBI has attached DT/CALEA funding language to - sending
letters to the members of committess examining such legislation is important.
that
* the FBI has not shown that it effectively uses wiretapping to
prevent domestic terrorism, despite its claims and despite this being
the prime reason the FBI has expressed for this legislation;
* the FBI has not provided the public or Congress any of the information
that it claims supports its outrageous requests for wiretapping capacity,
orders of magnitude greater than present-day capacity in some areas;
* the FBI may be, counter to the specifications of CALEA, entering into
negotiations with telecom industry leaders that are hidden from the public;
* the FBI has shown no evidence to back up its claims that digital
telephone technology is actually thwarting effective law enforcement;
* FOIA-obtained documents from the FBI itself indicate that the
above-mentioned Bureau claim is a complete fabrication anyway;
* Citizen privacy is not to be stripped for the convenience of law
enforcement.
Congress contact information is available at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Activism/Congress_contact/
A list of Congress-member email addresses is available at:
* Congress May Just Not Buy It
The FBI did not once seek a warrant for a wiretap in cases involving
"weapons, arson, or explosives" since the 1980s. Yet they claim that one
of the main motivations for CALEA is to combat domestic terrorism. Where
enforcement handling of several cases, such as the Waco incident and the
Randy Weaver seige.
that the CIA and other intelligence agencies - the same national security
nterests behind DT and crypto key "escrow" - have lied consistently to
the President and Congress, and have been riddled with Soviet and other
"laughingstock" in Washington right now.
The new Congress may at times be only too willing to censor, but we can
* House Rejects First DT/CALEA Funding Attempt
On Oct. 25, the House of Representatives voted to *not* include the FBI's
CALEA funding language in the Omnibus Budget Bill (which is expected to
be vetoed anyway). This version of the measure called for a 40%
"surcharge" to be added to all criminal fines, to raise US$500mil. to pay
for implementation of the "upgrades" to telephonic equipment that the FBI
can be said to be hedging its bets.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center reported this event as a
victory, though others have suggested that the reason the measure was
arch-conservatives consider the suggested funding measure to be a form of
tax increase. The anti-tax conservatives may have been "thrown a bone"
on a bill expected to die anyway, so they'll have already played their
cards when the issue comes up in other bills.
Whatever's really going on in Congressional minds, (and a _New_York_Times_
article tends to, believe it or not, support *both* viewpoints), the FBI's
loss here certainly remains cause for very guarded celebration. But the
ssue *will* be back.
* Sen. Leahy Definitely Not Buying It
Nov. 3, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) sent a public letter to FBI Director
Louis Freeh. It stated in part:
The Federal Bureau of
Investigation recently published in the Federal Register a proposed notice
of law enforcement's capacity demands predicated upon an historical
baseline of electronic surveillance activity and an analysis of that
activity. The Federal Register notice did not include publication of those
two documents.
Please provide me with copies of those two documents, which I also urge you
to release to the public and publish in the Federal Register to ensure the
fullest dissemination of the information.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
EFF joins CDT in commending Sen. Leahy for his no-nonsense approach, and
for his consideration of the public interest in making this request.
EFF, EPIC, or any other organization could obtain this information via
Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, but that could take years, and it'd
be much better if the FBI released the information voluntarily.
The full text of Sen. Leahy's letter is available at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Privacy/Digital_Telephony_FBI/leahy_freeh_110395.letter
* Canadian Law Enforcement Taking the FBI Hint
Electronic Frontier Canada reports that Canadian police chiefs are
clamoring for some kind of "back door" into citizen communications, right
on the heels of many other governments put under pressure by the US
Administration to support its privacy-invasive policies.
Canadian law enforcement may be shying away from Clipper-like crypto key
"escrow" (possibly because they realize what a ridiculous idea it is?),
but are already considering a ban on cellular phones that prevent
eavesdropping.
The 90th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
(Regina, Saskatchewan, August 24, 1995) produced numerous policy
"violent" media programming has "no" value at all and should be banned
(including an explict recommendation that online material that "exploits
violence" be attacked); that "the Internet System [sic] is devoid of any
Canadian government should "enact legislation that will effectively
control and regulate the Internet System" [sic]; that roadway video
and (surprised?) that "new communications technology is threatening the
ability of...police agencies to conduct court-approved electronic
US Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Canadian proposal continues: "the telecommunications systems and
networks are often used to further serious criminal activities, including
and money laundering" [not unlike cars, fingers, shoes, etc. And they
forgot that favorite buzzphrase: "child molestation and pornography".]
The rest of the recommendations regarding police surveillance and modern
communications is all but plagiarized from the FBI's statements and
legislation, and concludes, "the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
urges the Government of Canada to enact the appropriate legislation
contain capabilities that will provide law enforcement agencies with the
technical assistance necessary to accomplish court-authorized
nterceptions pursuant to the applicable sections of the Criminal Code of
Canada (s.184.2, 184.3, 186, 188, 487.01, 492.1, 492.2)."
To our northern neighbors: Be afaid.
The full text of the CACP recommendations can be found at:
* The Text of the FBI's Federal Register Notice
[Federal Register: October 16, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 53643-53646]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Enforcement Act
AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
ACTION: Initial notice and requests for comments.
_________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: The FBI is providing initial notification of law enforcement
capacity requirements as mandated in section 104 of the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Comments regarding this initial
notice will be considered in the development of the final capacity
notice.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 15,
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in triplicate to the
Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit (TILU), Federal Bureau of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact TILU at (800) 551-0336. Please refer to your question as a
capacity notice question.
On October 25, 1994, the President signed into law the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (Public Law 103-414; 47 U.S.C.
the CALEA is to clarify a telecommunications carrier's duty to assist law
enforcement agencies with the lawful interception of communications and
the acquisition of call-identifying information in an ever-changing
telecommunications environment. To ensure that law enforcement agencies can
continue to conduct authorized surveillance of wire or electronic
communications, the CALEA states that telecommunications carriers must meet
the assistance capability requirements set forth in section 103 of the
Act (and restated in Appendix A of this notice).
Section 104 of the CALEA mandates that the Attorney General of the
United States provide notice of estimates for the actual and maximum
number of pen register, trap and trace, and communication intercepts
that law enforcement agencies may conduct and use simultaneously.
The definitions for ``actual capacity'' and ``maximum capacity''
are included below:
Actual Capacity--``notice of the actual number of communication
nterceptions. pen registers, and trap and trace devices, representing
a portion of the maximum capacity that the Attorney General estimates
that government agencies authorized to conduct electronic surveillance
may conduct and use simultaneously by the date that is 4 years after
the date of enactment of the CALEA'' (CALEA, section 104(a)(1)(A)).
Maximum Capacity--``notice of the maximum capacity required to
accommodate all of the communication interceptions, pen registers, and
trap and trace devices that the Attorney General estimates that
conduct and use simultaneously after the date that is 4 years after of
enactment of the CALEA'' (CALEA, section 104(a)(1)(B)).
This Federal Register announcement serves as the initial notice of
the government's actual and maximum capacity requirements. These
forth in section 103 of the CALEA. A final notice will be issued in
accordance with the CALEA requirements after considering comments to
this initial notice.
The actual and maximum capacity requirements were developed by the
FBI in coordination with law enforcement. By order of the Attorney
General of the United States, as codified in 28 CFR 0.85 (o),
out the government's implementation responsibilities, including the
For the purposes of this document, the terms defined in section
(section 1001 of title 47, United States Code) have, respectively, the
meanings stated in those sections. Additional clarification of terms is
The capacity figures in this notice reflect the combined number of
nterceptions that law enforcement may conduct by October 25, 1998. All
telecommunications carriers must, within 3 years after the publication
of the final notice of capacity requirements or within 4 years after
the date of enactment of the CALEA, whichever is longer, ensure that
their systems are capable of accommodating simultaneously the number of
dentified in the actual capacity requirements. Furthermore, all
telecommunications carriers shall ensure capabilities exist to
expeditiously accommodate any increase in the actual number of pen
authorized agencies may seek to conduct and use, up to the maximum
capacity requirement. Some carriers may not need to make modifications
to their equipment, facilities, and services in response to this notice
because they currently meet all law enforcement capacity and capability
The capacity requirements are not intended to specify, required or
telecommunications carrier, equipment manufacturer, or support services
assistance capability requirements found in section 103 of the CALEA.
example, the required number of ports, lines, or other network
features by an intercept subject. The FBI, along with other law
enforcement agencies, will be available, through the consultative
that their equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer
or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct
communications are capable of meeting the capability and capacity
existing and future telecommunications carriers.
The capacity figures that are presented in this initial notice were
needs. Information regarding electronic surveillance activities for a
enforcement, U.S. District Courts, State Courts, State Attorneys
General, and State District Attorneys to establish a historical
baseline of activity.
The historical baseline of electronic surveillance activity was
each electronic surveillance reported. The historical baseline was then
analyzed to derive the total and simultaneous electronic surveillance
activity by switch and within specific geographic areas. Future
capacity needs were then determined after consideration of the impact
of demographics, market trends, and other factors on the historical
baseline.
The analysis indicates that electronic surveillance activity varies
by geographic area. Therefore, the capacity requirements will vary by
categories. The use of categories enables capacity requirements to be
electronic surveillance needs in all geographic areas, yet does not
overburden the telecommunications industry by holding all carriers to
the same level of capacity.
Category I (the highest category) and Category II (the intermediate
category) represent those geographic areas where the majority of
electronic surveillance activity occurs. Only a few of the most densely
these categories were derived based on the analysis described above.
Category I and Category II apply to approximately 25 percent of the
equipment, facilities, and services covered by the survey over the time
Category III (the lowest category) represents law enforcement's
minimum acceptable capacity requirements for electronic surveillance
activity. This category covers all other geographic areas. The numbers
for Category III were derived by analyzing areas of historically low
electronic surveillance activity and projecting future needs in order
to establish a requirement for a minimum level of capacity for
electronic surveillance.
All telecommunications carriers are expected to meet the minimum
capacity requirements of Category III. Carriers will be individually
notified of those specific geographic areas within the areas they serve
that exceed Category III and warrant a Category I or Category II
capacity requirement. The individual carrier notifications will occur
contemporaneously with the publication of the final notice. It is
anticipated that the majority of the area served by a carrier will fall
nto Category III; however, if Category I and Category II capacity
This initial capacity notice includes the actual and maximum
capacity requirements for Categories I, II, and III. After considering
comments to this initial notice, a final notice will be published.
Future changes to the maximum capacity requirements issued in the final
notice will be published in the Federal Register, as necessary, in
accordance with section 104(c).
The actual and maximum capacity requirements are presented as a
originate, terminate, or direct communications. Engineered capacity
equipment, facility, or service. Frequently, the percentage is applied
to the engineered subscriber capacity of a switch, however, the
communications. Percentages are being used rather than fixed numbers
The use of percentages allows telecommunications carriers the
flexibility to adjust to changes in marketplace conditions or changes
n the number of subscribers, access lines, equipment, facilities,
etc., and still know the required level of capacity.
As a result of extensive consultation with federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies, telecommunications carriers, providers
of telecommunications support services, and manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment, the FBI proposes the following capacity
Category I
Actual Capacity
Each telecommunications carrier must provide the ability to meet
the capability assistance requirements defined in section 103 of the
CALEA for a number of simultaneous pen register, trap and trace, and
communication interceptions equal to 0.5% of the engineered capacity of
the equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or
communications.
Maximum Capacity
Each telecommunications carrier must ensure that it can
expeditiously increase its capacity to meet the assistance capability
nterceptions equal to 1% of the engineered capacity of the equipment,
facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the
ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications.
Category II
Actual Capacity
Each telecommunications carrier must provide the ability to meet
the capability assistance requirements defined in section 103 of the
CALEA for a number of simultaneous pen register, trap and trace, and
communication interceptions equal to 0.25% of the engineered capacity
of the equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or
communications.
Maximum Capacity
Each telecommunications carrier must ensure that it can
expeditiously increase its capacity to meet the assistance capacity
nterceptions equal to 0.5% of the engineered capacity of the
equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or
communications.
Category III
Actual Capacity
Each telecommunications carrier must provide the ability to meet
the capability assistance requirements defined in section 103 of the
CALEA for a number of simultaneous pen register, trap and trace, and
communication interceptions equal to 0.05% of the engineered capacity
of the equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or
communications.
Maximum Capacity
Each telecommunications carrier must ensure that it can
expeditiously increase its capacity to meet the assistance capability
nterceptions equal to 0.25% of the engineered capacity of the
equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or
communications.
When translated from percentages to numbers, capacity requirements
V. Carrier Statements and Consultation
As set forth in section 104(d) of the CALEA, each telecommunications
carrier is required to provide within 180 days after publication of the
final capacity notice a statement identifying any of its systems or
factors to determine the specific equipment, facilities, and services that
establish a template for responding to the capability and capacity
Dated: October 10, 1995.
Louis J. Freeh,
Director.
[FR Doc. 95-25562 Filed 10-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
[editor's note -- Appendicies have been deleted to save space. The entire
text of this document can be found at EFF's and CDT's Digital Telephony Web
* For More Information
See the following Internet sites:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Privacy/Digital_Telephony_FBI/
[Portions of this alert based on material from CDT, EPIC and VTW, various
articles, and several independent reports.]
------------------------------
Subject: Newsbytes
------------------
* EFF Relocation Complete
Our new, permanent contact info is:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
San Francisco CA 94103 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice) <-- That's 436 9EFF
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
ask@eff.org (or, for "canned" general info, info@eff.org).
Bernstein- or Scientology-case queries should go to EFF Staff Counsel
Shari Steele (ssteele@eff.org), +1 301 375 8856.
Other Press and legal queries should go to EFF Staff Counsel Mike Godwin
(mnemonic@eff.org), +1 510 548 3290.
* EFF Rated in Top 5% of the Net by Point Survey
top 5% net sites. Their review calls us a "great resource for those who
* Commerce Dept. IPWG Report on Online Intellectual Property Meets Resistance
The Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) was created by the
executive branch of the U.S. government to recommend policy and
legislation on the "Information Superhighway". In the wake of the
LaMacchia case, The IITF set up a working group to make recommendations
on copyright law and intellectual property. The "White Paper" is the
nfluenced by the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group chair,
The recent White Paper version is available at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Intellectual_property/ipwg_nii_ip_lehman.report
The Green Paper version was the subject of strong criticism from many sides,
ncluding Prof. Pamela Samuelson, who opposed the attempt to pass off
The draft (Green Paper) version, and Prof. Samuelson's critique are
available at (respectively):
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Intellectual_property/ipwg_nii_ip_lehman_report.draft
and
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Intellectual_property/ipwg_nii_ip_report_samuelson.comments
ipwg_nii_ip_report_samuelson.comments
EFF Board of Directors Chair Esther Dyson and Vice-Chair John Perry Barlow
future. These articles can be found at (respectively):
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Publications/Esther_Dyson/ip_on_the_net.article
and
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/idea_economy.article
idea_economy_article.html
The new "White Paper" version of the IITF report doesn't seem to have
fixed anything. Most criticisms that applied to the Green Paper draft
misses the daily realities of the individual writer, artist or other
creator...we must voice concerns that favor the rights of information
users at the same time that we seek fair compensation for our work."
NWU suggests that the report points fingers at individuals and libraries
for copyright infringement, when the real culprits are media conglomerates,
and calls the working group's bias against the public interest and toward
media centralization "a disconnection from reality", and a failure to
uphold the public's fair use rights. NWU closes by saying, "Legislation
and regulatory action on intellectual property and the National Information
and of the general public."
The full NWU comments can be found at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Intellectual_property/nwu_ipwg_paper.comments
The Commercial Internet eXchange (CIX) has criticised the white paper as
all service providers for the illegal actions of their users.
CIX's response paper states in part, "CIX members transmit nearly half a
billion messages each day, and cannot realistically be expected to
monitor the content of those transmissions. Moreover, the instantaneous
nature of digital communications precludes access providers from viewing,
accessed by their subscribers. Finally, [Internet Access Providers] are
members of the public use their facilities or the content members of the
be treated as a publisher [sic] for copyright purposes. Unfortunately,
that is precisely what the Working Group has proposed by including in its
The full CIX comments can be found at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Intellectual_property/cix_ipwg_paper.comments
The IITF report recommended that the Copyright Act "be amended to
expressly recognize that copies or phonorecords of works can be
fall within the exclusive distribution right of the copyright owner."
This portion of the suggested legislation has already been passed by both
Whether other aspects will find their way into law remains to be seen.
They probably will, though. Criticism of the White Paper is common and
the Report's conclusions and recommendations at face value and running
* IPWG Report's Suggested Legislation: Passed and Pending (+ Canada Tie-In)
Samuelson, CIX, Barlow, NWU, Dyson, Jessica Littman, and numerous others
number of flaws in the IITF NII intellectual property report. Some have
labelled it "a wolf in sheep's clothing", which systematically ignores
cases which don't support its extreme positions in order to make its
t well understood how biased a document it is, or how it supposes a
view of the world in which every information transaction can be subject
to a private tax with the threat of criminal sanction behind it.
Critics of the report suggest that its drafting process is heavily
unlikely - the lobbyists (and former lobbyists like PTO Commissioner
Lehman), may be motivated by fear that digitalization will mark the end
of the economic hegemony of certain media interests, who seek to bend the
law to their exclusive advantage with no regard for the tranditional
balance in intellectual property law between i-p rights holders and the
Then again, others, such as the Software Publisher Association complain
loudly of lost profits in the billions due to online copyright violation,
and even the NWU supports major changes to current intellectual property law.
Few seem to doubt that current law is quite right for the state of modern
communications. The disagreement seems largely about what changes must
be made, and perhaps more to the point - whether now is a good time to
change them or on the other hand whether anyone proposing immediate changes
Senators Orrin Hatch and Pat Leahy think they do, and introduced S. 1284,
the "Information Infrastructure Copyright Act of 1995" in September.
the IICA is based heavily on the IITF White Paper, and comprises sections.
The first, the "NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995", explicitly covers
makes it a crime to alter or provide false "copyright management
nformation" on someone else's intellectual property, or to
circumvent copy protection schemes or provide software or hardware to do
name and contact info, terms & conditions of use),
Not particularly disturbing? Until you consider that reverse-analysis of
utilities to update one's own information stored by the copy protection
features in software. Or until you consider that many copy protection
copy protection to make backups or to install a new copy of the software
from backup disks. Or until you get to the section that lays the
burden of proving innocence on the accused. Or until you realize that
the only way to enforce these provisions would be for system operators
(and libraries and other services) to act as "net cops" and spy on
users continuously and in great detail. Fines are up to half a million
The bill panders to large-scale copyright holders, and fails to balance
their rights with those of authors & creators, not to mention the public's
companies, the Digital Future Coalition, further criticizes the bill as
EFF is considering joining DFC and endorsing their upcoming letter to the
Telephony bill) in April 1994, "The part that frightens the hell out of
me is the goverment deciding where technology goes."
Should this legislation pass, it is likely that the actual authors and
creators (as opposed to corporate copyright holders) will make less money
than ever from their works, and that information vendors (and access
copyright and royalty/licensing situation of any information their
ncreasing "net.cop" behavior on the part of access providers, or
ncreased civil disobedience of unenforceable laws that are almost
Senator Leahy, this time with Sen. Feingold, is interested in even more
changes to intellectual property law. They introduced S.1122,
the "Criminal Copyright Improvement Act of 1995" in August, making it an
offense to assist others in the reproduction or distribution of an
nfringed work, and allowing prosecutors to go after bulletin board
operators and other service providers when the end-user cannot be
tracked down. Leahy's bill, the inspiration for which appears to be
associations, poses fairly clear threats to all system operators that do
not track users and get a variety of verified personal information from
all customers. In a speech at a conference, Leahy tied S.1122 into his
and Sen. Orrin Hatch's new bill to combat the counterfeiting of goods,
S.1136, proposing fines up to US$1,000,000. S.1122 has language related
to faked goods, including software, as well. It may be that the two
bills are intended to be merged.
S. 1122 is intended to snare system operators whose systems are used for
SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated
paragraph relating to the term `display', the following new
paragraph:
`The term `financial gain' includes receipt of anything of
value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright
willfully either--
`(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain; or
`(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by
transmission, or assisting others in such reproduction or
distribution, of 1 or more copies, of 1 or more copyrighted
works, which have a total retail value of $5,000 or more,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18.'.
EFF currently has no position on this legislation, but may take one. The
Center for Democracy and Technology will support the bill, provided it is
modified (See CDT Policy Post for more info.)
On the one hand, few doubt that allowing a system to be used as a sort of
"pirated software clearinghouse" should be illegal even if the sysop does
not profit from this activity (Cf. the LaMacchia case). However, this
bill would appear to be insufficiently narrow, and may hold criminally
liable system operators whose users exchange software, audio files or
other material copyrighted by others, even without the permission or
knowledge of the system operator. EFF remains committed to establishing
a form of common-carrier-like liability protection for online service
operators so that sysadmins and BBS sysops are not fined or imprisoned
for crimes committed by users. The bill also does not appear to
adequately take into account the people's rights of fair use.
At a conference, Borland Sr. VP Robert Kohn and author of a
treatise on online music licensing, pointed out for the audience Internet
they probably were not licensed to have the copies of song lyrics they
offered from their sites. As if mirroring Kohn's sentiments, SOCAN,
clearinghouses BMI and ASCAP, have filed a proposed tariff which will
allow licensing of music transmitted over the Internet or BBSs, so that
SOCAN can collect royalities for online uses of sound clips or lyric
texts. The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of
Canada's Tariff 22 is entitled "Transmission of Musical Subscribers [sic]
via a Telecommunications Service not Licensed Under Tariff 16 or 17". The
a service that does not earn advertising revenue. For services that do
earn revenue from advertising, the licence is based on 3.2% of gross
John Lax, contacted SOCAN for more details, and found that SOCAN plans
that anyone wanting to make online use of songs controlled by SOCAN would
nspection by SOCAN.
While some note that sites like IUMA, providing online but copyrighted music
nformation such as song lyrics, should have to pay royalties, the
administrator of one such site says that the artists involved are, in at
least some cases, not at all pleased by moves like SOCAN's, and will end up
online lyric reading or soundclip downloads. This is fairly interesting
n light of NWU's criticism of the Lehman paper, that the report
of media mega-corporations who thrive on royalty percentages.
While there's no direct tie-in between SOCAN's proposed tarrif and the
Representatives. H.R.1506, the Digital Performance Right in Sound
Recordings Act of 1995", gives copyright holders the authority to collect
Measures that were suggested independently by both SOCAN and IITF are
about to be the law of the land in the US, despite the fact that little
The bills referred to above are available at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Legislation/Bills_by_number/
NOTE: IITF is not to be confused with IETF, the Internet Engineering Task
Force, which is a non-governmental volunteer standards body.
[Some text in the above two articles borrowed from CIX, SOCAN, and NWU
mailing lists.]
* Upcoming Articles
Bernstein Case - Update
Public Govt. Info Online - Update
Scientology v. Critics - Update
A Look at Internet Domain Name Fees and Alternatives to InterNIC
EFC Opposes Bell Canada Trademark on "The Net"
Arthur Halavais Censored from Internet by Judge
Minnesota v. the Whole Wide World
PROFS Case - Update
Tony Davis Case - Update
Lorne Shantz Case - Update
Some of these were expected this issue, but have been put off due to the
------------------------------
Subject: Upcoming events
------------------------
This schedule lists events that are directly EFF-related. A much more
ftp: ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/calendar.eff
Nov. 7 * European Summit on the Information Superhighway; Amsterdam,
Netherlands. Speakers include EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow.
Nov. 9 * Doors of Perception Conference; Amsterdam, Netherlands. Speakers
include EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow.
Nov. 23-
25 * HyperMedia Conference; Oita Japan. Speakers include
EFF boardmember David Farber.
Nov. 27 * Internet Society Japan Conference; Kobe Japan. Speakers include
EFF boardmember David Farber.
Nov. 29 * Japan Ministry of Posts and Telecom. Annual Conference on
Advances in Communications; Tokyo Japan. Foreign Keynote speech
by EFF boardmember, David Farber.
Jan. 17-
18 * Innovation Now; Oregon Convention Center, Portland Oregon.
Sponsored by American Electronics Association's Oregon Council,
et al. Speakers include EFF chair of the board Esther Dyson.
URL: http://www.innovationnow.org/
------------------------------
Subject: Quote of the Day
-------------------------
"You are all optimizing against the imaginable, not the probable. And the
maginable, especially the imaginable evil, has no inertia at all. There
s no limit to what it might do and therefore, there is no limit to what one
must do to prevent it...If we are to design all of our policies around the
a human-caused catastrophe, we will have to endow law enforcement with
but probable."
- EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow, in a letter to Administration staffers
regarding the Clipper and Digital Telephony surveillance scheme, on
which the Administration refused to back down, citing fear of terrorists
using untappable communications to plan a nuclear bombing of the
World Trade Center, and the reaction the voting public would have
toward the Adminstration in the event of such terrorism.
Find yourself wondering if your privacy and freedom of speech are safe
the rush to make us secure from ourselves that our government
Concerned that legislative efforts nominally to "protect children" will
actually censor all communications down to only content suitable for
the playground?
Join EFF!
Even if you don't live in the U.S., the anti-Internet hysteria will soon
be visiting a legislative body near you. If it hasn't already.
------------------------------
Subject: What YOU Can Do
------------------------
* The Communications Decency Act & Other Censorship Legislation
The Communications Decency Act and similar legislation pose serious
threats to freedom of expression online, and to the livelihoods of system
operators. The legislation also undermines several crucial privacy
Business/industry persons concerned should alert their corporate govt.
affairs office and/or legal counsel. Everyone should write to their own
Representatives and Senators, asking them to oppose Internet censorship
legislation, and write to the conference committee members to support
the reasonable approaches of Leahy, Klink, Cox and Wyden, and to oppose
the unconstitutional proposals of Exon, Gorton and others. See the first
article in this newsletter for more detailed info.
For more information on what you can do to help stop this and other
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Alerts/
for information to ask@eff.org.
* Digital Telephony/Comms. Assistance to Law Enforcement Act
The FBI is now seeking both funding for the DT/CALEA wiretapping provisions,
and preparing to require that staggering numbers of citizens be
To oppose the funding, write to your own Senators and Representatives
urging them to vote against any appropriations for wiretapping.
To oppose the FBI's wiretapping capacity demands, see the FBI Federal
Register notice at the end of the second article in this newsletter, which
contains instructions on how to submit formal comments on the ludicrous
and dangerous proposal.
* Anti-Terrorism Bills
Numerous bills threatening your privacy and free speech have been introduced
this year. None of them are close to passage at this very moment, but
this status may change. Urge your Congresspersons to oppose these
unconstitutional and Big-Brotherish bills.
* The Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act
This bill is unlikely to pass in any form, being very poorly drafted, and
flying colors [the jolly roger?] in the Senate. It's better to be safe
than sorry. If you have a few moments to spare, writing to, faxing, or
calling your Congresspersons to urge opposition to this bill is a good
dea. If you only have time to do limited activism, please concentrate
on the CDA instead. That legislation is far more imminent that the AERA.
* Find Out Who Your Congresspersons Are
Writing letters to, faxing, and phoning your representatives in Congress
s one very important strategy of activism, and an essential way of
making sure YOUR voice is heard on vital issues.
EFF has lists of the Senate and House with contact information, as well
as lists of Congressional committees. (A House list is included in this
ssue of EFFector). These lists are available at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Activism/Congress_cmtes/
The full Senate and House lists are senate.list and hr.list, respectively.
Those not in the U.S. should seek out similar information about their
own legislative bodies. EFF will be happy to archive any such
nformation provided.
try contacting your local League of Women Voters, who maintain a great
* Join EFF!
You *know* privacy, freedom of speech and ability to make your voice heard
n government are important. You have probably participated in our online
campaigns and forums. Have you become a member of EFF yet? The best way to
opinions heard. EFF members are informed and are making a difference. Join
EFF today!
For EFF membership info, send queries to membership@eff.org, or send any
message to info@eff.org for basic EFF info, and a membership form.
------------------------------
Administrivia
=============
EFFector Online is published by:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
San Francisco CA 94103 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
Membership & donations: membership@eff.org
Legal services: ssteele@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@eff.org
Editor:
Stanton McCandlish, Online Services Mgr./Activist/Archivist (mech@eff.org)
This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed
articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce
ually at will.
To subscribe to EFFector via email, send message body of "subscribe
effector-online" (without the "quotes") to listserv@eff.org, which will add
you to a subscription list for EFFector.
Back issues are available at:
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/
To get the latest issue, send any message to effector-reflector@eff.org (or
er@eff.org), and it will be mailed to you automagically. You can also get
the file "current" from the EFFector directory at the above sites at any
time for a copy of the current issue. HTML editions available at:
at EFFweb. HTML editions of the current issue sometimes take a day or
longer to prepare after issue of the ASCII text version.
------------------------------
End of EFFector Online v08 #18 Digest
*************************************
$$
