392 lines
20 KiB
Plaintext
392 lines
20 KiB
Plaintext
******************************************************************
|
|
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
|
|
/// /// ///
|
|
/////// /////// ///////
|
|
/// /// ///
|
|
////////////// /// ///
|
|
******************************************************************
|
|
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 4 3/19/1993 editors@eff.org
|
|
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
|
|
389 lines
|
|
|
|
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
|
|
In this issue:
|
|
Victory in the Steve Jackson Games Case
|
|
EFF Pioneer Award Winners for 1993
|
|
Issues for K-12 Access to the Internet
|
|
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
|
|
|
|
STEVE JACKSON GAMES WINS LAWSUIT
|
|
AGAINST U.S. SECRET SERVICE
|
|
|
|
A games publisher has won a lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service
|
|
and the federal government in a ground-breaking case involving
|
|
computer publications and electronic mail privacy.
|
|
|
|
In a decision announced in Austin, Texas, on March 12, Judge Sam
|
|
Sparks of the federal district court for the Western District of Texas
|
|
announced that the case of Steve Jackson Games et al. versus the U.S.
|
|
Secret Service and the United States Government has been decided
|
|
for the plaintiffs.
|
|
|
|
The plaintiffs, which include Steve Jackson, the company he founded,
|
|
and three users of the company's bulletin board system (BBS), sued
|
|
the government on claims that their statutory rights to electronic
|
|
mail privacy had been violated when the BBS and other computers,
|
|
disks and printouts were seized by the Secret Service as part of a
|
|
computer crime investigation. These rights are protected under the
|
|
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which extended most
|
|
of the protections of the federal Wiretap Act ("Title III") to electronic
|
|
mail.
|
|
|
|
Jackson and his company also claimed violations of the Privacy
|
|
Protection Act of 1980, a federal law designed to limit searches of
|
|
publishers in order to protect their First Amendment rights.
|
|
|
|
Mitch Kapor, founder and chairman of the board for the Electronic
|
|
Frontier Foundation, the public interest/civil liberties organization
|
|
that has underwritten and supported the case since it was filed in
|
|
1991, said he is pleased with the decision. "This decision vindicates
|
|
our position that users of computer bulletin board systems are
|
|
engaging in Constitutionally protected speech," Kapor said.
|
|
|
|
"This decision shows that perseverance pays off," he added. "We've
|
|
been at this for almost three years now, and we still don't know if it's
|
|
over -- the Justice Department might appeal it." Nevertheless, Kapor
|
|
said he is optimistic about the case's ultimate outcome.
|
|
|
|
Judge Sparks awarded more than $50,000 in damages to Steve
|
|
Jackson Games, citing lost profits and violations of the Privacy
|
|
Protection Act of 1980. In addition, the judge awarded each plaintiff
|
|
$1,000 under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act for the
|
|
Secret Service seizure of their stored electronic mail. The judge also
|
|
stated that plaintiffs would be reimbursed for their attorneys's fees.
|
|
|
|
The judge did not find that Secret Service agents had "intercepted"
|
|
the electronic communications that were captured when agents
|
|
seized the Illuminati BBS in an early morning raid in the spring of
|
|
1990 as part of a computer crime investigation. The judge did find,
|
|
however, that the ECPA had been violated by the agents's seizure of
|
|
stored electronic communications on the system.
|
|
|
|
The case was tried in Austin, Texas, by the Austin-based media law
|
|
firm George, Donaldson & Ford, with case assistance provided by the
|
|
Boston, Massachusetts, law firm of Silverglate & Good.
|
|
|
|
Pete Kennedy, the lawyer from George, Donaldson & Ford who
|
|
litigated the case, calls the decision "a solid first step toward
|
|
recognizing that computer communications should be as well-
|
|
protected as telephone communications." Kennedy also said he
|
|
believes the case has particular significance for those who use
|
|
computers to prepare and distribute publications. "There is a strong
|
|
indication from the judge's decision that the medium of publication is
|
|
irrelevant," he said, adding that "electronic publishers have the same
|
|
protections against law enforcement intrusions as traditional
|
|
publishers like newspapers and magazines. All publishers that use
|
|
computers should be heartened by this decision. It indicates that the
|
|
works-in-progress of all types of publications are protected under
|
|
the Privacy Protection Act.
|
|
|
|
"The case also demonstrates that there are limits on the kinds of
|
|
defenses law enforcement agents can use, Kennedy said, noting that
|
|
"the judge made it very clear that it is no excuse that the seizure of
|
|
draft material for publication held on a computer was incidental or
|
|
accidental."
|
|
|
|
Mike Godwin, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation who
|
|
has worked on the case since 1990, said he is pleased with the scope
|
|
of the decision. "This case is a major step forward in protecting the
|
|
rights of those who use computers to send private mail to each other
|
|
or who use computers to create and disseminate publications."
|
|
|
|
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
|
|
|
|
SECOND ANNUAL EFF PIONEER AWARDS
|
|
|
|
On March 10, at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference in
|
|
Burlingame, California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation presented
|
|
its Second Annual Pioneer Awards to five recipients who were
|
|
judged to have made significant and influential contributions to the
|
|
field of computer-based communications. The 1993 Pioneer Award
|
|
recipients were Paul Baran, Vinton Cerf, Ward Christensen, Dave
|
|
Hughes and the USENET software developers, represented by the
|
|
software's originators Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis.
|
|
|
|
Nominations for the Pioneer Awards were carried out over national
|
|
and international computer-communication systems from November
|
|
1992 to February 1993. A panel of four judges selected the winners
|
|
from these nominations.
|
|
|
|
The Pioneer Award Recipients
|
|
|
|
Paul Baran was the original inventor of the notion of packet
|
|
switching, a technology of fundamental importance to data networks.
|
|
Packet switching makes possible the efficient and simultaneous
|
|
transmission of many messages from many sources to many
|
|
destinations over the same circuit. Mr. Baran's innovations in other
|
|
and related technologies have led him to co-found a number of
|
|
companies in Silicon Valley including Telebit, Packet Technologies (a
|
|
portion of which later became StrataCom), Equatorial
|
|
Communications, Metricom, InterFax and his current venture, Com21.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Vinton Cerf led the research project which developed the TCP/IP
|
|
protocol suite, the open system interconnection protocol which is
|
|
used today by schools, government, corporations and an increasing
|
|
number of individuals to communicate with each other over the
|
|
Internet. Dr. Cerf also participated in the development of the
|
|
ARPANET host protocols and managed the Internet, Packet
|
|
Communications and Networked Security programs for DARPA.
|
|
While working at MCI, he led the engineering effort to develop MCI
|
|
Mail. He is now vice president of the Corporation for National
|
|
Research Initiatives where he is responsible for projects involving
|
|
the Internet, electronic mail, and Knowledge Robot research.
|
|
|
|
Ward Christensen wrote the original software program,
|
|
"MODEM.ASM", which came to be called "Xmodem" or the
|
|
"Christensen protocol". For untold numbers of early-to-present day
|
|
computer communications users, Xmodem has made it possible to
|
|
transfer files, error-free, over phone lines from one computer to
|
|
another. Xmodem file transfer has been the major means of
|
|
information exchange for computer hobbyists and small business
|
|
users through the first decade of the personal computer revolution.
|
|
Mr. Christensen also programmed the first microcomputer dial-in
|
|
system which he named a "BBS" - bulletin board system. His original
|
|
BBS, CBBS/Chicago, is still in operation. He is in his 25th year at IBM.
|
|
|
|
Dave Hughes has been an outspoken and effective grassroots
|
|
evangelist and spokesperson for popular computer networking and
|
|
electronic democracy for over a decade. He fashioned his own
|
|
computer system at Old Colorado City Communications in1985, and
|
|
soon brought the municipal elected government of Colorado Springs
|
|
online. He helped design and implement a personal computer
|
|
network connecting one-room rural schoolhouses in Montana to
|
|
worldwide information resources. He continually brings network
|
|
connections and new applications to new populations here and
|
|
abroad. Perhaps most importantly, he is a tireless and enthusiastic
|
|
communicator, offering his experience, his inspiration and his vision
|
|
to any and all on the Net.
|
|
|
|
USENET is a distributed bulletin board system with approximately
|
|
two million readers worldwide. It came into being in late1979
|
|
through the inspiration of Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis combined with
|
|
the design and programming efforts of Steve Bellovin, Stephen
|
|
Daniel, and Dennis Rockwell. Following USENET's introduction in
|
|
1980, the resulting and ever-expanding collection of "newsgroups"
|
|
began to be carried and circulated by a growing number of
|
|
networked sites. The ongoing work of numerous individuals has
|
|
allowed Usenet to survive its increasing popularity. The daily traffic
|
|
is now approximately 20,000 articles, totaling 50 megabytes, posted
|
|
to 2000 different newsgroups.
|
|
|
|
Tom Truscott is currently a distributed computing professional at
|
|
IBM in the Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. He has authored a
|
|
number of UNIX-related articles, and is a member of ACM, IEEE, and
|
|
Sigma Xi.
|
|
|
|
James Ellis is currently the Manager of Technical Development at the
|
|
Computer Emergency Response Team, which is the team created to
|
|
assist Internet sites with computer security incidents. At CERT, he is
|
|
responsible for analyzing UNIX system vulnerabilities and for
|
|
developing tools to assist in the handling of security incidents.
|
|
|
|
Judges
|
|
|
|
This year's judges for the Pioneer Awards were: Jim Warren, Pioneer
|
|
Award recipient from 1992 who coordinated the judging process,
|
|
Steve Cisler of Apple Computer, Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0,
|
|
and Bob Metcalfe, Editor of Infoworld.
|
|
|
|
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
|
|
|
|
COMMUNICATIONS POLICY FORUM
|
|
|
|
CPF Airs Issues for K-12 Access to the Internet
|
|
by Andrew Blau
|
|
|
|
The Communications Policy Forum (CPF), a non-partisan project
|
|
of the EFF that brings stakeholders together to discuss
|
|
communications policy issues, recently convened a roundtable to
|
|
explore some of the legal questions that arise when K-12 schools
|
|
provide Internet access to their students. Approximately 15 people,
|
|
representing carriers who provide connections to the Internet,
|
|
schools or school systems who are connected to the Internet, and
|
|
legal experts with expertise in this and related areas, met to discuss
|
|
issues of legal liability as this new medium enters an educational
|
|
setting for minors.
|
|
A key concern is that students may be exposed to material that
|
|
parents or teachers find inappropriate for children. In other
|
|
electronic media, such as broadcast television, cable TV, and
|
|
audiotext, legal restrictions have been imposed to protect children
|
|
from ÒharmfulÓ or ÒindecentÓ material, and liability has been
|
|
assigned. No such framework exists for the Internet. Moreover, the
|
|
very strengths of the Internet Ð its decentralized, unhierarchical, and
|
|
essentially uncontrolled flow of traffic Ð offer distinct challenges to
|
|
those who would seek to control it in the interest of protecting
|
|
children. Finally, the tools available in other media Ð safe harbors,
|
|
lockboxes, or subscription schemes Ð don't fit in this environment.
|
|
Issues and Suggestions
|
|
Following a brief summary of the Internet and how it operates
|
|
and a review of how it is being used by a handful of K-12
|
|
institutions, participants identified specific problems and policy
|
|
issues and considered existing statutes and case law for guidance.
|
|
The group also considered the potential effects of "harmful to
|
|
minors" or "obscene as to minors" statutes, which are on the books in
|
|
41 states. Although they are often vague or broad, the Supreme
|
|
Court has agreed that it is constitutional to have such laws which
|
|
prohibit the dissemination to minors of material that is protected by
|
|
the First Amendment and would be constitutional for adults, to
|
|
minors.
|
|
Discussion then turned to various practical measures that carriers
|
|
and schools might take in light of what had been described. One
|
|
suggestion was that carriers work with school systems to provide a
|
|
recommended set of features or services. In order to protect
|
|
themselves, carriers could ensure that the school put in place a set of
|
|
policies, identify for students their responsibilities, and place a
|
|
teacher or other adult in control of what students access through the
|
|
school's connection.
|
|
It was also suggested that carriers could develop a contract that
|
|
only connects schools that agree to indemnify the provider.
|
|
Moreover, the carrier could require assurance that when access is
|
|
provided to minors, the school will use some formal agreement with
|
|
the minor's parent that includes provisions that hold the network
|
|
provider harmless from liability.
|
|
As an alternative, it was suggested that carriers could offer a
|
|
simple warning to schools that alerts them that Internet access may
|
|
enable access to materials inappropriate for minors, and that local
|
|
discretion is advised. Schools could also offer disclaimers to parents
|
|
modelled on those that parents are given before a field trip.
|
|
A handful of technical solutions were suggested throughout the
|
|
course of the meeting, and many elicited substantial interest. For
|
|
example, various participants suggested using encryption, programs
|
|
that flag key words or phrases and route them for human
|
|
intervention, and mandatory password protection for all purveyors
|
|
of certain kinds of information.
|
|
Many participants seemed intrigued by a proposal to develop an
|
|
addressing standard under which someone who gets access by virtue
|
|
of his/her status as a K-12 student could get an address tag that
|
|
identifies the student as such for various purposes. One example
|
|
would be to press for the creation of an additional domain of ".stu"
|
|
for K-12 students. The appearance of the ".stu" tag would function
|
|
like any other identification stamp for access to certain materials.
|
|
Statutory immunity for carriers was also seen by almost all
|
|
participants as highly desirable and worth pursuing. Developing a
|
|
legislative strategy may also highlight how these issues in the K-12
|
|
setting are linked to and can be addressed in partnership with other
|
|
issues and other sectors of the communications field.
|
|
It was also noted that all those interested in K-12 networking
|
|
need to educate the new Administration as it considers "information
|
|
highways," a new Federal Communications Commission, the
|
|
implementation of the NREN, and other programs. According to this
|
|
approach, a critical first step is to educate as many new players as
|
|
possible, including Congressional staff and the new administration,
|
|
that addressing these liability issues is part of the package of
|
|
building the networks of tomorrow.
|
|
Conclusion
|
|
By the end of the session, most participants agreed that there are
|
|
no easy answers to the issues raised.
|
|
Yet participants also agreed that if the community of interested
|
|
educators, carriers, and public interest groups could establish
|
|
workable models and promote a positive agenda with lawmakers,
|
|
instead of waiting for problems to arise, the resulting legislative and
|
|
regulatory framework would be far more likely to cultivate
|
|
educational access, as well as to provide a model for broadband
|
|
policy as a whole.
|
|
The value of the Internet as an educational resource is clear. As
|
|
one educator pointed out, our schools lose both students and teachers
|
|
because of inadequate access to resources; the Internet can enrich
|
|
the resources available to both teachers and students and is not
|
|
something that only universities should enjoy. The challenge is to
|
|
articulate a policy framework that can enable that potential to be
|
|
realized and then to work to see that framework constructed.
|
|
|
|
=============================================================
|
|
|
|
EFFector Online is published by
|
|
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
|
|
666 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20003
|
|
Phone: +1 202 544-9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
|
|
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
|
|
Coordination, production and shipping by Cliff Figallo, EFF
|
|
Online Communications Coordinator (fig@eff.org)
|
|
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
|
|
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
|
|
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
|
|
for their express permission.
|
|
|
|
*This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons*
|
|
=============================================================
|
|
|
|
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
|
|
|
|
In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our
|
|
efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we
|
|
need the financial support of individuals and organizations.
|
|
|
|
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
|
|
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
|
|
newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that
|
|
can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other
|
|
notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should
|
|
be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect
|
|
to become a member.
|
|
|
|
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
|
|
|
|
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year
|
|
for regular members, and $100.00 per year for organizations. You
|
|
may, of course, donate more if you wish.
|
|
|
|
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never,
|
|
under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We
|
|
will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit
|
|
organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals.
|
|
But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you
|
|
must actively grant us permission to share your name with other
|
|
groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you
|
|
do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason.
|
|
|
|
=============================================================
|
|
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
|
|
238 Main St.
|
|
Cambridge, MA 02142
|
|
|
|
I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
|
|
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
|
|
$40.00 (regular membership)
|
|
|
|
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
|
|
|
Organization:
|
|
|
|
Address:
|
|
|
|
City or Town:
|
|
|
|
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
|
|
|
|
FAX: ( ) (optional)
|
|
|
|
Email address:
|
|
|
|
I enclose a check [ ].
|
|
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
|
|
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
|
|
|
|
Number:
|
|
|
|
Expiration date:
|
|
|
|
Signature: ________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
|
|
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
|
|
appropriate [ ].
|
|
Initials:___________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
|