Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 15, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 18 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #10.18 (Sun, Mar 15, 1998) File 1--Filtering software poses legal pitfalls. File 2--USACM Letter on HR 2652, the "Collections of Information File 3--How Fast Is The Internet Going Right This Second? File 4--Policy Post 4.4: CONGRESS PREPARES TO TAKE UP CRYPTO AGAIN File 5--EFFector 11.02: ACTION ALERT: Database Copyright Bill v. Fair Use File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 20:52:18 -0500 From: "David J. Loundy" Subject: File 1--Filtering software poses legal pitfalls. Published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, March 12, 1998 at page 5. --------------------------------------------------------------- Filtering software poses legal pitfalls. Copyright 1998 by David Loundy Archived at http://www.Loundy.com/CDLB/ To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to Loundy-request@netural.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- A decision is expected shortly in a case brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of Virginia, Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Public Library, No. CA-97-2049-A, which is being watched carefully by libraries, legislatures, civil rights activists and the anti-pornography crowd. The suit concerns the use of "filtering software" (often referred to as "blocking software" or simply as "censorware"). Filtering software is designed to screen Internet material for "inappropriate" content. Such software packages have been widely adopted, especially in light of their endorsement by President Clinton at a White House Summit following the U.S. Supreme Court's mention of the software as perhaps being a preferable alternative to legislation such as the ill-fated Communications Decency Act. Various states have also jumped on the bandwagon by proposing legislation that would require the installation of such software or other means of content restriction in schools and public libraries. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has also introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate (S1619 IS, available on the Internet at ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c150/s1619.is.txt), which would deny certain funds to schools and libraries that fail to implement a filtering or blocking system for Internet-connected computers. There are a few problems with these legislative attempts and other voluntary efforts to install such software: the software packages do not work as well as most people think they do, and they also erroneously block Constitutionally protected material. To understand the legal pitfalls associated with filtering software, it is necessary to look at the technology and how it operates. Filtering software works by employing a variety of schemes. Two common blocking schemes used in filtering software either screen, based on the presence of key words, or block certain addresses. Some filtering software packages will search for words present in Internet material which match a list of prohibited terms. If a prohibited term is present, the material is blocked from viewers. Other filtering software may block material based on its URL (Uniform Resource Locator-- a standardized way of describing an Internet address, be it a web page, a usenet news post, an e-mail address, or an FTP file archive). Blocked URLs are usually included on a list that comes with the software after the manufacturer examines the material and classifies it as objectionable to a particular audience. Thus, users are offered options to filter particular types of material they wish to avoid, such as material which contains sexual content, violence, profanity, etc. Users must obtain updated lists to account for new sites that are found or addresses that have changed after the software was purchased. Unfortunately, both of these filtering schemes are flawed. First of all, key word blocking will not block images. Second, if a key word filter blocks key words appearing in an address, such as in a domain name, all of the content appearing at that domain will be blocked, regardless of what material is actually housed at that domain. Third, key words can be circumvented. For instance, if a filter blocks the word "breast" it might not block "bre_ast." And fourth, if the list of blocked key words is expanded too greatly, then inoffensive content may also be blocked, as occurred in the famous incident where part of the White House web site was blocked by a filtering package because the software blocked occurrences of the word "couple"-- which was used to describe Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Filtering software which blocks based on the material's address may allow for more precision in theory, but it also suffers some drawbacks in practice. To block based on a URL requires that all URLs be checked and classified. This is generally a subjective endeavor allowing for inaccuracies in classification and, thus, filtering. Blocking by URL is fundamentally an impossible proposition. The Internet is growing too quickly for a small software company to keep up with the volumes of new material. It is not economically feasible for a software company to hire sufficient numbers of people to rate every web site and usenet news group, much less stay abreast of changing content. As a result, some filtering software may block an entire domain or portion thereof as a short-cut. If the domain belongs to an Internet service provider, then access to all of the service provider's clients' web sites may be blocked because of the rating assigned to one or two of the service provider's users. In addition, some content may be available through a database which spontaneously generates web pages, and therefore has no stable address to block. Any legislation that requires that all inappropriate material be blocked cannot be complied with using existing technology. All of the existing filtering technology may be considerably over-inclusive in its restrictions, a state of affairs that is not likely to survive last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reno v. ACLU, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997). Additionally, the Constitutional tests for obscenity and indecency both include a "community standards" element. Any statute that requires that access be blocked to "obscene," "indecent," or "illegal" material requires evaluation based on local community standards. Some filtering package promoters make the claim that their software blocks only illegal material. This is a nonsensical claim. Either the software must employ the judgment of the software company as to what material is inappropriate, or each individual community must rate the entire Internet (as the McCain bill would require of each school board or library). These issues are being squarely debated in the Mainstream Loudoun case. In this case, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema (who, at the end of February, struck down as unconstitutional a Virginia statute which sought to restrict State employees' access to sexually explicit material using state-owned computers) is faced with the issue of whether the Loudoun public library is violating the First Amendment by requiring the use of filtering software on library computers. A citizens' group and a few assorted plaintiffs are suing the Loudoun Library Board, claiming that the "X-Stop" filtering software installed on library computers is infringing their Constitutional rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the library policy "is a harsh and censorial solution in search of a problem." It restricts all users to content suited to the most sensitive users, and threatens criminal penalties to any who try and circumvent the block. None of the libraries in the County system had complained that there was a problem with inappropriate material, and the library board was presented with data "that less than two-tenths of one percent of the information available on the Internet is even arguably 'pornographic'" before it imposed what some consider to be the nation's most restrictive access policy. In addition, the plaintiff's have argued that the policy requires the software to perform, in essence, a legal test to determine what material is inappropriate. Furthermore, enforcement of the library policy requires that Internet terminals be placed in full view, thus increasing, rather than reducing, the chance that library patrons will be exposed to material they find offensive. This public placement of terminals may also have a chilling effect by dissuading patrons from looking even at unfiltered content which they do not want to share with any library patron who may be in the area. The plaintiffs also argued that the legislation is overbroad and that the filtering software removes the ability of a parent to determine what his or her children (or self) should be allowed to see. Perhaps the plaintiffs' best argument against the legislation is that the filtering software would block material on the Internet that is available to library patrons by simply picking up the same material from the library's shelves. (An argument not likely to be as effective is that the policy requiring blocking software violates the library's own "Freedom for Ideas-- Freedom From Censorship" policy (as well as the American Library Association's principals of freedom and its explicit resolution condemning the imposition of filtering software).) The defendants' arguments are also interesting, but unpersuasive. The defendants argue that the legislation is based on a policy restricting the library's obtaining of objectionable material at a library patron's request. However, the library board has argued that calling up material from a remotely located machine on an Internet-connected computer is analogous to using the library facilities to request an interlibrary loan of the material. The defendants have stated that as far as they know "no court has ever held that libraries are required by the First Amendment to fulfill a patron's request to obtain a pornographic film-- or any other information-- through an interlibrary loan." Furthermore, they argue that there is Supreme Court precedent in a sharply divided case (Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)) that intimates that school boards should have the freedom to decide what materials to house in their libraries. The interlibrary loan argument is unpersuasive because the Internet connection and its benefits are already present in the library, and the library staff is not needed to arrange for the transfer of any content available to an Internet-connected library computer. The software which restricts access to certain material, on the other hand, is brought into the library by its staff in order to remove access to material which would otherwise be freely available to library patrons but for the blocking software. A better analogy would be for the librarians to tell patrons that they may read any books in the library, except the ones the librarians grab out of the patron's hands if they try to take the restricted books off the shelf. I predict that some of the legislation requiring blocking of Internet content will pass. I also predict the library patrons will win (as, hopefully, will the plaintiffs who challenge any passed filtering legislation). The stakes in this debate are high. At issue here are small battles in schools and libraries. However, there are two issues more important than whether the Loudoun County libraries allow uncensored Internet access. First, there are whole countries that use "proxy servers" that function as national filtering software. Some proposed filtering-enabling schemes, such as PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection), constitute what some believe to be the ultimate tool for government censorship by building a mechanism for censorship into the Internet's infrastructure. While countries are entitled to their own Internet content laws, the mainstreaming of such tools should proceed only with care and consideration as to the potential effects. The second issue, to return to the beginning, is that these filtering tools do not work as most people believe them to work. People need to understand what they may be missing, and to what they may still be subjected. Filtering software is not the Holy Grail, at best, it is the Holy Colander. http://www.Loundy.com/CDLB/1998-Censorware.html ______________________________________________________________________ David J. Loundy | E-Mail: David@Loundy.com | WWW: http://www.Loundy.com/ Davis, Mannix & McGrath | Listserv (for my Technology 125 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1700 | Law column): Send a message Chicago, IL 60606-4402 | reading "subscribe" to Phone: (312) 332-0954 | Loundy-request@netural.com ______________________________________________________________ Opinions are mine, not my employer's, & are subject to change without notice. You are not now my client, this is not meant as legal advice. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 06:55:33 -0500 From: ACM US Public Policy Office Subject: File 2--USACM Letter on HR 2652, the "Collections of Information March 5, 1998 Representative Howard Coble Chairman House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property 2239 Rayburn House Office Building United States House of Reprsentatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Coble, We are writing to express our concern about H.R. 2652, the "Collections of Information Antipiracy Act." The Association for Computing (ACM) recognizes the need to protect investments made in large data collections. However, the proposed legislation fails to recognize the legitimate needs of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of data. Therefore, we believe that the legislation, as currently drafted, is generally not in the interests of the computing profession or of the general public. The ACM is the largest, international professional association of computer scientists with 60,000 members in the United States. We have a particular interest in the development of intellectual property policies that serve a broad mission. We believe that such policies should ensure the continued vibrancy of not-for-profit publishers, students, researchers, and the general public, even as they seek to protect commercial investments. Sensible legislative proposals should promote the "Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" by allowing exemptions for public-good uses in libraries, universities, and laboratories. They should not establish perpetual protection for data while eliminating the "fair use" upon which the research community is heavily dependent. ACM has developed considerable expertise in the copyright issues associated with the creation of electronic databases. The ACM publishes many journals, some of which include research results derived from data collection. Additionally, ACM has an on-line searchable database. Under the proposed legislation, the extraction of a substantial unauthorized "use in commerce" of the data compilations will be prohibited if it would "harm" the original compiler's market. Thus, the owner of the data compilation will have the authority to determine which users may access the data if more than a "substantial" amount of data from the compilation is requested. This limitation on the use of data is contrary to the traditional scientific research model. In the U.S., data collections are routinely reused and revised in the course of scientific and academic research without royalties being exchanged. The bill also includes an overly broad definition of what constitutes "information" and no definition of "substantiality." This, too, could have a chilling effect on academic research and publication. The fair use provisions in H.R. 2652 fall far short of the exemptions necessary to permit researchers to verify others' results, educators to demonstrate models in classrooms, scientists to make use of government databases, and other traditionally protected uses. Such "full and open" use of data is indispensable to effective and accurate research. The fair use provisions allow only extractions which do "not harm the actual or potential market for the product." "Full and open" is defined in the scientific community as data and information derived from publicly funded research which is made available with as few restrictions as possible, on a nondiscriminatory basis, for no more than the cost of reproduction and dissemination. The inadequate fair use provisions in H.R. 2652 do not meet this definition. Furthermore, this also impacts citizens, who currently have the right to full and open access to data from databases created by their government and by organizations funded by the government, no matter if someone else has also published the data. H.R. 2652 would create proprietary rights in compilations of scientific information which are now in the public domain; thus, unauthorized extraction or use of this information, of the kind which scientists are accustomed to make today, would appear to harm the market for the compilation as a matter of definition. For example, all the names and numbers registered with NSF's contractors (Network Solutions and ISI) pertaining to the Internet are freely accessible. The public can access such data for any legal reasons, including operating Internet routers and directory services. The extraction of data from this compilation could be limited by H.R. 2652. Naturally, this principle extends to all sorts of financial and other data which major publishers resell. We recognize it is important to protect investments made in data collection. However, we do not believe it has been demonstrated that further legislation is necessary. The "Collections of Information Antipiracy Act" is overly broad in its application of the misappropriation doctrine and will affect both the computing community and scientific research generally. We believe that there are alternative technical approaches that may better serve the interests of users of new digital technologies. We would be very pleased to work with you on a study of these issues. We would look forward to working with you on this effort. If you have any questions, please contact Lauren Gelman at 202/544-4859. Sincerely yours, Dr. Barbara Simons Chair, U.S. Public Policy Committee The Association For Computing Machinery cc: House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee Rep. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives Rep. Richard Armey, Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives Rep. Richard Gephardt, Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman House Science Committee Rep. George Brown, Ranking Member, House Science Committee Rep. Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman, House Science Committee Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Judiciary Committee /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Association for Computing, + http://www.acm.org/usacm/ Office of U.S. Public Policy * +1 202 544 4859 (tel) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 302 B * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) Washington, DC 20003 USA + gelman@acm.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:35:56 -0500 (EST) From: mds@MDS.PRWIRE.COM Subject: File 3--How Fast Is The Internet Going Right This Second? How Fast Is The Internet Going Right This Second? ACTON, Mass., March 9 /PRNewswire/ -- The Internet Traffic Report (at www.internettrafficreport.com) can tell you. The site gives an independent, real-time measure of how well "traffic" is moving on the Internet highway -- city by city, country by country, and for the Internet as a whole. Checking the site can tell you if it's a good time to do a big download or search, and historical performance graphs show when traffic is usually down. The site can also be used to determine if it's your ISP that's performing badly, or if the whole Internet is bogged down. Some people even like to check the site just to confirm particularly hideous Internet performance. The Traffic Report collects data on package loss and response time each hour from routers around the world, mapping them into global and local performance indices. The site also includes graphs of Internet speed over the past 24 hours and the previous week. The site could be of use to your readers, but I also thought it might be of use to you as a source of independent data for stories about Internet performance. We're in the process of compiling a list of reporters and editors who'd like to be notified by email each time the Internet's performance spikes or plunges. We'll only contact you in the case of the most extreme performance variations, and will include some analysis or explanation, when possible. The Internet Traffic Report is part of Andover.net, a network for technology-oriented consumers, which provides everything from technology news to the world's largest collection of free software sites. If you'd like to be put on our notification list, or would like more information on the site, please feel free to contact me at 978-635-5300 or sarahlawson@mediaone.net. SOURCE Andover.net -0- 03/09/98 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:55:21 -0500 From: Graeme Browning Subject: File 4--Policy Post 4.4: CONGRESS PREPARES TO TAKE UP CRYPTO AGAIN Source: CDT POLICY POST Volume 4, Number 4 March 6, 1998 _____________________________________________________________________________ CONGRESS PREPARES TO TAKE UP CRYPTO AGAIN Congress is back in session and the ongoing debate on encryption controls has moved front and center. This spring Congress will be considering diametrically opposed approaches to the regulation of encryption, including an FBI proposal that would, for the first time, control the type of encryption programs Americans may use within their own borders. The most recent developments are outlined below. (1) Sens. McCain and Kerrey propose revised crypto bill Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Robert Kerrey (D-NE) have a new version of their Secure Public Networks Act, S.909. The revised draft includes several changes in response to industry and privacy concerns. Despite these changes, CDT remains opposed to S. 909 for one fundamental reason: the revised draft still seeks, through a series of incentives (export controls, government procurement and liability safe-harbors), to require encryption users to surrender control over their keys on the government's terms. Major changes in the revised McCain-Kerrey bill include: * it heightens the legal standards for access to escrowed keys; * it removes the linkage between key recovery and the regulation of certificate authorities; and * it refines export control requirements, lifting export limits to 56 bits for non-key recovery products. See http://www.senate.gov/~kerrey/inits/encrypt/ Overall, the new bill still threatens electronic privacy and security through the coercion of the marketplace towards adoption of a government key recovery standard, with all the risks that entails. Any legislation that includes government-dictated standards for key recovery is not a compromise. It entails too many risks and is fundamentally inconsistent with the user-controlled nature of the new electronic technologies. CDT also opposes the revised bill because its privacy standards fall short; it criminalizes a wide range of uses of encryption; and it effectively retains current export controls on encryption. CDT believes S.909 is at best a codification of a bad status-quo. In a press release, the Senators said they intend to move the bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote in May. See http://www.senate.gov/~mccain/encryp.htm . (2) Broad new coalition formed to fight crypto controls Americans for Computer Privacy (ACP), a broad new coalition opposed to encryption controls, held its introductory press conference Wednesday, March 4. See http://www.computerprivacy.org . ACP opposes domestic restrictions on the use of encryption and supports lifting export controls to permit the sale of strong U.S. encryption in the global market. Members include not only key components of the computer industry and communications industry but also such diverse groups as Americans for Tax Reform, the National Rifle Association, and the Automobile Manufacturers Association, as well as CDT. CDT will work with ACP to explain to the public the dangers of encryption controls; the vehicle for this public-education effort will be an expansion of our successful 'Adopt Your Legislator' campaign. The campaign, which now has 16,000 members across all 435 congressional districts, was a powerful voice against domestic controls in the last session of Congress. 'Adopt Your Legislator' helps individual Internet users keep track online of the positions their Members of Congress take on encryption policy. Through electronic alerts, it updates supporters on the latest news about the legislative fight. If you haven't joined the campaign, see: http://www.crypto.com/adopt/ (3) Senate crypto hearings planned Sen John Ashcroft (R-MO), chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, is planning to hold a hearing on encryption on March 17. Sen. Ashcroft is a staunch opponent of domestic controls and an advocate of export relief. Witnesses invited to testify include: Rep. Goodlatte, author of the House SAFE (Security and Freedom through Encryption) bill; a representative of the Department of Justice; industry representatives; Cindy Cohn, lead attorney in the Bernstein encryption case; and law professors who will testify on the constitutionality of encryption controls. (4) Critical infrastructures On the same day as the Ashcroft hearing, another Senate subcommittee will hold a hearing to 'review policy directives for protecting America's critical infrastructures.' This issue has been the vehicle for some disturbing proposals regarding the Internet. In November 1997, the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection issued its report. See http://www.pccip.gov One little-noticed provision (below) recommended the establishment of an 'Early Warning and Response capability' to protect telecommunications networks against cyber-attack: 'Conceptually, a successful cyber-attack warning and response system would include: 1) A means for near real-time monitoring of the telecommunications infrastructure. 2) The ability to recognize, collect, and profile system anomalies associated with attacks. 3) The capability to trace, re-route, and isolate electronic signals that are determined to be associated with an attack.' The concept reappeared in December when the Justice and Interior ministers of the G8, which includes the world's eight most industrialized nations, agreed that 'To the extent practicable, information and telecommunications systems should be designed to help prevent and detect network abuse, and should also facilitate the tracing of criminals and the collection of evidence.' Witnesses invited to testify at this March 17 hearing include: a lead witness fronm the National Security Council; FBI Director Freeh, who will testify about the Infrastructure Protection Center, the FBI's new cyber-attack-monitoring center; and former Sen. Sam Nunn and former deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, co-chairs of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Committee. CDT remains concerned that this new initiative will form the basis for a sweeping plan to build new surveillance capabilities into the information infrastructure. ______________________________________________________________________________ (5) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by more than 13,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to majordomo@cdt.org in the BODY of the message (leave the SUBJECT LINE BLANK), type subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with NOTHING IN THE SUBJECT LINE AND a BODY TEXT of: unsubscribe policy-posts World Wide Web: http://www.cdt.org/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:11:10 -0800 (PST) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 5--EFFector 11.02: ACTION ALERT: Database Copyright Bill v. Fair Use EFFector Vol. 11, No. 2 Mar. 17, 1998 editor@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 See http://www.eff.org for more information on EFF activities & alerts! _________________________________________________________________ The Electronic Frontier Foundation March 17, 1998 IMMEDIATE ACTION ALERT, MARCH 18 DEADLINE: CONTACT KEY REPRESENTATIVES ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO OPPOSE DATABASE BILL Please distribute widely to appropriate forums, no later than April 1, 1998. SUMMARY: * Latest News: House "Collections of Information Antipiracy" bill would create a new property right in databases and make criminal many uses of information without express permission from the database supplier. * What You Can Do Now: Follow the directions below and call Rep. Howard Coble and members of House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. Ask them to oppose expansion of rights to database holders without clear proof that additional protections are needed and without explicit explanation of how fair use will be protected. Explain that no new legislation is needed. _________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS On March 18, 1998, the House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property will mark up H.R. 2652, the "Collections of Information Antipiracy Act." Introduced by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), H.R. 2652 expands the rights of database collectors and authorizes enormous civil and criminal penalties (up to $250,000 and/or 5 years in prison for a first offense; $500,000 and/or 10 years in prison for subsequent convictions) against anyone who uses data collected in a database without the express consent of the person who maintains that database. The Act, backed by major database maintainers such as Microsoft and West Publishing, is designed to create a new crime against those who extract or commercially use a "substantial part" of a collection of information gathered, organized or maintained by another person "through a substantial investment of money or other resources" so as to harm the data collectors "actual or potential" market for a product or service that incorporates that collection of information. The main problem with the bill is that key terms are either not defined or are poorly defined, leaving huge loopholes that render literally all data vulnerable under the Act. For example, even though the bill is titled the "Collections of Information Antipiracy Act," the term "collection" is not defined. "Substantial part" is not defined. And "information" is defined as "facts, data, works of authorship, or any other intangible material capable of being collected and organized in a systematic way," an extremely broad definition that could include just about anything! Unfortunately, while Congress has feeling a lot of pressure from the database maintainers to pass this legislation, they have not been hearing from those of us opposed to the bill. YOUR immediate action is needed to stop it from passing out of the Subcommittee. _________________________________________________________________ IMMEDIATE ACTION TO TAKE Free speech supporters, *especially supporters from states represented on the House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property*, are asked to IMMEDIATELY contact these key Representatives and ask them to "kill" the database bill, H.R. 2652, at the House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property markup meeting this Wednesday, March 18, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. (ET). We ask you to take JUST TWO MINUTES or so per call to contact the offices of Rep. Coble (Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property) and the rest of the Subcommittee and express your opposition to this legislation! Urge the Representatives to refrain from giving protections to database producers who already see hefty profits and need no additional sheltering of their wares. Feel free to make use of the sample fax and phone "script" below. HOUSE JUDICITARY COMMITTEE'S SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPRETY ST PTY REPRESENTATIVE PHONE FAX DIST ---------------------------------------- (Use 202 area code)--- NC 6 R Coble, Howard (chair) 225-3065 225-8611 CA 26 D Berman, Howard 225-4695 225-5279 VA 9 D Boucher, Rick 225-8361 225-0442 FL 12 R Canady, Charles 225-1252 225-2279 UT 3 D Cannon, Chris 225-7751 225-5629 MI 14 D Conyers, John 225-5126 225-0072 MA 10 D Delahunt, William 225-3411 226-0771 MA 4 D Frank, Barney 225-5931 225-0182 CA 23 R Gallegly, Elton 225-5811 225-1100 VA 6 R Goodlatte, Robert 225-5431 225-9681 CA 6 D Lofgren, Zoe 225-3072 225-3336 FL 8 R McCollum, William 225-2176 225-0999 IN 7 D Pease, Edward 225-5805 225-1649 CA 27 R Rogan, James 225-4176 225-5828 WI 9 R Sensenbrenner, F.J. 225-5101 225-3190 _________________________________________________________________ SAMPLE PHONE "SCRIPT" & SAMPLE FAX If you would like to both call, and send a fax, this extra action would certainly help. For best results, try to put this in your own (short!) words, and be emotive without being hostile. IF YOU ARE A CONSTITUENT (i.e., you live in the same district as the Rep. you are contacting) make sure to say so. For example "I am a constituent, and I'm calling/writing because...." IF YOU REPRESENT A COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION, say so: "I'm Jane Person from Personal Technologies Inc. of Austin. I'm calling on behalf of Personal Technologies to ask the Representative to...." Business interests carry a lot of weight with many legislators, especially if they are in the legislator's home district. Legislators also generally heed organizational voices over individiual ones. PHONE "SCRIPT" You: [ring ring] Legislative staffer: Hello, Representative Lastname's office. You: I'm calling to urge Representative Lastname to REJECT the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, H.R. 2652. This bill is missing key definitions and creates new property rights in databases and the raw information contained in them. These new rights threaten the free flow of information, freedom of speech and press, and fair use rights. The database industry has not proven any need for this legislation. The bill is not responsive to WIPO treaty language, provides for excessive and injust penalties, and does not provide clear guidance on how fair use would be protected. There is no need for this legislation, and I urge Representative Lastname to REJECT H.R. 2652. Thank you. Staffer: OK, thanks. [click] It's that easy. You can optionally ask to speak to the legislator's technology & intellectual property staffer. You probably won't get to, but the message may have more weight if you succeed. The staffer who first answers the phone probably won't be the tech/i.p. staffer. SAMPLE FAX Relevant Congressional fax numbers are in the contact list above. Please, if you have the time, write your own 1-3 paragraph letter in your own words, rather than send a copy of this sample letter. (However, sending a copy of the sample letter is far better than taking no action!) Dear Rep. Lastname: I'm writing to urge you to reject additional intellectual property protections for database maintainers as contained in H.R. 2652, the "Collections of Information Antipiracy Act." This bill, while being touted as as a piece of antipiracy legislation, actually makes most uses of pure information contained in a database illegal without prior permission from the database maintainer. The Act does not create useful exceptions for the fair use of information, and key definitions of crucial terms, such as "collection" and "substantial part" are missing. Furthermore the penalties called for - up to $500,000 and 10 years in prison - are excessive and injust. The database industry is booming and is quite lucrative for companies collecting and disseminating information. At present, the law requires database collectors to add some originality to the information collected before the collectors receive a legally recognized property right in the database. H.R. 2652 would change this, giving collectors property rights in raw information that has traditionally been in the public domain. This assault on the public's fair use rights and the free flow of information will have dire consequences for free speech and press, and scientific and legal research. Additionally, the bill is simply not responsive in any way to the requirements of recent WIPO treaties. WIPO rejected such a "database giveaway". The database industry has not demonstrated a clear need for this legislation, and the public interest is harmed by giving these companies additional rights to control plain facts and information. H.R. 2652 represents an attempt by some information collection owners to fortify their markets through manipulating the legal system (instead of through fair competition and the addition of value) by raising fears of electronic piracy of information over the Internet and through new information technologies. Congress should wait until specific and definable market failures become apparent before acting to correct them in as broad and vague a way as that attempted in H.R. 2652. Sincerely, My Name Here My Address Here (Address is especially important if you want your letter to be taken as a letter from an actual constituent.) For brief tips on writing letters to Congress, see: http://www.vote-smart.org/contact/contact.html The most important tip is to BE POLITE AND BRIEF. Swearing will NOT help. _________________________________________________________________ MORE ACTION TO TAKE After calling/faxing members of the House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, please contact your own Representatives and urge them to oppose H.R. 2652, the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. Do this even after the March 18 deadline for the main action. If you have time, please also contact House leaders and ask them to oppose any such legislation. (See contact list below) You may also wish to follow up your calls and faxes with e-mail. If you are unsure who your legislators are or how to contact them, see the EFF Congress Contact Factsheet at: http://www.eff.org/congress.html For more information about the Collection of Information Antipiracy Act and why it should be opposed, see the Digital Future Coaltion web page at: http://www.dfc.org/ HOUSE LEADERSHIP ST PTY REPRESENTATIVE PHONE FAX DIST ---------------------------------------- (Use 202 area code)--- GA 6 R Gingrich, Newt 225-4501 225-4656 TX 26 R Armey, Richard 225-7772 226-8100 MO 3 D Gephardt, Richard 225-2671 225-7452 TX 22 R DeLay, Tom 225-5951 225-5241 MI 10 D Bonior, David 225-2106 226-1169 OH 8 R Boehner, John 225-6205 225-0704 CA 47 R Cox, Christopher 225-5611 225-9177 CA 3 D Fazio, Vic 225-5716 225-5141 MD 5 D Hoyer, Steny 225-4131 225-4300 _________________________________________________________________ House leaders are, respectively: Speaker, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Maj. Whip, Min. Whip, Republican Conference Chair, Rep. Policy Committee Chair, Democratic Caucus Chair, Dem. Steering Cmte. Chair. [end of alert] _____________________________________________________________________ ADMINISTRIVIA EFFector is published by: The Electronic Frontier Foundation 1550 Bryant St., Suite 725 San Francisco CA 94103 USA +1 415 436 9333 (voice) +1 415 436 9993 (fax) Editor: Stanton McCandlish, Program Director/Webmaster (mech@eff.org) Membership & donations: membership@eff.org Legal services: ssteele@eff.org General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@eff.org Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements may be reproduced individually at will. To subscribe to EFFector via email, send message body of: subscribe effector-online to listserv@eff.org, which will add you to a subscription list for EFFector. To unsubscribe, send a similar message body, like so: unsubscribe effector-online Please tell ask@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if this does not work for some reason. Back issues are available at: http://www.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: http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/current.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #10.18 ************************************