Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 15, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 18

Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 15, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 18
ISSN 1004-042X

Editor: Jim Thomas ([email protected])
News Editor: Gordon Meyer ([email protected])
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" <[email protected]>
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 [email protected]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

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: [email protected]
| 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 | [email protected]
______________________________________________________________
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 <[email protected]>
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 + [email protected]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:35:56 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected]
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
[email protected].

SOURCE Andover.net
-0- 03/09/98

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:55:21 -0500
From: Graeme Browning <[email protected]>
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

[email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--EFFector 11.02: ACTION ALERT: Database Copyright Bill v. Fair Use

EFFector Vol. 11, No. 2 Mar. 17, 1998 [email protected]
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 ([email protected])

Membership & donations: [email protected]
Legal services: [email protected]
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: [email protected]

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 [email protected], which will add you to a subscription list for
EFFector. To unsubscribe, send a similar message body, like so:
unsubscribe effector-online

Please tell [email protected] 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
[email protected] (or [email protected]), 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 <[email protected]>
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: [email protected]

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 [email protected]
(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
************************************