Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD2.iso/cud3/cud308d.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 11.9 KB | 234 lines

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

From:  EFF (excerpts from EFF NEWS #3)
Subject: What the EFF's Been Doing!
Date: March 11, 1991

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.08: File 4 of 6: What the EFF's Been Doing           ***
********************************************************************

{Moderator's Note: We have received, and seen on the nets, a number of
inquiries wondering about what the EFF has been doing. Some of these
inquiries have been critical, suggesting the EFF hasn't been doing anything
except seeking publicity. This seems unfair, because it puts them in a
catch-22 situation: If they don't publicize their activities, they are
accused of doing nothing; If they do publicize their activities, they are
accused of grand-standing.  In a recent post on comp.org.eff.talk, Mike
Godwin indicated that the reason EFF does not publicize their activities
more fully is tactical: Why let the opposition know what the defense is
planning? When General Schwartzkopf used this strategy in planning the
campaign in Iraq, he was a hero. We suggest that EFF is every bit as
heroic, because they, too, are protecting the Constitution and "American
Way," but in a longer, slower, and much less glamorous campaign.

In the latest EFF News (#3), Mike and Mitch outlined what the EFF has been
up to, and for those who haven't seen it, the following should be
sufficient evidence that those legal eagles are busy little beavers (even
if they do hate mixed metaphors).--J&G}.

*** CASE UPDATES, by Mike Godwin***

Len Rose

EFF's support and Mitch's independent funding of Len's defense have led to
good results. Our efforts have limited the extent to which Len is being
made an example of, and the extent to which he can be used as justification
for increased law-enforcement activity in this area.  Had we not intervened
in Len's support, it seems likely not only that he would have faced far
harsher penalties after a plea bargain or trial, but also that bad law
would have been made by his federal and state cases.

Acid, Optik, and Scorpion

"Acid Phreak" and "The Scorpion" received preindictment letters from
federal prosecutors in New York, while "Phiber Optik" was indicted by a
state grand jury. Phiber's case has been resolved; he pled guilty to a
misdemeanor count, and at this writing his sentence is expected to be
limited to community service when he is sentenced on April 4.

EFF has chosen not to become involved in these cases at this early stage,
primarily because it is unclear whether the cases will raise important
Constitutional or civil-liberties issues, but we are tracking them closely.

Washington v. Riley

Although we initially favored involvement in this case, EFF's legal
committee later decided that prudent management of our financial and legal
resources dictated that we withhold our formal involvement here. This case
raises important issues, but control of our costs and management of our
time has forced us to make some hard decisions about investing in new
cases, and in this light we determined that this case would not represent
the best investment of our limited resources.

We have remained in touch with Riley's attorney, however, and we have
offered to act informally as a legal and technical resource for her to the
extent it does not detract from our work on other projects; she has
accepted our offer.

Other

Other important legal matters are currently receiving considerable
attention.  Because these are of a sensitive nature, we will not be able to
disclose details until some time in the future.  Please bear with us.

*** LEGAL CASE MANAGEMENT, by Mitch Kapor ***

On February 6,  Harvey Silverglate, Sharon Beckman, Tom Viles, and Gia
Baresi (all of Silverglate and Good), Mike Godwin, and I all had dinner
together at Harvey's house.    We reached a number of important conclusions
about improving the effectiveness and reducing the cost of the legal
programs of the foundation.

S&G want are willing to allocate additional people to the EFF account in
order to have some extra capacity to handle peak loads.  Tom Viles will be
working with us.  He's very ACLU-knowledgeable.  He is serving on a
national ACLU committee which has just recommended that the ACLU take a
position on national info infrastructure.

S&G sees EFF as being its ongoing client, as opposed to their usual mode of
operation which is to represent an individual or organization for a
particular case.  In essence,  S&G is becoming the EFF's outside litigation
counsel.  With both parties located in Boston, it will make coordination
more convenient and less expensive.  They have also agreed to work at a
very large discount from their usual client fee schedule.

We discussed streamlining the legal review process.  Everyone felt that
it's wasteful and inefficient to have several lawyers looking into each
possible new case and to have conference calls for making decisions.  Mike
and Sharon are going to prepare a joint plan on how we will manage the
legal process efficiently.  Now that there are fewer parties involved and
that all of the lawyers are in town, it should be simpler.

*** LEGAL AND POLICY PROJECTS, by Mitch Kapor ***

Sysop liability

We are engaged in an internal discussion about the limits of sysop
liability. We hope to build a consensus on what the law should be in this
area in order to provide a philosophical framework for whatever action we
choose to take in current and future BBS seizure cases.

Massachusetts Computer Crime Bill

We are once again working with the Mass. Computer Software Council in an
effort to pass a progressive computer crime bill which protects civil
liberties as well as security interests.  Two different bills have been
filed: one is our bill, while the other has serious problems of
overbreadth.  Sharon, Mike, and I are all working on this.  Sharon has
prepared testimony which will be used in public hearings nest week.  There
will be a series of briefings for legislators and other other parties as
well.

Guidelines for Computer Search and Seizure

Previously Terry Gross and Nick Poser of Rabinowitz, Boudin had developed a
series of guidelines for the conduct of computer-based searches for an ABA
sub-committee working on this issue.  Subsequently, Mike Godwin revised
those for a paper and presentation to be given at the Computer Virus
conference upcoming shortly.  At the recent CPSR Policy Roundtable, it
became apparent that we needed to take more of top-down approach in order
to gain adoption and implementation of these guidelines by federal and
state law enforcement agencies.

We are now in the process of structuring an important project, to be led by
Mike, which will target the FBI and other key agencies for a series of
events to formally develop and present our finding and recommendations.
Jerry Berman of the ACLU has offered to assist us in navigating our way
through the bureaucratic maze in Washington.

Computer Bulletin Boards, Computer Networks, and the Law

In addition to the computer crime bill work and development of search
guidelines, the third major legal project is to develop a position on the
legal issues surrounding computer bulletin boards.  There has already been
a great deal of discussion about this issue on the net on the Well's EFF
conference.  There have been a small number of law papers published on the
subject as well.  Nothing to date though has offered a comprehensive
proposal as to how to  place  BBSes and network carriers in the same legal
framework as print publications, common carriers, and broadcasters.

This project, which will involve a collective effort of all EFF principals,
and which is being driven by Mike, will seek to identify both the
fundamental common aspects  and  differentiating attributes  of digital
computer media as compared with their predecessors.  This will be done in
order to propose basic approaches to issues of government censorship,
rights and restrictions  of private network carriers and system operators
to control content ("private" censorship) and liabilities of system
operators and users for activities and communication using network
facilities.

This is an ambitious undertaking, which will commence with a formal issues
development process, the deliverable of which will initially take some
written form such as a published paper or position statement.  We will
attempt to incorporate input from many groups in this process in order to
develop a consensus.

As a starting point, I offer the notion that a computer bulletin board
ought to be treated as a legal hybrid.  For certain purposes, e.g., the
right of the publisher to be free from government censorship of content, it
should be treated as though it were a print publication.  But a BBS
operator should have less liability for the content of the board than the
publisher of a magazine.  In many cases it is simply impossible, given the
volume of posting, for a sysop to review new postings in advance.  The
principled way to defend such a hybrid approach would be to show that the
elements of the legal treatment desired are related to the particular
attributes of the system itself and reflect, in each case, a desirable
public policy goal.

The ACLU is beginning to take an interest in this area. We will work
cooperatively with them.

Other

There are other worthwhile projects competing for attention as well.  In an
informal feedback session to the EFF held at the CPSR Roundtable, there was
a great deal of interest in a project to educate users of computers
networks about their rights and responsibilities.  There is also interest
in understanding successful techniques in the self-management of "virtual
communities" which lessens the necessity for external sanctions.   My
current judgment is that our "policy research" plate is already full and
that undertaking these or other subjects will have to be deferred.

CPSR FOIA Requests

Mike Godwin attended a meeting in Washington between representatives of the
Secret Service and David Sobel and Marc Rotenberg of CPSR. This meeting,
initiated by the Secret Service, took place for the purpose of helping the
agency define the scope of CPSR's two FOIA requests concerning,
respectively, Sundevil and non-Sundevil computer-crime investigations by
the Secret Service. Mike took part in the discussion, and is supporting
CPSR's FOIA effort by seeking privacy releases from individuals who may be
named in the files CPSR is seeking.

The EFFECTOR

The first issue of the EFFector print newsletter is at the printer.  Gerard
van der Leun contributed much time and energy to seeing this through.  I
think we will all be very pleased with its maiden voyage.  EFFector is
aimed at an audience not already assumed to be intimately familiar with
issues on the electronic frontier.

The newsletter will be distributed to people on our mailing list who have
sent us postal  addresses, every Well subscriber, and all participants at
the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference.  We are printing about
10,000 copies.

The production values are very professional without looking too slick or
glitzy.  (Gerard was able to persuade a graphic designer to develop the
format and design the first issue for virtually nothing).  I think it
communicates our basic concerns and positions quite well.  There is a piece
by Barlow on the origins of the EFF.  I have my "Why Defend Hackers"
article.  There are features on "20 Things You Can Do to Advance the
Electronic Frontier" culled from postings on the Well, a Washington update
by Marc Rotenberg, and many other worthwhile items.

We are aiming for a four times yearly publication frequency.  Beginning
with issue two we will work out a subscription / membership plan and
arrangement.

********************************************************************
                           >> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************