The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998 / hackers_encyclopedia.iso / zines / eff / eff915.txt < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 36.5 KB | 800 lines

========================================================================= ________________ _______________ _______________ /_______________/\ /_______________\ /\______________\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||||||||||||||| / //////////////// \\\\\________/\ |||||________\ / /////______\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\/____ |||||||||||||| / ///////////// \\\\\___________/\ ||||| / //// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||| \//// ========================================================================= EFFector Online Volume 09 No. 15 Dec. 20, 1996 editors@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 IN THIS ISSUE: Court Declares Crypto Restrictions Unconstitutional eTRUST Launches Pilot Program More Public Interest Groups Speak Out Against WIPO Treaties Upcoming Events Quote of the Day What YOU Can Do Administrivia * See http://www.eff.org/Alerts/ or ftp.eff.org, /pub/Alerts/ for more information on current EFF activities and online activism alerts! * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Court Declares Crypto Restrictions Unconstitutional ------------------------------------------------------------ COURT DECLARES CRYPTO RESTRICTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Free Speech Trumps Clinton Wiretap Plan December 19, 1996, 16:50 Pacific time. Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney 301/375-8856, ssteele@eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member 415/221-6524, gnu@toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail 415/341-2585, cindy@mcglashan.com San Francisco - On Monday, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel struck down Cold War export restrictions on the privacy technology called cryptography. Her decision knocks out a major part of the Clinton Administration's effort to force companies to build "wiretap-ready" computers, set-top boxes, telephones, and consumer electronics. The decision is a victory for free speech, academic freedom, and the prevention of crime. American scientists and engineers will now be free to collaborate with their peers in the United States and in other countries. This will enable them to build a new generation of tools for protecting the privacy and security of communications. The Clinton Administration has been using the export restrictions to goad companies into building wiretap-ready "key recovery" technology. In a November Executive Order, President Clinton offered limited administrative exemptions from these restrictions to companies which agree to undermine the privacy of their customers. Federal District Judge Patel's ruling knocks both the carrot and the stick out of Clinton's hand, because the restrictions were unconstitutional in the first place. The Cold War law and regulations at issue in the case prevented American researchers and companies from exporting cryptographic software and hardware. Export is normally thought of as the physical carrying of an object across a national border. However, the regulations define "export" to include simple publication in the U.S., as well as discussions with foreigners inside the U.S. They also define "software" to include printed English-language descriptions and diagrams, as well as the traditional machine-readable object code and human-readable source code. The secretive National Security Agency has built up an arcane web of complex and confusing laws, regulations, standards, and secret interpretations for years. These are used to force, persuade, or confuse individuals, companies, and government departments into making it easy for NSA to wiretap and decode all kinds of communications. Their tendrils reach deep into the White House, into numerous Federal agencies, and into the Congressional Intelligence Committees. In recent years this web is unraveling in the face of increasing visibility, vocal public disagreement with the spy agency's goals, commercial and political pressure, and judicial scrutiny. Civil libertarians have long argued that encryption should be widely deployed on the Internet and throughout society to protect privacy, prove the authenticity of transactions, and improve computer security. Industry has argued that the restrictions hobble them in building secure products, both for U.S. and worldwide use, risking America's current dominant position in computer technology. Government officials in the FBI and NSA argue that the technology is too dangerous to permit citizens to use it, because it provides privacy to criminals as well as ordinary citizens. "We're pleased that Judge Patel understands that our national security requires protecting our basic rights of free speech and privacy," said John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "There's no sense in 'burning the Constitution in order to save it'. The secretive bureaucrats who have restricted these rights for decades in the name of national security must come to a larger understanding of how to support and preserve our democracy." Reactions to the decision "This is a positive sign in the crypto wars -- the first rational statement concerning crypto policy to come out of any part of the government," said Jim Bidzos, President of RSA Data Security, one of the companies most affected by crypto policy. "It's nice to see that the executive branch does not get to decide whether we have the right of free speech," said Philip Zimmermann, Chairman of PGP, Inc. "It shows that my own common sense interpretation of the constitution was correct five years ago when I thought it was safe to publish my own software, PGP. If only US Customs had seen it that way." Mr. Zimmermann is a civil libertarian who was investigated by the government under these laws when he wrote and gave away a program for protecting the privacy of e-mail. His "Pretty Good Privacy" program is used by human rights activists worldwide to protect their workers and informants from torture and murder by their own countries' secret police. "Judge Patel's decision furthers our efforts to enable secure electronic commerce," said Asim Abdullah, executive director of CommerceNet. Jerry Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based Internet advocacy group, hailed the victory. "The Bernstein ruling illustrates that the Administration continues to embrace an encryption policy that is not only unwise, but also unconstitutional. We congratulate Dan Bernstein, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and all of the supporters who made this victory for free speech and privacy on the Internet possible." "The ability to publish is required in any vibrant academic discipline," This ruling re-affirming our obvious academic right will help American researchers publish without worrying," said Bruce Schneier, author of the popular textbook _Applied Cryptography_, and a director of the International Association for Cryptologic Research, a professional organization of cryptographers. Kevin McCurley, President of the International Association for Cryptologic Research, said, "Basic research to further the understanding of fundamental notions in information should be welcomed by our society. The expression of such work is closely related to one of the fundamental values of our society, namely freedom of speech." Background on the case The plaintiff in the case, Daniel J. Bernstein, Research Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed an "encryption algorithm" (a recipe or set of instructions) that he wanted to publish in printed journals as well as on the Internet. Bernstein sued the government, claiming that the government's requirements that he register as an arms dealer and seek government permission before publication was a violation of his First Amendment right of free speech. This is required by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that since Bernstein's ideas were expressed, in part, in computer language (source code), they were not protected by the First Amendment. On April 15, 1996, Judge Patel rejected that argument and held for the first time that computer source code is protected speech for purposes of the First Amendment. Details of Monday's Decision Judge Patel ruled that the Arms Export Control Act is a prior restraint on speech, because it requires Bernstein to apply for and obtain from the government a license to publish his ideas. Using the Pentagon Papers case as precedent, she ruled that the government's "interest of national security alone does not justify a prior restraint." Judge Patel also held that the government's required licensing procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards. When the Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce the chance of illegal censorship by the bureaucrats involved -- in this case, the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls (ODTC). Her decision states: "Because the ITAR licensing scheme fails to provide for a time limit on the licensing decision, for prompt judicial review and for a duty on the part of the ODTC to go to court and defend a denial of a license, the ITAR licensing scheme as applied to Category XIII(b) [i.e., as applied to encryption material] acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." Professor Bernstein is now free to publish his ideas without asking the government's permission first. She also ruled that the export controls restrict speech based on the content of the speech, not for any other reason. "Category XIII(b) is directed very specifically at applied scientific research and speech on the topic of encryption." The Government had argued that it restricts the speech because of its function, not its content. The judge also found that the ITAR is vague, because it does not adequately define how information that is available to the public "through fundamental research in science and engineering" is exempt from the export restrictions. "This subsection ... does not give people ... a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." The failure to precisely define what objects and actions are being regulated creates confusion and a chilling effect. Bernstein has been unable to publish his encryption algorithm for over four years. Many other cryptographers and ordinary programmers have also been restrained from publishing because of the vagueness of the ITAR. Brian Behlendorf, a maintainer of the popular public domain "Apache" web server program, stated, "No cryptographic source code was ever distributed by the Apache project. Despite this, the Apache server code was deemed by the NSA to violate the ITAR." Judge Patel also adopted a narrower definition of the term "defense article" in order to save it from unconstitutional vagueness. The immediate effect of this decision is that Bernstein now is free to teach his January 13th cryptography class in his usual way. He can post his class materials on the Internet, and discuss the upcoming class's materials with other professors, without being held in violation of the ITAR. "I'm very pleased," Bernstein said. "Now I won't have to tell my students to burn their notebooks." It is presently unclear exactly where Judge Patel's decision applies -- in the Northern District of California (containing San Francisco and Silicon Valley) or throughout the country. Check with your own lawyer if you contemplate taking action based on the decision. It is not yet clear from the decision whether the export controls on object code (the executable form of computer programs which source code is automatically translated into) have been overturned. It may be that existing export controls will continue to apply to runnable software products, such as Netscape's broswer, until another court case challenges that part of the restrictions. ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional pro bono legal assistance is being provided by Lee Tien of Berkeley; M. Edward Ross of the San Francisco law firm of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere, Julia Kogan, and Jeremy Miller of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/ The full text of Monday's decision is available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/Legal/961206.decision ------------------------------ Subject: eTRUST Launches Pilot Program -------------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 12/20/96 eTRUST LAUNCHES PILOT PROGRAM Trial of Global Initiative to Increase Consumer Trust and Confidence in Electronic Transactions Palo Alto, CA, December 20, 1996 -- eTRUST, a global initiative for establishing consumer trust and confidence in electronic information exchange, is launching its pilot program. The purpose of the pilot is to test the effectiveness and market desirability of the eTRUST "trustmark" program and to provide data to refine the offering and ensure success in full global implementation. The information gathered will be invaluable in developing products to be launched in 1997. The pilot will focus on addressing privacy issues of data collection on the Internet which is the first eTRUST project. Privacy concerns have been identified as one of the key barriers to the widespread consumer acceptance of electronic information transactions ranging from commerce to survey data collection. Non-consentual collection of personal data over the Internet is creating "databases of liability" and eTRUST provides a reasonable, effective, and enforceable system to ensure that personally identifiable information is not abused. eTRUST's privacy guidelines and assurance infrastructure will allow for informed consent of data collection. Providing a mechanism for informed consent will increase the level of trust between online businesses/organizations and users. Companies or organizations participating in the eTRUST pilot will apply one or more of three privacy "trustmarks" on their Websites depending on how they handle the data of the users who visit their sites. The three options are: * Anonymous or No Exchange - no data is collected on the user. * One-to-One Exchange - data is collected only for the site owner's use. * Third Party Exchange - data is collected and provided to specified third parties but only with the user's knowledge and consent. The "trustmark" system allows the user to be informed of exactly how their personal data is being used. The "trustmarks" will also be backed by an assurance process which includes self-assessment, community monitoring, and most importantly, professional third-party review and spot auditing. The Assurance Process committee of eTRUST which includes leading companies like Coopers & Lybrand LLP and KPMG LLP is developing a formal review process for Websites which will be tested during the pilot. "Coopers & Lybrand is exceedingly pleased to be involved in setting the standards and direction for the eTRUST initiative, thereby supporting the Internet in its ability to conduct electronic commerce," said Russell J. Sapienza, Jr., Partner of Coopers & Lybrand LLP's Computer Assurance Services. Up to 100 sites, carefully chosen to cover a broad spectrum of Web activities, will participate in the pilot program. Sites which are already testing the "trustmark" system include: * CommerceNet - http://www.commerce.net * Electronic Frontier Foundation - http://www.eff.org * BritNet - http://www.britnet.co.uk * Webcrawler - http://frontend.webcrawler.com * Narrowline - http://www.narrowline.com * WorldPages - http://www.worldpages.com * Xcert Software - http://www.xcert.com * Down Syn Online - http://www.epix.net/~mcross/down-syn.html Sites will be added throughout December 1996 and the pilot will be conducted through the first quarter of 1997. eTRUST demonstrated the "trustmark" system at the Internet World Show in New York, December 11-13, 1996. eTRUST has already received widespread support from industry, consumer groups, and the government. CommerceNet, the premier industry association for developing electronic commerce, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the leading electronic consumer advocacy group have partnered to move forward to implement the eTRUST program. "The eTRUST project is critical to building public trust in online transactions," said Marty Tenenbaum, Chairman of CommerceNet. "It assures individuals will receive full disclosure on how and where information will be used and gives them the opportunity to opt out of a transaction." "We are very concerned with protecting the privacy of users. The eTRUST pilot is a major step forward in creating trust online and ensuring the development of a healthy electronic society and in turn a healthy marketplace," says Lori Fena, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "People's awareness of how their online behavior is being monitored and commoditized is approaching a new high watermark," said Eric Theise, Narrowline's EVP of Research and Information Architecture. "Our online media buying and market research systems are less intrusive and more secure than others, and eTRUST's framework for assessing, refining, and disclosing data privacy policy gives us an accepted way to convey that to Internet users." Participation of industry, government, and consumer groups is essential in order to reach an international consensus on appropriate levels of privacy and transactional security and how these will be enforced. By significantly enhancing consumer trust and confidence in electronic transactions, eTRUST will promote the positive growth of electronic communications, especially over the Internet. eTRUST eTRUST is a global initiative whose mission is to establish trust and confidence in electronic communication by creating an infrastructure to address issues such as privacy and transactional security. The initiative was launched in July 1996 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a group of pioneering Internet companies. CommerceNet and the EFF then partnered in October 1996 to move forward in implementing the initiative. More information about eTRUST and its pilot program can be found at http://www.etrust.org/ CommerceNet CommerceNet is a non-profit industry association and recognized leader working to transform the Internet into a global electronic marketplace. Launched in April 1994, the Silicon Valley-based organization has over 200 members worldwide, including leading banks, telecommunications companies, Internet service providers, online services, software service providers and end-users. More information about CommerceNet can be found at http://www.commerce.net/ Electronic Frontier Foundation The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a non-profit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to promote, privacy, free expression, and social responsibility in new media. More information about EFF can be found at http://www.eff.org/ Contacts: Lori Fena Electronic Frontier Foundation 415-436-9333 Gigi Wang CommerceNet 415-858-1930 x221 Aaron Feigin Fleishman-Hillard, Inc. 415-356-1033 ------------------------------ Subject: More Public Interest Groups Speak Out Against WIPO Treaties -------------------------------------------------------------------- An Open Letter To The Delegates Of The WIPO Diplomatic Conference December 18, 1996 We are writing to urge the delegates at this diplomatic conference to defer final action on the three proposed treaties. The discussions so far have just began to shed light on many of the problematic areas of the treaties. We believe there is much more to be gained from further study, and we are concerned that hasty action on novel changes in intellectual property laws will lead to many unanticipated problems. In this respect, one has to ask why WIPO, a United Nations body, is acting as a super Parliament or Congress on issues which have never been resolved by national governments through traditional lawmaking processes. While there are many problems with the three treaties, allow us to highlight four areas of concern. 1. The Proposed Rights Of "Reproduction" And "Communication" Are Far Too Broad. In an effort to give copyright owners the broadest possible rights, the treaties would give a new right to deny authorization of the "direct and indirect" reproduction of a work, "whether permanent or temporary . in any manner or form." (Treaty 1, Article 7). National exceptions would be allowed for some temporary or incidental reproductions, provided that the reproductions are "authorized by the author" or otherwise permitted by law. It is unclear how broad these exemptions can be, or how a patchwork system of national exemptions will achieve the international uniformity the treaty seeks. The starting point for the reproduction rights are so open ended that it would be seem to make the memorization of a poem a violation of the author's exclusive rights. The issue of the rights of the public to use computers to view, study and analyze works is important. Overbroad restrictions on those rights will discourage or impair the development of many important and useful new technologies. For example, the new smart searching engines on the Internet's World Wide Web routinely read hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Web pages, in order to create indexes and abstracts of articles and other works. These new and important software tools will vastly expand our ability to identify and locate information. There is also considerable concern that the "Right of Reproduction" (Article 7), combined with the "Right of Communication," (Article 10) are written in such a way that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will be liable for infringements. Several major ISPs have noted that if they are liable for infringements by their customers, they will be compelled to engage in intrusive surveillance of private communications. This indeed was the concern of eleven CEOs of major Internet and Telecommunication firms [1], who wrote President Clinton in opposition to the treaties on December 10, 1996. http://www.public-domain.org/copyright/11ceos.html We strongly urge that no treaty be finalized at this time. However, we would add that the proposed December 12, 1996 amendments by the 30 African countries offer a much better approach (CRNR/DC/56, Treaty No. 1, Article 7 and Article 10), and are preferred to the far too restrictive versions that have been advanced by the United States Delegation. 2. The Technological Measures Are Written Too Broadly Any language in a treaty that prohibits the development of new information technologies is problematic, since there are likely to be competing public interests. The Chairman's provisions, in his December 12, 1996 drafts of Treaty No. 1 (Article 13), and Treaty No. 2 (Article 22), are far too broad. They would make unlawful "any . . . device, product or component incorporated into a device or product, the primary purposes or primary effect of which is to circumvent any process, mechanism or system that prevents or inhibits any of the rights under this treaty." (From Treaty 1, Article 13). Taken with the rest of these deeply flawed treaties, there would be an enormous chilling effect on the development of new information technologies. For example, the popular Web browser Netscape would arguably be an illegal device, not only because it is used for reading documents into memory to display them, but because it has features which permit the easy reading and downloading of source code for HTML documents, as well as digital images. Many of us would say that these types of features have made an important contribution to the explosive growth of the Internet. It is worth noting that more restrictive proprietary technologies have withered, having failed to compete with the more open Internet model. Also, the new generation of Internet searching and index tools mentioned above would likely be challenged under the proposed treaty language. Again, the language offered as a substitute by the 30 African countries is a better approach. Countries would be required to provide: adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by rights holders in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the rights holders concerned or permitted by law. (CRNR/DC/56, Treaty 1, Article 13). The more flexible language offered by the African countries would give each nation greater latitude in implementing anti-circumvention legislation. This is important, given the rapid growth of the Internet, the novelty of the technology and the Internet culture, and the need to encourage rather than discourage the development of new information technologies. However, we cannot endorse even this approach, at this time. The issue of anti-circumvention is not ripe for legislation or treaty, given: - the lack of experience in matters concerning the Internet by many legislators or policy makers, - the uncertainty concerning the extent to which new encryption based technologies can protect rights owners without additional legal remedies, and - the need to gain a better model for enforcement in a world with transnational data flows and radically different concepts of fair use of copyrighted materials. 3. Concerns About Privacy Are Not Specifically Addressed In The Treaties. We come from a tradition of using information products and services in ways that are mostly anonymous. The acquisition of newspapers, books, recorded music, and listening to broadcast television and radio can be done in anonymity. The development of cable television, video rental stores, online communications and other technologies are leading to an explosive growth in the ability of the government and private corporations to conduct surveillance of what information we receive or share with others. It is essential for a free society that people have the practical ability to read and share information with friends and colleagues without surveillance. When it is possible to take different approaches in protecting copyright owners, it is desirable and important to seek those roads which are consistent with a significant degree of personal privacy. This principle should be specifically addressed in the treaties. As noted above, there are specific concerns about privacy in the section of the treaties dealing with the liability of ISPs. There is also concern about the degree to which the "Rights Management Information" may be used to provide mechanisms for tracking document usage. Countries should be both permitted and encouraged to limit the types of technologies used for "rights management information" in order to protect personal privacy. 4. There Should Be No Actions Taken That Would Give A Radical New Property Right To Facts Or Other Public Domain Information. There is widespread opposition to the concepts underlying the proposed database treaty, and no action should be taken at this time. As presently drafted, the treaty would give sporting leagues the right to license box scores of sporting events, give stock exchanges permanent "ownership" of share prices and other financial data, define the practice of creating abstracts of scientific journals or web pages as an infringement of a database extraction right, and create many other unintended consequences. The fact that organizations such as Dun and Bradstreet, Bloomberg, and STATS, Inc (sports statistics), vigorously oppose the treaty because it goes too far illustrates the complexity of this issue. Value added information providers are both producers and consumers of information. This proposal is so deeply flawed it cannot be salvaged at this conference. The controversy over the database treaty should also serve as a reminder to the delegates that the public domain in matters concerning information is something to be protected and cherished. 5. Closing Comments In closing, we urge the delegates to reflect upon how the unique features of the Internet have contributed to its amazing success, and to tread carefully when asked to dramatically change the Internet culture. Not only is the Internet a flourishing and dynamic place to publish information, as evidenced by the astronomical rates of growth in usage and published content, but there is scant evidence to suggest that there are serious threats to the commercial content industry from infringements. Much of the concern over unauthorized reproductions of works on the Internet stem from the very transparency of those reproductions, which are visible to everyone, including the owners of the works. Indeed, the Internet indexing and abstracting tools which are threatened by these treaties offer perhaps the best tools yet for identifying and managing inappropriate unauthorized reproductions of works. This transparency of publishing activities on the Internet is something new. We are also just beginning to understand the engines which drive the dynamic growth of this publishing platform. We are forced to re-think and re-examine our ideas about fair use and other matters which are central to these ill conceived treaties. Finally, there is great opposition to the treaties by the persons who should matter the most - the persons who use the Internet, and who are alarmed to the prospects for increased surveillance and stifling regulation of new technologies. As delegates you should look beyond the multitude of lobbyists who have shaped this treaty, and consider the public. We urge you to conclude this Diplomatic Conference without taking action on any of the treaties. Union for the Public Domain, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Consumer Project on Technology, Net Action, Citizen Advocacy Center, AIDS Education Global Information System, Visual Resources Association, Utility Consumers' Action Network, Alliance for Public Technology, Departamento de Informatica - UFPE, GovAccess Sources of Information about the WIPO Treaties on the Internet: Against the Treaties: Union for the Public Domain http://www.public-domain.org Digital Future Coalition http://www.dfc.org/dfc For the Treaties Creative Incentive Coalition http://www.cic.org Information Industry Association http://www.infoindustry.org For comments on this letter, contact James Love, +1 202 387 8030; Home +1 xxx xxx xxxx [redacted for privacy reasons - mech@eff.org]; love@tap.org Footnotes: [1] PSI, Net, America Online, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Compuserve, MCI, MFS Communications, Netcom On-line Communications, NYNEX, Prodigy, UUNET. ------------------------------ Subject: What YOU Can Do ------------------------ * The Communications Decency Act & Other Censorship Legislation The Communications Decency Act and similar legislation pose serious threats to freedom of expression online, and to the livelihoods of system operators. The legislation also undermines several crucial privacy protections. The CDA is likely to be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But, bowing to pressure from theocratic organization, Congress is likely to introduce and attempt to pass a slightly modified version. Let your legislators know you will not stand for censorship, nor for the wasting of millions of tax dollars on years of Supreme Court litigation over laws that should never have even been proposed much less passed in a democracy. Business/industry persons concerned should alert their corporate govt. affairs office and/or legal counsel about such censorship measures, TODAY, while there is still time to plan. Join in the Blue Ribbon Campaign - see http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html Support the EFF Cyberspace Legal Defense Fund: http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/cyberlegal_fund_eff.announce If you do not have full internet access (e.g. WWW), send your request for information to ask@eff.org. IMPORTANT! KEEP AN EYE ON YOUR LOCAL LEGISLATURE. All kinds of wacky censorious legislation is turning up at the US state and non-US national levels. Don't let it sneak by you - or by the online activism community. Without locals on the look out, it's very difficult for the Net civil liberties community to keep track of what's happening locally as well as globally. * Find Out Who Your Congresspersons Are Writing letters to, faxing, and phoning your representatives in Congress is one very important strategy of activism, and an essential way of making sure YOUR voice is heard on vital issues. If you are having difficulty determining who your US legislators are, try contacting your local League of Women Voters, who maintain a great deal of legislator information, or consult the free ZIPPER service that matches Zip Codes to Congressional districts with about 85% accuracy at: http://www.stardot.com/~lukeseem/zip.html Computer Currents Interactive has provided Congress contact info, sorted by who voted for and against the Communications Decency Act: http://www.currents.net/congress.html (NB: Some of these folks have, fortunately, been voted out of office.) * Join EFF! You *know* privacy, freedom of speech and ability to make your voice heard in government are important. You have probably participated in our online campaigns and forums. Have you become a member of EFF yet? The best way to protect your online rights is to be fully informed and to make your opinions heard. EFF members are informed and are making a difference. Join EFF today! For EFF membership info, send queries to membership@eff.org, or send any message to info@eff.org for basic EFF info, and a membership form. ------------------------------ Administrivia ============= EFFector Online is published by: The Electronic Frontier Foundation 1550 Bryant St., Suite 725 San Francisco CA 94103 USA +1 415 436 9333 (voice) +1 415 436 9993 (fax) Membership & donations: membership@eff.org Legal services: ssteele@eff.org General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@eff.org Editor: Stanton McCandlish, Online Activist, Webmaster (mech@eff.org) This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons. Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements may be reproduced individ- ually at will. To subscribe to EFFector via email, send message body of "subscribe effector-online" (without the "quotes") to listserv@eff.org, which will add you to a subscription list for EFFector. Back issues are available at: ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/ gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector 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 the file "current" from the EFFector directory at the above sites at any time for a copy of the current issue. HTML editions available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/HTML/ at EFFweb. HTML editions of the current issue sometimes take a day or longer to prepare after issue of the ASCII text version. ------------------------------ End of EFFector Online v09 #15 Digest ************************************* $$