VOTERS TELECOMMUNICATIONS WATCH (We're not the EFF) You may freely redistribute this, but keep it all intact (especially the banner) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JANUARY 14, 1996 Contact: Steven Cherry (718) 596-2851 stc@vtw.org Shabbir Safdar (718) 596-2851 shabbir@vtw.org New York, NY Internet businesses tell Senate candidates they can't survive more big government regulation Oregon Internet businesses will not survive irrational Internet legislation, and they're telling Oregon's leading Senate candidates in no uncertain terms that they need to get it right, or Oregon's economy will suffer. Several Oregon Internet businesses have signed a letter to the two Senate candidates (Wyden and Smith) that projects a vision of how the Internet should, and should not, be regulated. The letter will be presented to the campaigns during meetings between representatives of Oregon's Internet industry on Friday January 19th and Saturday January 20th. Outlined in the letter are the businesses' four points where they envision Congress touching on in the next three years: -appropriate parental control of the Internet, -encouragement of programs such as THOMAS and EDGAR that place government information on the Internet for free, -consistency of Internet commerce regulation, and -a rational, pro-business approach to cryptography policy You can get a first chance to see the letter and meet owners of Oregon Internet businesses at: WHERE: Europa Communications Oregon Pioneer Building, Suite 211 320 SW Stark, Suite 427 Portland, OR 97204 503-222-9508 WHEN: Friday, January 19th, 1996, 10am WHO: Internet businesses in Oregon including: Richard Horswell, Partner at Europa Communications Shabbir J. Safdar, Advisory Board Member at VTW Craig S. Bell, System Administrator at aracnet.com Robert Down, Partner at InfoStructure *Susan Hamill, President of One World Communications * = invited speakers This letter is the latest in a series of moves by the VTW (Voters Telecommunications Watch) to ensure that the next US Congress is less eager to create a big government bureaucracy to regulate a medium they are unfamiliar with. Also this week VTW produced their "Oregon Special Election Voters Guide" which contains the answers to VTW's "Technology Pledge" questionnaire from each of the major candidates. VTW is urging Internet users to use their Pledge as a litmus test before casting their vote in the contest, which is a special mail-in election for the seat of retired Senator Robert Packwood. Ballots are due January 30th. Voters Telecommunications Watch is a volunteer organization, concentrating on legislation as it relates to telecommunications and civil liberties. VTW publishes a weekly BillWatch that tracks relevant legislation as it progresses through Congress. It publishes periodic Alerts to inform the about immediate action it can take to protect its on-line civil liberties and privacy. For more information about the Voters Guide to the Special Oregon Senate Election, see http://www.vtw.org/guides/. For more information about the Technology Pledge, see http://www.vtw.org/pledge. For more information about Europa Communications, call 503-222-9508 or email richard@europa.com. For more information on aracnet.com, call 503-626-7696 or email info@aracnet.com. For more information on One World, call 541-758-1112 or email hamills@corp.oneworld.com. For more information on InfoStructure, call 541-488-1962 or email down@mind.net. More information about VTW can be found on-line at gopher -p 1/vtw gopher.panix.com www: http://www.vtw.org/ or by writing to vtw@vtw.org. The press can call (718) 596-2851 or contact: Shabbir Safdar Steven Cherry shabbir@vtw.org stc@vtw.org =========================================================================== VTW BillWatch #31 VTW BillWatch: A weekly newsletter tracking US Federal legislation affecting civil liberties. BillWatch is published at the end of every week as long as Congress is in session. (Congress is in session) BillWatch is produced and published by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org) (We're not the EFF :-) Issue #31, Date: Sun Jan 7 23:00:23 EST 1996 Do not remove this banner. See distribution instructions at the end. ___________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Announcements A glance back at 1995 Oregon businesses organizing and speaking up VTW files now available on Fidonet Subscription and Redistribution Information (changed 10/21/95) ___________________________________________________________________________ ANNOUNCEMENTS Enclosed is our commentary on 1995, with some little tidbits. Our 1995 legislative report card is coming along nicely, and will be available in a week or two. We received, unsolicited, this great graphic from an unknown artist on the Internet. You can reach the artist at phoenix_arabeth@RedwoodFN.org. The graphic itself is available at http:/www.vtw.org/images/censornet.jpg. As this issue of BillWatch goes to press, Oregon US Senate candidate Gordon Smith is being investigated by VTW because of comments he made during the first debate about how to handle controversial information on the Internet. Just to refresh your memory, both leading candidates, Smith (R) and Wyden (D), endorsed VTW's Technology Pledge which included a statement about advocating parental control tools over government censorship. We've received many reports that Smith's answer to this debate question was not consistent with his answer in the Pledge Questionnaire. We are obtaining a transcript of the debate from a clipping service, and will take appropriate action when we've had the opportunity to review it.. The issue of free speech is important to us and the millions of people who use the Internet. We will not allow these ideals to be cheapened. In happier news, VTW hopes you haven't been buried underneath the snow, and that you had a joyful new year. Let's not give up, as we have a lot of work to do in 1996 to continue to defending our freedoms. Shabbir J. Safdar Advisory Board Member Voters Telecommunications Watch This issue can be found in HTML form at URL:http://www.vtw.org/billwatch/issue.31.html ___________________________________________________________________________ A GLANCE BACK AT 1995 This has been an incredible year for VTW and for the net. We've been absolutely swamped this year by the role we've taken on coordinating the net coalition, but it's been tremendously rewarding. We've had the opportunity to work with many excellent organizations. We've also made some incredible friends to whom we owe debts of gratitude that we could never repay. First, Public Access Networks (Panix) has given us a home and significant resources with which to pursue our work. We are eternally grateful to Alexis Rosen, Jim Baumbach, and the Panix staff for their help. We're also thrilled to have been a part of Wired Magazine. If you've seen January's issue of Wired, you'll find an ad from VTW around page 121 or so. Created by VTW's graphic designer, LJ Lindhurst, it depicts a picture of Nebraska Senator J.J. Exon and his infamous "blue book of pornography" that he uses to argue for Internet censorship. Also in the ad are the names of the many Internet businesses that signed a letter to Congress to persuade them not pass the net censorship legislation. We are extremely indebted to Wired magazine for their generosity. Thanks particularly to Jane Metcalfe who made it happen. As we look forward to 1996, apprehensiveness should be the theme. Congress continues to blunder forward, regulating a medium many have never tried, and even fewer understand. It will take every ounce of commitment from every concerned net user to stem the proposals that threaten to take away our free speech and privacy. 1996 is an election year, we have a special opportunity to make it count. ___________________________________________________________________________ OREGON BUSINESSES ORGANIZING AND SPEAKING UP [The following letter is being coordinated by VTW for the US Senate election for ex-Senator Packwood's seat. -Shabbir] OREGON INTERNET BUSINESS LETTER To signon to this letter, simply send email to pledge@vtw.org with your business name, a daytime phone number, your address, and a short description of your business. Receipt and signon will be confirmed. If you are a consultant who deals in the Internet, a service provider, a web designer, or simply a business that has put up a storefront on the Internet, you need to stand up and be counted. The deadline for signing on is January 20th, 1996. TIP: If you work for a really large company that has a slow bureaucracy, try getting just your business unit to signon. For example, if you work for mega-conglomerate XYZ Inc. for the Internet Consulting Division, ask permission for just your division to signon. [Note that we've made some spelling and phrasing corrections since the first publishing of this. -Shabbir] Dear candidate, For years the Internet has thrived as a new medium for commerce, education, and democracy. In the last few years, an entire sector of the job market has been created out of Internet services where there previously was none. Using the Internet, people all over the world have communicated more than ever before, learning about each other's cultures and generally making headway towards a friendlier "global village". Unfortunately, many members of Congress do not understand this technology, and in fact fear it. In June of 1995, 84 Senators voted to regulate the Internet in such a way to make business much harder to do. By passing the Communications Decency Act, the Senate chose to end the "Internet goldrush" that has been an economic boon to so many in Oregon. The House of Representatives, took a different tack. In August of 1995, the House passed HR1978, the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, that encouraged the sale and use of parental empowerment tools, and prohibited the FCC from meddling in the business of providing Internet services. Recognizing that current laws regulating child pornography already cover the Internet and are already being enforced, the House voted to let a successful industry continue to develop it's marketplace. Recognizing that parents are better at regulating their children's access to the Internet than government censors, 421 members of the House of Representatives showed the nation that they indeed do understand the technology, and they do want to see businesses succeed. Let this be put as plainly as possible: the Internet as a business platform may not survive this legislative onslaught of this US Senate. To regulate a technology without understanding it is tantamount to playing with fire. The next US Senator from Oregon must have an understanding of this technology, so that we may prosper as members of the Oregon business community. In particular we believe that to survive, we must have a Senator that understands the following four principles: . parents with parental control tools, not government censorship laws, are the best way of controlling childrens' access to the Internet, . placing government information on the Internet for the public's use promotes democracy and is a tremendously efficient way of educating the voting public, . inconsistent electronic commerce regulation will thwart the growth of that marketplace, and . the freedom to build, buy, sell, and export software products with market-driven cryptography standards is the only way to secure the Global Information Infrastructure as a platform for commerce. We have seen the sort of leadership we wish from the House of Representatives, but not from the Senate. Please do not disappoint us; our very livelihoods and our industry hinges on it. [the undersigned Oregon Internet businesses] Business name: aracnet.com Street: 3935 SW 114th Ave State: Beaverton, OR 97005 Description: aracnet.com is a locally-owned and operated Internet Service Provider (ISP) serving the greater Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Our business emphasizes quality, reliable internet access, local service and support, and freedom and privacy protected by the Bill of Rights. Business name: One World Internetworking, Inc. Phone: 503.758.1112 Street: P.O. Box 1589 State: Corvallis, OR 97339 Description: One World Internetworking, Inc. was founded in 1989 as a UNIX and network consulting firm. Since then, the Internet has grown to become the leading international information network. One World now applies its advanced knowledge of UNIX, networking, and programming to develop services that enable businesses to easily connect to and participate in the global marketplace. ___________________________________________________________________________ VTW FILES NOW AVAILABLE ON FIDONET Due to the diligent efforts of a volunteer, you can now obtain many VTW files through Fidonet. Attached here are his directions for doing so. To learn more about using this, contact Jeff directly. You can find these directions from now on at http://www.vtw.org/vtwinfo/fidonet Announcement: In an effort to make the valuable information at Voters Telecommunication Watch (VTW) more available to a larger number of people, the Michigan Electronic Communities of Concerned Adults (MECCA) is maintaining a VTW archive at its home bulletin board system (BBS), Imajica. Persons with a computer and a modem but no internet service provider can simply dial-in and download any VTW BillWatch, Alert, or other important file such as VTW's Internet Parental Control FAQ. In addition, any BBS sysop may file request (freq) VTW files using their mailer. Modem callers simply instruct their terminal software to dial 810-471-6926 to reach Imajica. Their terminal emulation should be configured for ANSI, BBS, or TTY, with modem settings of "N-8-1". Imajica is a private PC-based BBS, so we ask that you sign in at the logon screen. You will be asked a number of questions at logon to establish an account on the system. All information provided is confidential and after you finish the "new user" sign in, you can navigate yourself to the "Info - VTW" file area and download any file during your first call. The next time you call Imajica you need only to enter your user-id and password to access the system. Imajica does NOT charge fees for access. Please let us know you are calling for VTW files. BBS Sysops can freq any VTW file using their mailer. For a list of available files, simply freq "VTW.BBS" from this Fidonet address: 1:120/453. Imajica participates in many echomail networks but FidoNet is the most widely available to the most number of Sysops. Any file in the VTW.BBS list may then also be requested. MECCA encourages BBS sysops to freq VTW files for the benefit of their BBS callers. By making a 30 second phone call, you can bring the important information to all of your local callers. Imajica 810-471-6926 [N-8-1, >14.4Kbps] FidoNet: 1:120/453 Sysop: John Furie Zacharias Farmington Hills, MI ___________________________________________________________________________ SUBSCRIPTION AND REPRODUCTION INFORMATION: Printed at the end of VTW Billwatch #33 =========================================================================== VTW BillWatch #32 VTW BillWatch: A weekly newsletter tracking US Federal legislation affecting civil liberties. BillWatch is published at the end of every week as long as Congress is in session. (Congress is in session) BillWatch is produced and published by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org) (We're not the EFF :-) Issue #32, Date: Mon Jan 15 03:03:39 EST 1996 Do not remove this banner. See distribution instructions at the end. ___________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Announcements ECHO Virtual Culture Event 1/21/96 How one person is changing Congress Sen. Feingold (D-WI) on Net Censorship Sen. Leahy (D-VT) on Net Censorship ___________________________________________________________________________ ANNOUNCEMENTS It's been an exciting week. What happened? First things first, the Telecom Bill is still stalled, and we're taking the time to schedule meeting with legislators. If you haven't scheduled your meeting with your legislator, it's easy to do. Just check out the alert on our home page at http://www.vtw.org/ Secondly, Phil Zimmerman was released from his three-year prosecutorial purgatory. Great coverage can already be found at Josh Quittner's Netly News at http://www.pathfinder.com/Netly/ and at the CDT and EPIC WWW sites at http://www.cdt.org/ and http://www.epic.org/. You may ask yourself, does this mean PGP (Pretty ood Privacy) is now "liberated"? No. You may ask yourself, does this mean that the Federal government now finally understands the futility of restricting the export of software on the Internet? (especially software that is available in print form) No. Although we're happy for Phil Zimmerman (nobody should have to suffer that much for a piece of software), all this tells us is that if you are charged with violating the ITAR export regulations for cryptographic software, you can expect to spend three years in legal hell while the government takes its own sweet time deciding whether or not they have the evidence to actually take you into court, and whether such a prosecution would be politically dangerous or not. A few people we'd like to recognize this week: Charles Platt, for his ASCII art rendition on an American flag, because neither Steven nor I could get it right. You can see his handiwork in our Voters Guides section in http://www.vtw.org/guides/g-oregon1 Also, we'd like to thank Brad Knowles for his correction to our link in BillWatch #31. This week we bring you two statements we haven't seen yet on the net that deserve your attention. The first is from Sen. Feingold (D-WI) and the second from Sen. Leahy (D-VT). Finally, there's an ECHO Virtual Culture event we think you'd like to see. Shabbir J. Safdar Advisory Board Member Voters Telecommunications Watch This issue can be found in HTML form at URL:http://www.vtw.org/billwatch/issue.32.html ___________________________________________________________________________ ECHO Virtual Culture Event 1/21/96 [Shabbir J. Safdar from VTW will be among the many fine panelists.] ECHO ANNOUNCES NEXT VIRTUAL CULTURE EVENT: THE REGULATION OF THE INTERNET Sunday, January 21, 1996 at 3:00pm P.S. 122, 150 First Avenue and East 9th Street, New York City As Congress presses forward with legislation to regulate the content of the Internet, debate rages between civil rights activists, concerned parents, anti-pornography lobbyists, software engineers, and Internet service providers. What will the proposed legislation mean for each of these groups? And what will it mean for the denizens of lectronic salon, and the Whitney Museum of American Art present an interactive discussion panel that will explore the explosive issues behind the regulation movement. For more information on this event, contact molsk@echonyc.com. ___________________________________________________________________________ HOW ONE PERSON IS CHANGING CONGRESS We didn't previously know this gentleman, but as far as we're concerned, he's done more to advance the cause of the anti-censorship than many people we see ranting about it on the net. Our hats are off to him, and we hope that he provides you the incentive you need to do this yourself. Although Yates comes down on the right side of this issue, there could be wavering without reminders from people like Kurt Fenstermacher that these are important issues. Have you made your appointment yet? >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 12:25:33 -0600 >To: feedback@vtw.org >From: fensterm@cs.uchicago.edu (Kurt D. Fenstermacher) >Subject: Meeting with Rep. Sidney Yates (IL) This morning I met with a staff member for Rep. Sidney Yates, from Illinois. The meeting was brief because Rep. Yates favors free speech absolutely, and is a staunch opponent of the telecommunications bill. When I asked how Rep. Yates balanced free speech against "protection" of children I was told, "Representative Yates ALWAYS comes down on the side of free speech." Although he's not on any of the technical committees, I believe that he's the second ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations committee, and could be a valuable ally. I do have a tip for those considering meeting with staff members, or your Representative: find out the Representative's position in advance. Even if your Representative holds views similar to yours, you should still go. But you want to adjust your comments depending on whether you're persuading someone to change, or patting them on the back for a job well done. Good luck. Kurt D. Fenstermacher Artificial Intelligence Laboratory University of Chicago http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/~fensterm ___________________________________________________________________________ SEN. FEINGOLD (D-WI) ON NET CENSORSHIP 12/29/95 FEINGOLD SAYS INTERNET CENSORSHIP THREAT REACHING CRITICAL MOMENT CITES INCIDENTS INVOLVING COMPUSERVE AND AMERICA ON-LINE Calls for Removal of "Indecency" Language from Telecom Bill Washington DC. -- United States Senator Russ Feingold reacted strongly to action by one of the major U.S. on-line service providers, CompuServe, blocking access by its U.S. subscribers to more than 200 computer discussion groups which may violate German anti-pornography laws. CompuServe cut-off all of its more than 4 million subscribers in 140 countries from accessing these groups because of concerns raised by a Munich, Germany prosecutor that some of the material being transmitted was "offensive". Feingold has been involved in efforts to kill a provision in the pending telecommunications bill which would censor "indecent" speech transmitted over the Internet and is one of a handful of members of Congress to speak out against government efforts to control the content of private communications across computer lines. Feingold said, "This is just the most recent assault upon free speech on the Internet. Last month, another on-line provider, America On-Line, censored the word "breast" on its system, fearing that some local prosecutors would consider the word illegal or improper. Today, we see an even more startling result where German laws are being imposed internationally upon what Americans can say and read using electronic communication technology. It is not clear what the German law definition of obscene material is or whether it is comparable to the standard applied by U.S. courts." Noting that other countries may wish to suppress a wide variety of areas of speech, Feingold charged that these precedents have very dangerous implications: "Today, the German government wants to censor sexually- oriented speech. What will happen when countries like Indonesia and Singapore which don't tolerate much political criticism demand that kind of material be removed from the Internet? What is going to be the reaction when China insists that discussions of human rights issues be banned from the Internet? This kind of censorship of international communication systems has virtually no limits once it gets started." Feingold said that the provisions of the telecommunications bill pending in Congress which impose criminal penalties for communication of "indecent" speech pose the same problem and should be killed. "When government authorities try to censor private communications between individuals, it opens up the door to this kind of massive intrusion and undermining of basic free speech rights," Feingold said. According to reports, some of the discussion groups being closed down by CompuServe have nothing to do with sexually explicit materials, but include such groups as a support group for homosexual teens. "This kind of over-reaching by on-line providers is likely to become commonplace if the "indecency" prohibitions in the telecommunications bill become law," Feingold noted. "The time to stop the rush towards censorship of the Internet is now, " Feingold said "before it gets broader and retards the growth of this important new communications technology." "There are laws already on the books which provide for prosecution of those who traffick in obscene material or try to solicit minors over computer networks. Law enforcement officials already use those tools to pursue those who break the law or use cyberspace to troll for victims. What is being proposed, however, goes beyond what is now already illegal simply because it is transmitted by a computer," Feingold said. In a recent speech on the Senate floor, Feingold cited the censorship by private on-line services in reaction to fears of government prosecution as threatening both first amendment rights and the development of new technology and communication in cyberspace. He has worked closely with Senator Patrick Leahy (D. Vt.) in efforts to have the "indecency" provisions dropped from the telecommunications bill. "The censorship imposed by CompuServe and America On-line should be recognized as a wake-up call for those who are concerned about protecting first amendment freedoms as we move into the 21st Century," Feingold said. ___________________________________________________________________________ SEN. LEAHY (D-VT) ON NET CENSORSHIP >From: XXXXXXXXXXX@leahy.senate.gov STATEMENT OF SENATOR PARTICK LEAHY ON THE ROLE OF DOJ AND INTERNET PROTEST December 14, 1995 Mr. President, among many critical issues currently facing Congress, one of the most far-reaching is the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act, which is now the subject of a conference with the House of Representatives. In June of this year, during debate on the telecommunications bill, I spoke on the floor about the importance of giving the Justice Department primary responsibility to determine when the Bell operating companies should be permitted to enter into long distance markets. I also supported an amendment by Senator Thurmond, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Senator Dorgan, and others, that would have ensured a strong role for the Justice Department as the Bell companies expand their business into long distance, as we all hope they will. That amendment received the votes of 43 Senators. Today, I remain convinced that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice should have a meaningful role in telecommunications in the area of their expertise. As the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee's Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee, I would like briefly to note three basic points on this issue: First, we all say that we support competition replacing regulation, but the question is how best to make the transition. I firmly believe that we must rely on the bipartisan principles of antitrust law in order to move as quickly as possible toward competition in all segments of the telecommunications industry, and away from regulation. Relying on antitrust principles is vital to ensure that the free market will work to spur competition and reduce government involvement in the industry. Second, the Bell companies certainly should be allowed to enter long distance markets under appropriate circumstances, for it is generally desirable to have as many competitors as possible in each market. The issue is how to determine the point at which entry by Bell companies will help rather than harm competition. That question, quite simply, is an antitrust matter which needs the antitrust expertise and specialization of the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. Third, as one long interested in competition and the antitrust laws, I do not believe it is possible for checklists fully to take the place of flexible antitrust analysis in any industry or market. If antitrust principles are ignored, competition is likely to suffer and market power may become concentrated in a few companies. This will lead to harm to consumers through higher prices, less innovation, and the weakening of our country's leadership in telecommunications. Last May, the Antitrust Subcommittee held a hearing on the antitrust issues implicated in the Senate telecommunications bill, S. 652. This hearing confirmed the importance of competition to achieve lower prices, better services and products, and more innovation for the benefit of consumers and our Nation. If we believe in the antitrust laws -- which have protected free enterprise for over 100 years -- then we should ensure that the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department plays a meaningful role in telecommunications. I understand that members of the telecommunications bill conference have not yet resolved the issue of what role, if any, the Justice Department will have in allowing Bell company entry into long-distance. I urge the conferees to make sure the bill gives the Justice Department a meaningful role, and does not merely suggest to the FCC that it "consult" with the antitrust experts. I also take this occasion to urge the conferees to reconsider the manner in which they have chosen to regulate constitutionally-protected speech on the Internet and other computer networks. Since I spoke last week on this issue, the House conferees have agreed, as I feared that they might, to a provision that would effectively ban from the Internet constitutionally-protected speech deemed by some prosecutor in some jurisdiction in this country to be "indecent". This ban will reach far beyond obscenity, mind you, to some vague standard of what is proper and decent to speak about both in terms of content and manner of expression. They are heading in the wrong direction. We should affirm freedom and privacy, not Government intervention, when it comes to personal communications. Supporters of these restrictions contend that regulating speech on the Internet is necessary because self-appointed spokesmen for decency say that parents should be concerned about what their children might access on the Internet. But many people, including many parents, young families and members of the generations that include our children and grandchildren, are also very concerned. They ought to be concerned about letting the Government step in to censor what they can say online, and to tell them what they might or might not see. The Congress is venturing where it need not and should not go. We should not be seeking to control communications among adults, whether old fogeys like ourselves or the vibrant young people who make up the vast bulk of the communities in cyberspace. We should not be acting to reduce all discourse over the Internet to third-grade readers. There are alternatives to overreaching Government regulation. Instead of passing a new law-- a new law that tells us what we can say, or think-- we should use the laws that are on the books to protect children, and assume that maybe somewhere, somehow, someplace parents ought to take responsibility instead of us always automatically passing a law to say what parents should or should not do. Let me tell you what happens. When you start having all of this sudden censorship, well-meaning though it might be, it reaches too far. We have left technological advancements, software barriers, access codes, increased enforcement of laws already on the books, and vigilant parenting unexplored as alternatives to overreaching Government regulation. After a majority of my Senate colleagues rejected my position in June and incorporated a so-called Communications Decency Act in the telecommunications bill without hearings, without examination and without much thought, I still held out hope that they would proceed to learn something about the Internet, how it works, and its potential benefits for those who will be using it in the coming century. I was encouraged when the Speaker of the House agreed with me and remarked that the Senate's action was "clearly a violation of free speech" and "very badly thought out." I, again, urge him to rejoin in the debate before it is too late. We have already seen the chilling effect that even the prospect of this legislation has had on online service providers. Last week, America Online deleted the profile of a Vermonter who communicated with fellow breast cancer survivors online. Why? They found in checking that this Vermonter had used the word "breast." Nobody bothered to ask why. She is a survivor of breast cancer. She was using the Internet to have correspondence with other survivors of breast cancer to talk about concerns they might have -- medical advances -- a basic support group. But the censors looked in and so, because the word "breast" had been used, she was being stopped. This is what we are opening ourselves up to. We should use the current laws already on the books, and we should ask parents to be a little more vigilant. Will some things get on the Internet that you, I, and other Members of the Senate might find objectionable? Of course, it will. But this objectionable material would be a tiny fraction of the vast materials available on the Internet. What we should protect is one of the greatest experiments we have seen in our age of the Internet where you have everything from the things you find most valuable to things you might find boring or repulsive. We do not close down our telephone companies because somebody picks up the phone and calls somebody else and tells them a dirty joke, or reams them out in four-letter words. The behavior between the two may be reprehensible, and maybe they should discuss their personal relationship, but we do not close down the telephone company because that might happen. Last June, I brought to the floor petitions from over 25,000 people who supported my proposal to study technological, voluntary and other ways to restrict access to objectionable online messages, before we lay the heavy-hand of Government censorship onto the Internet. This week, a number of organizations, including the Center for Democracy and Technology and Voters Telecommunications Watch, sponsored a "National Internet Day of Protest" over the telecommunications bill conference's proposal to censor the Internet. In just one day--Tuesday-- over 18,000 people contacted the offices of conferees. This country will never accept the new temperance demagoguery that is leading us down the road to Government censorship of computer communications. We have software parents can easily use to pull up on the computer and find out where their children have been going -- what discussion, and what chat lines they have been on. If they find things in there they do not want, maybe the parents ought to take the responsibility to speak to their children. If you have books or magazines that you do not want your children to read, then maybe parents might just say, do not read it. Somewhere there ought to be some responsibility left for mothers and fathers in raising their children, and not have this idea that we have to turn everything over to the heavy hand of Government. In my years here I have seen rare instances where Senators and House Members in both parties have rushed pell-mell into having the Government step in to take over for parents. At a time when we hear that we have a new thrust in the Congress where we want to get Government off your backs, we want to get Government out of your life, we want to turn things back to people, we have a massive effort underway in the telecommunications conference to say we are going to tell you what to think; we are going to tell you what to do, when you go online. Do you know why? I am willing to bet that three-quarters of the Congress do not have the foggiest idea how to get on Internet; do not have the foggiest idea how to use the Internet; have never corresponded back and forth on the Internet. They can say: "We do not use it. It does not involve us. So let us screw it up for everybody else who might use it." But, "everybody else" are millions and millions of Americans. I urge the full telecommunications bill conference to consider the threat its proposals to regulate online speech poses to the future growth of the Internet. The interests of the young children are not in the stifling of speech or Government overreaching. They will be served by the growth of the Internet, the development of the World Wide Web and the creative, economic and social opportunities that they can provide. And for those who want to abuse it, those who want to be involved in child pornography, we have laws on the books. We can go after those people. We can prosecute them. But let us not close down 99.9 percent of the Internet because of a few child pornographers. Go after them, but protect the Internet for the rest of the people. Maybe those who are on the Internet ought to ask their Members of the House or the Senate, do they use it? Do they understand it? Do they understand the computer? I do not want to ask them if they know how to do really technical things, like programming a VCR. Ask them if they can turn on the Internet? Can they actually talk with each other? And if they cannot, maybe Internet users ought to tell their Members, "Then leave us alone. Leave us alone." ___________________________________________________________________________ =========================================================================== =========================================================================== VTW BillWatch #33 VTW BillWatch: A weekly newsletter tracking US Federal legislation affecting civil liberties. BillWatch is published at the end of every week as long as Congress is in session. (Congress is in session) BillWatch is produced and published by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org) (We're not the EFF :-) Issue #33, Date: Mon Jan 22 00:42:06 EST 1996 Do not remove this banner. See distribution instructions at the end. ___________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Announcements Oregon ISPs stand up for your rights Recap of ECHO Virtual Culture Event 1/21/96 Lotus blinks in industry/NSA crypt standoff Subscription Information (unchanged since 10/21/95) ___________________________________________________________________________ ANNOUNCEMENTS Each week never fails to bring us some interesting development in the world of telecommunications and civil liberties and this one is no different. Keep an eye on http://www.vtw.org/. We'll be posting an alert on the New York State cyberporn bill later tonight. Also, if you haven't yet scheduled a meeting with your legislator and your local ISP to talk about the Exon bill, you're wasting valuable time. Do so now! Shabbir J. Safdar Advisory Board Member Voters Telecommunications Watch This issue can be found in HTML form at URL:http://www.vtw.org/billwatch/issue.33.html ___________________________________________________________________________ OREGON ISPs STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS Recently, something amazing happened: several Oregon Internet businesses stood up and told potential US Senate candidates: we cannot survive poorly thought-out Internet regulation; the Internet economy in the state of Oregon hinges upon you making intelligent choices as a US Senator. Here is an excerpt from the letter coordinated by VTW: Let this be put as plainly as possible: the Internet as a business platform may not survive this legislative onslaught of this US Senate. To regulate a technology without understanding it is tantamount to playing with fire. The next US Senator from Oregon must have an understanding of this technology, so that we may prosper as members of the Oregon business community. The final copy of the letter is at http://www.vtw.org/archive/960118_153046 The letter was signed by ten Oregon Internet business, including the largest Oregon-owned Internet Service Providers in the state. It was presented at a press conference in Portland at Europa Communications (http://www.europa.com/) where Libertarian candidate Gene Nanni (http://www.teleport.com/~gemina/ was invited to speak by VTW. Great coverage of the event was provided by the Netly News at http://www.pathfinder.com/Netly/. Take a moment and thank the Internet businesses that stood up for civil liberties by sending them a thank you for doing their part. The signatories are: aracnet.com, Craig Bell (goat@aracnet.com) Europa Communications, Richard Horswell (richard@europa.com) The Habit Cafe, John Ark (ark@teleport.com) InfoStructure, Bob Down (down@mind.net) One World Internetworking, Susan Hamill (hamills@corp.oneworld.com) Open Door Networks, Alan Openheimer (alan@opendoor.com) Pacific Online Access, Mark Nasstrom (mnasstro@orednet.org) Sunlight Data Systems, Fred Huette (phred@teleport.com) Teleport Corp., John Moss (for Jim Deibele) (action@teleport.com) Thurber Technology Group, Alex Thurber (athurber@thurber.com) ___________________________________________________________________________ RECAP OF ECHO VIRTUAL CULTURE EVENT 1/21/96 Hosted at Performance Space 122, this panel brought together several representatives from Morality in Media, PICS, the ACLU, writers, and VTW. Shabbir J. Safdar of VTW gave the following introductory speech before the melee, moderated by the ever-charming Molly Ker from Echo, ensued. If you are in the New York area, take a moment to attend the next Virtual Culture event. The space is wonderful and the planners more so. [given by Shabbir J. Safdar (VTW) at "Internet Regulation panel" 1/21/96] Good afternoon. I'm not going to spend too much time talking about the various legal differences between "obscenity" or "indecency", that's for the legal experts from the ACLU to explain. I want to talk to you about some common sense, something that's in short supply in Washington. In mid-1995 84 US Senators voted to criminalize those who speak "indecently" on computer networks. As the legislation stands now, if I were to take a piece of objectionable art, and put it on my web page for all to see, or I were to quote some racy passages from "Tropic of Cancer" in a public posting, I could suffer two years in jail and $250,000 fine. The main point of misunderstanding between those that favor censorship, and those that oppose it is exactly the same fact about the Internet: everyone can publish their information for anyone else to come and read. Most of us view this as a wonderful thing. Ask yourself, why is there so much crap on television? I don't mean to rail against sex and violence on television, those things have their place. I'm talking about boring junk, interspersed with obnoxious commercials, none of which I really think is up my alley. Why is it that nobody can produce a television show that covers the presidential political rhetoric this week, followed by the latest information on city bicycling, and the latest brilliant words of Hakim Bey? Because everything on television must be filtered. Let's take a quick litmus test: how many people here have had a great piece of writing, art, or idea and wanted to share it with the rest of the world. Now, how many of you have gotten it on television? Raise your hands! I thought so. Luckily I'm not speaking to the afternoon lunch club of television producers or the answer would have been different. The fact of the matter is that it's damn expensive to put something on television, and the production costs restrict it to the very few, resulting in very little diversity. Instead we have the Internet, and in all it's beauty, it's our own little Gutenberg utopia. Not only can I produce anything I want, and allow you to come and read it, but my costs can be as little as $15-$30 per month. This is exactly what scares those who favor censorship. They don't view this as a thing of beauty, but another way for those who hold dissonant opinions to attempt to voice them. Their version of the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech, except when it might arouse some remote sense of passion to remind me that I'm human". Don't be fooled, their concern is not about children. If it was, they would practice parenting instead of censorship. Then what exactly is the point of this legislation? If it's protecting children from material that is inappropriate, should the laws actually be doing something effective? After all, passing laws in the US will not stop anyone elsewhere in the world from making available information that we consider to be racy by our culture's standards. The censors have missed the whole point of this medium. This is the ultimate user choice medium. When I want to read an email, I look at the subject and then read it, or delete it. It doesn't come out of the computer and grab me. When I want to look at someone's page on the World Wide Web, I have to direct my software to go out, make a connection to a Web server at the owner's site, download it to my computer, and then display. This is the ultimate user choice medium. What you read is dictated by you, the reader, and nobody else. For parents, the same old tools still apply. Concerned about what your child is reading on the Internet? Sit down and play with the Internet with them. Become familiar with their interests. Should a parent feel that they cannot take the time to watch their child constantly, there are software tools to help them. Literally dozens of them, we publish a list on our World Wide Web page at www.vtw.org. They won't take your place though. They cannot function as a babysitter. If that's what your looking for, perhaps its best you simply turned the computer off and send your child outside to play (although not in traffic) In closing, let me just leave you with one question to ask yourself next time you see someone advocating Internet censorship. Look at what they're proposing and try to discern, are they really interested in keeping children away from this material, or are they interested in keeping you from expressing it? The First Amendment protects your right to express yourself, it does not protect a parent's right to reshape the world into their own version of Romper Room. Thank you. ___________________________________________________________________________ LOTUS BLINKS IN INDUSTRY/NSA CRYPT STANDOFF It's not clear why this hasn't made a larger impression on the net yet, because we think its of crucial importance in the ongoing debate about cryptography. For years since the original introduction of the Clipper Chip, the debate over cryptography has continued to gain momentum. Recently, the Administration, embarrassed by its defeat over the Clipper Chip proposal, put forth it's Commercial Key Escrow proposal. What is all the fuss about? It's about cryptography, and who has the right to encrypt information and who has the right to keep the key. Right now, you do, but that could all change. Think of cryptography as a really good front door on your house or apartment. The door key is yours to hold, isn't it? It's your right to give a copy to someone you trust, or if you choose, nobody at all. The Administration contends that this is not so. With their "commercial key escrow" scheme, they contend that you shouldn't be able to build a door they cannot break down, but they also contend that they should be able to order you to give a copy of the key to a government-approved individual, so that they can come enter your house (with a warrant, of course) when they wish. Industry, of course, panned this plan when it proposed late 1995, and continues to object to it. All the while, a standoff continues: the Administration refuses to allow cryptographic software with keys longer than 40 bits to be exported, and industry refuses to build Big Brother into their products. And this is where the standoff stayed until last Wednesday, when Lotus blinked. On Wed, Jan. 17th, 1996, Lotus announced that it had increased the key length of its International version of the Lotus Notes product to 64 bits. They did this by building in a back door for the Administration to use to decrypt any international traffic that it might desire to read. Although there are a lot of reasons why we think this is a terrible idea, the first one that springs to mind is the fact that the one public key that Lotus has embedded in all their software is a single point of failure for every International Lotus user throughout the world. Sure, this key is held with a high security clearance by the government, but then Aldritch Ames also had some of the most sensitive information available to him, and he proved untrustworthy. After all, if $1.5 million can buy a CIA counter-intelligence agent, I wonder how much a Lotus Notes key escrow holder goes for these days? You can find a copy of the Lotus press releases at http://www.lotus.com ___________________________________________________________________________ SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION You can receive BillWatch via email, Internet fax, gopher or WWW: To subscribe via email, send mail to majordomo@vtw.org with "subscribe vtw-announce emailaddress" in the body of the message. To unsubscribe from BillWatch send mail to majordomo@vtw.org with "unsubscribe vtw-announce" in the body of the message. Send mail to files@vtw.org to learn how to receive back issues of BillWatch. To subscribe via fax, leave a message at +1 718 596 2851 with your voice number and your fax number. BillWatch can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.vtw.org/billwatch/ and in Gopherspace at: gopher -p1/vtw/billwatch/ gopher.panix.com Permission to reproduce BillWatch non-commercially is granted provided the banner and copyright remain intact. Please send a copy of your non-commercial publication to vtw@vtw.org for our scrapbook. For permission to commercially reproduce BillWatch, please contact vtw@vtw.org. ___________________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1995 Steven Cherry & Shabbir J. Safdar ___________________________________________________________________________ End VTW BillWatch Issue #33, Date: Mon Jan 22 00:42:06 EST 1996 ___________________________________________________________________________ This file provided by: Voters Telecommunications Watch *** Watching out for your civil liberties *** Email: vtw@vtw.org (preferred) Gopher: gopher -p1/vtw gopher.panix.com URL: http://www.vtw.org/ Telephone: (718) 596-2851 (last resort) =========================================================================== þ