Skip to main content
Podcast Episode: Chronicling Online Communities

EFFector - Volume 8, Issue 1 - ALERT: HR830 Would Cripple FOIA - Act NOW!


EFFector - Volume 8, Issue 1 - ALERT: HR830 Would Cripple FOIA - Act NOW!

  ________________             _______________          _______________
 /_______________/\           /_______________\        /\______________\
 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \          |||||||||||||||||       / ////////////////  
  \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/          |||||||||||||||||      / ////////////////
   \\\\\\_______/\            ||||||_______\        / //////_____\  
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \           ||||||||||||||       / /////////////
     \\\\\\\\\\\\\/____       ||||||||||||||      / ///////////// 
      \\\\\___________/\      |||||              / ////   
       \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \     |||||             / ////  
        \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/     |||||             \////

EFFector Online Volume 08 No. 01    February 10, 1995
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation        ISSN 1062-9424

In This Issue:

ALERT: HR830 Would Cripple FOIA - Act NOW!
ALERT: S314 Online "Decency Act" Threatens All Service Providers
EFF SF Bay Area Meetings Announced
Electronic Frontier Foundation Seeking Volunteer/Intern BBS Sysop
Calendar of Events
What YOU Can Do


Subject: ALERT: HR830 Would Cripple FOIA - Act NOW!

The recently proposed Paperwork Reduction Act, bill HR830, contains a 
disturbing section of language proposed by West Publishing, the 
government contractor that has a virtual monopoly on US federal legal 
case documents.  The ulterior motive behind this appears to be an attempt 
by West to legislate away a longstanding lawsuit against West by Tax 
Analysts, a Virginia publisher attempting to establish in court that the
Justice Department JURIS database of court decisions, administered by West,
but paid for by the US public, is in fact in the public domain as are all 
government publications.

According to the House Regulatory Affairs Committee Chairman's Draft
of the Section by Section Analysis, this special interest language simply 
clarifies existing law.  This is also the position West has taken.

The Draft states:
"Section 3518 contains a new subsection which is intended to
clarify that when public information, as defined in Section 3502,
is disseminated or otherwise made available to the public, it
ceases to be public information, when a person adds value to the
public information.  This resulting information product, including
data, database, or method used to identify the data, database or
information product, also ceases to be public information, and the
government cannot claim a right to reacquire or use the resulting
information product without the consent of the person adding value.
The new subsection is designed to encourage the profit and
non-profit sectors to make the widest possible use of public
information released by the government."

The last sentence of this is incomprehensible in light of the fact that 
this poorly drafted section, designed to satisfy a major lobbyist, would 
in fact severely cripple the Freedom of Information Act, one of the 
hardest-won cornerstones of American public access to government-held 
information and records.  Analysis by EFF staff and board members, as 
well as Taxpayer Assets Project, indicates that not only would FOIA 
requests and suits for US federal legal case documents be rejected, but 
so would any such attempts to obtain US government information if any 
"value added" content was provided by a private contractor, *even if that 
content is not subject to copyright or other intellectual property 
protection under law*.  Attempts to obtain unclassified software paid for 
by US citizens' tax dollars but produced by govt. contractors rather than 
govt. employees would fail.  Suits filed to obtain email or other records 
of government people suspected of abuse of authority would be ruled 
against if the system was designed or maintained by a contractor.  Requests 
for information from massive and vitally important govt. information 
databases such as JURIS, ERIC and EDGAR, which were built in whole or in 
party by private sector contractors, would be rejected.  

What West and other supporters of the bill describe as a minor 
clarification to current law is in fact a massive restructuring of the 
balance of power in the world of government information contracting, and 
more importantly, a stripping of citizen access to information paid for 
by the public, for the public.  The bill would exclude *all* contractor-
generated records, online or offline, from the Freedom of Information Act.

The bill was introduced, and a hearing held regarding it, Feb. 7, while 
subcommittee markup was scheduled for yesterday, Feb. 9.  Full committee
markup, apparently in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
is set for today, Fri. Feb. 10, at 9am, EST.  It is rather obvious that 
this bill is being ramrodded through Congress as fast as possible, so 
that the public not only doesn't get a chance to look the bill or comment 
on it, but doesn't even know it exists until too late.  You may wish 
to write to the Govt. Reform and Oversight Committee and let them know 
*politely and in clear, short statements* just how you feel about that.
You should also write to your own Representatives, again in clear, 
simple, and calm words, why you think this bill as written is dangerous and 
why it should be opposed or stripped of the West special interest provision.

* The most important thing you can do from now until 9am EST Feb. 10:
EFF, along with TAP, are asking people to send a brief message by fax to 
the members of the full committee, asking Congress to delete the West
Publishing special interest provision of the Paperwork Reduction Act, HR830.
A list of the committee members follows after the full text of the 
relevant section of the bill, below.

For more information on writing to your Representatives, see the "What YOU 
Can Do" section of this newsletter, below.

Contact: David Johnson, Sr. Policy Fellow,, +1 202 861 7700

* Relevant Bill Text

"(f)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or any
other law--
     (1) any public information that an agency discloses,
disseminates, or makes available to the public may be used by any
person for profit or nonprofit activities; and
     (2) if any person adds value to the public information, the
Federal Government shall not have any right to obtain, collect,
acquire, disseminate, use, or convert --
             (A)  the resulting data, database, or other
                  information product, or
             (B)  any method used by the person to identify such
                  resulting data, database, or information
except under terms that are expressly agreed to by such person."

* Committee members to send your fax to IMMEDIATELY

[List provided by Taxpayer Assets Project, a non-profit organization founded
to monitor the management of government property, including information 
systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other 
government assets.  For more information, email]

               Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
                              104th Congress

** = Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources,
     and Regulatory Affairs

[All phone & fax numbers are area-code 202.]


William Clinger, Jr. (PA)   225-5121       225-4681
Benjamin Gilman, (NY)       225-3776       225-2541
Dan Burton, (IA)            225-2276       225-0016
Constance Morella, (MD)     225-5341       225-1389
Christopher Shays, (CO)     225-5541       225-9629
Steven Schiff, (NM)         225-6316       225-4975
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, (FL)   225-3931       225-5620
William Zeliff, Jr. (NH)    225-5456       225-4370
John McHugh, (NY) **        225-4611       226-0621
Stephen Horn, (CA)          225-6676       226-1012
John Mica, (FL)             225-4035       226-0821
Peter Blute, (MA)           225-6101       225-2217
Thomas Davis, (VA)          225-1492       225-3071
David McIntosh, (IA)        225-3021       225-3382
Jon Fox, (PA) **            225-6111       225-3155
Randy Tate, (WA) **         225-8901       225-3484
Dick Chrysler, (MI)         225-4872       225-3034
Gil Gutknecht, (MN) **      225-2472       225-3246
Mark Souder, (IA)           225-4436       225-3479
William Martini, (NJ)       225-5751       225-3372
Joe Scarborough, (FL) **    225-4136       225-3414
John Shadegg, (AZ) **       225-3361       225-3462
Michael Flanagan, (IL)      225-4061       225-3128
Charles Bass, (NH)          225-5206       225-2946
Steve LaTourette, (OH)      225-5731       225-3307
Mark Sanford, (SC)          225-3176       225-3407
Robert Ehrlich, Jr. (MD) ** 225-3061       225-3094


Cardiss Collins, (IL)       225-5006       225-8396
Henry Waxman, (CA) **       225-3976       225-4099
Tom Lantos, (CA)            225-3531       225-7900
Robert Wise, Jr. (WV)       225-2711       225-7856
Major Owens, (NY)           225-6231       226-0112
Edolphus Towns, (NY)        225-5936       225-1018
John Spratt, Jr. (SC) **    225-5501       225-0464
Louise Slaughter, (NY) **   225-3615       225-7822
Paul Kanjorski, (PA) **     225-6511       225-0764
Gary Condit, (CA) **        225-6131       225-0819
Collin Peterson, (MN) **    225-2165       225-1593
Karen Thurman, (FL)         225-1002       226-0329
Carolyn Maloney, (NY)       225-7944       225-4709
Thomas Barrett, (WI)        225-3571       225-2185
Gene Taylor, (MI)           225-5772       225-7074
Barbara Rose Collins, (MI)  225-2261       225-6645
Eleanor Holmes Norton, (DC) 225-8050       225-3002
James P. Moran, (VA)        225-4376       225-0017
Gene Green, (TX)            225-1688       225-9903
Carrie Meek, (FL)           225-4506       226-0777
Frank Mascara, (PA)         225-4665       225-3377
Chaka Fattah, (PA)          225-4001       225-6466

Bernard Sanders, (VT)       225-4115       225-6790

[NOTE: If you will be faxing long distance, and cannot afford this many 
faxes, try contacting the Committee staff at 202-225-5074, and asking for
the committee fax number.  There is no guarantee your fax to this number
will reach all members of the committee, but it is far, far better than

Key Administration Officials:


Sally Katzen        voice: 202/395-4852

Bruce McConnell     voice: 202/395-3785

Department of Justice

Paul Friedman       voice: 202/514-1721


Subject: ALERT: S314 Online "Decency Act" Threatens All Online Providers

EFF is working with the Electronic Messaging Association and others to 
oppose the Exon bill, S314, the Communications Decency Act of 1995.
We believe policy makers should take into account the ability of those using
the net to avoid materials they find offensive. There will likely be
increased use of labels and headers to help people avoid unwanted materials
and guide their childrens' use of the net in the future. Meanwhile, it is 
simply a bad idea to make it a crime to "transmit" offensive material, 
especially when the "transmitter" is passive and not monitoring the 
content of "transmission".

This bill would perpetrate the online equivalent of making anyone who 
builds a street liable for the fact that you can go to the red light 
district on it. This bill if passed into law will gravely chill the free 
flow of information online and inappropriately criminalize sysops and 
sysadmins for wrongdoing over which they have no control.  

It is clear from recent discussions with Sen. Exon and his staff that the 
sponsors of the bill were apparently unaware that the bill, as written, 
criminalizes essentially everyone involved in networking with the sole 
exception of govt.-decreed common carriers like telephone companies.
The possibility of a re-write was being considered as of Feb. 8.

Contact: David Johnson, Sr. Policy Fellow,, +1 202 861 7700

* Analysis and text of the bill

[This analysis provided by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a
non-profit public interest organization. CDT's mission is to develop and 
advocate public policies that advance constitutional civil liberties and 
democratic values in new computer and communications technologies.
For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger .]




Senators Exon (D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have 
introduced legislation to expand current FCC regulations on 
obscene and indecent audiotext to cover *all* content carried 
over all forms of electronic communications networks.  If 
enacted, the "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) 
would place substantial criminal liability on 
telecommunications service providers (including telephone 
networks, commercial online services, the Internet, and 
independent BBS's) if their network is used in the 
transmission of any indecent, lewd, threatening or harassing 
messages.  The legislation is identical to a proposal offered 
by Senator Exon last year which failed along with the Senate 
Telecommunications reform bill (S. 1822, 103rd Congress, 
Sections 801 - 804). The text of the proposed statute, with proposed
amendment, is appended at the end of this document.

The bill would compel service providers to choose between 
severely restricting the activities of their subscribers or 
completely shutting down their email, Internet access, and 
conferencing services under the threat of criminal liability.   
Moreover, service providers would be forced to closely 
monitor every private communication, electronic mail message, 
public forum, mailing list, and file archive carried by or 
available on their network, a proposition which poses a 
substantial threat to the freedom of speech and privacy 
rights of all American citizens.

S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step 
backwards on the path to a free and open National Information 
Infrastructure.  The bill raises fundamental questions about 
the ability of government to control content on 
communications networks, as well as the locus of liability 
for content carried in these new communications media.  

To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital 
media, CDT is working to organize a broad coalition of public 
interest organizations including the ACLU, People For the 
American Way, and Media Access Project, along with 
representatives from the telecommunications, online services, 
and computer industries to oppose S. 314 and to explore 
alternative policy solutions that preserve the free flow of 
information and freedom of speech in the online world.  CDT 
believes that technological alternatives which allow 
individual subscribers to control the content they receive 
represent a more appropriate approach to this issue.  


S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and 
harassment on telephone services to all telecommunications 
providers and expand criminal liability to *all* content 
carried by *all* forms of telecommunications networks.  The 
bill would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act (47 
U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to prevent 
minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext and 
criminalizes harassment accomplished over interstate 
telephone lines.  This section, commonly known as the Helms 
Amendment (having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms), 
has been the subject of extended constitutional litigation in 
recent years.


S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including 
telephone companies, commercial online services, the 
Internet, and BBS's) liable for every message, file, or other 
content carried on its network -- including the private 
conversations or messages exchanged between two consenting 

Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise 
makes available any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, 
image, or other communication" which is "obscene, lewd, 
lascivious, filthy, or indecent" using a "telecommunications 
device" would be subject to a fine of $100,000 or two years 
in prison (Section (2)(a)).    

In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers 
would be forced to pre-screen all messages, files, or other 
content before transmitting it to the intended recipient.  
Carriers would also be forced to prevent or severely restrict 
their subscribers from communicating with individuals and 
accessing content available on other networks.

Electronic communications networks do not contain discrete 
boundaries.  Instead, users of one service can easily 
communicate with and access content available on other 
networks.  Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on the 
carrier as opposed to the originator of the content, would 
make the carrier legally responsible not only for the conduct 
of its own subscribers, but also for content generated by 
subscribers of other services.

This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to the 
free flow of information throughout the online world and the 
free speech and privacy rights of individual users.  Forcing 
carriers to pre-screen content would not only be impossible 
due to the sheer volume of messages, it would also violate 
current legal protections.


S. 314 would also expand current restrictions on access to 
indecent telephone audiotext services by minors under the age 
of 18 to cover similar content carried by telecommunications 
services (such as America Online and the Internet).  (Sec 

As amended by this provision, anyone who, "by means of 
telephone or telecommunications device, makes, transmits, or 
otherwise makes available (directly or by recording device) 
any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is 
available to any person under the age of 18 years of age or 
to any other person without that person's consent, regardless 
of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or 
initiated the communication" would be subject of a fine of 
$100,000 or two years in prison.

This would force carries to act as private censors of all 
content available in public forums or file archives on their 
networks.   Moreover, because there is no clear definition of 
indecency, carriers would have to restrict access to any 
content that could be possibly construed as indecent or 
obscene under the broadest interpretation of the term. Public 
forums, discussion lists, file archives, and content 
available for commercial purposes would have to be 
meticulously screened and censored in order to avoid 
potential liability for the carrier.

Such a scenario would severely limit the diversity of content 
available on online networks, and limit the editorial freedom 
of independent forum operators.   



Section (6) of the bill would amend the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2511) to prevent the 
unauthorized interception and disclosure of "digital 
communications" (Sec. 6).  However, because the term "digital
communication" is not defined and 18 USC 2511 currently 
prevents unauthorized interception and disclosure of 
"electronic communications" (which includes electronic mail 
and other forms of  communications in digital form), the 
effect of this provision has no clear importance.


Finally, section (8) would amend sections 611 and 612 of the 
Communications Act (47 USC 611 - 612) to allow any cable 
operator to refuse to carry any public access or leased 
access programming which contains "obscenity, indecency, or 


Government regulation of content in the mass media has always 
been considered essential to protect children from access to 
sexually-explicit material, and to prevent unwitting 
listeners/views from being exposed to material that might be 
considered extremely distasteful.  The choice to protect 
children has historically been made at the expense of the First 
Amendment ban on government censorship.  As Congress moves to 
regulate new interactive media, it is essential that it 
understand that interactive media is different than mass 
media.  The power and flexibility of interactive media offers 
a unique opportunity to enable parents to control what 
content their kids have access to, and leave the flow of 
information free for those adults who want it.  Government 
control regulation is simply not needed to achieve the 
desired purpose.

Most interactive technology, such as Internet browsers and 
the software used to access online services such as America 
Online and Compuserve, already has the capability to limit 
access to certain types of services and selected information.  
Moreover, the electronic program guides being developed for 
interactive cable TV networks also provide users the 
capability to screen out certain channels or ever certain 
types of programming.  Moreover, in the online world, most 
content (with the exception of private communications 
initiated by consenting individuals) is transmitted by 
request.  In other words, users must seek out the content 
they receive, whether it is by joining a discussion or 
accessing a file archive.  By its nature, this technology 
provides ample control at the user level.  Carriers (such as 
commercial online services, Internet service providers) in 
most cases act only as "carriers" of electronic transmissions 
initiated by individual subscribers.

CDT believes that the First Amendment will be better served 
by giving parents and other users the tools to select which 
information they (and their children) should have access to.  
In the case of criminal content the originator of the 
content, not the carriers, should be responsible for their 
crimes.  And, users (especially parents) should be empowered 
to determine what information they and their children have 
access to.  If all carriers of electronic communications are 
forced to restrict content in order to avoid criminal liability 
proposed by S. 314, the First Amendment would be threatened 
and the usefulness of digital media for communications and 
information dissemination would be drastically limited.


The bill has been introduced and will next move to the Senate 
Commerce Committee, although no Committee action has been 
scheduled.   Last year, a similar proposal by Senator Exon 
was approved by the Senate Commerce committee as an amendment 
to the Senate Telecommunications Bill (S. 1822, which died at 
the end of the 103rd Congress).  CDT will be working with a 
wide range of other interest groups to assure that Congress 
does not restrict the free flow of information in interactive 

For more information contact:

Jerry Berman,    CDT Executive Director 
Daniel Weitzner, CDT Deputy Director 

+1 202 637 9800


TEXT OF 47 U.S.C. 223 AS AMENDED BY S. 314

**NOTE:         [] = deleted 
                ALL CAPS = additions
47 USC 223 (1992)

Sec. 223.  [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District
of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications]


   (a) Whoever--

   (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign 
communication by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS

   (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal] 
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

   [(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, 
without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, 
threaten, or harass any person at the called number;]


   (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or 
continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the 
called number; or

   [(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation 
ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or]


   (2) knowingly permits any [telephone facility] 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used 
for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more 
than $[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned  not more than [six months] TWO 
YEARS, or both.
   (b)(1) Whoever knowingly--

   (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone] 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly or by recording device) 
any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person, 
regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the 
  (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity 
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with 
title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two 
years, or both.

   (2) Whoever knowingly--

   (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone], 
TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly or by recording device) any 
indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available 
to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without
that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such 
communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or

   (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity 
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than 
$[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months]
TWO YEARS, or both.

   (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this 
subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited 
communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance 
with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the 
Commission may prescribe by regulation.

   (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever, 
within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph 
(1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $[50,000] 
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each 
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2), 
and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1) 
or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000] 
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each 
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either--

   (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or 
any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the 
Commission for such purposes, or

   (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative 

   (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate 
district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice 
which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted 
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   (c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or 
within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, 
to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a 
communication specified in subsection (b) from the
telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in 
writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the 
carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such 
communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the 
provider of such communication.

   (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may 
be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common 
carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers, 
directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on 
account of--

   (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good 
faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this 
subsection; or 

   (B) any access permitted--

   (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation 
by a provider of communications that communications provided by 
that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or

   (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not 
allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to 
restrict access to communications described in subsection (b).

   (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider 
of communications services to which subscribers are denied access 
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action 
for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such 
action shall be limited to the question of whether the 
communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within
the category of communications to which the carrier will provide 
access only to subscribers who have previously requested such 


NOTE: This version of the text shows the actual text of current law as 
it would be changed.  For the bill itself, which consists of unreadable 
text such as:

             (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
                    (A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above
                  subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications device';
                    (B) by striking out `makes any comment, request,
                  suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
                  `makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any
                  comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
                    (C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the
                    `(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a

See:, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill


Subject: EFF SF Bay Area Meetings Announced

EFF is pleased to introduce a series of monthly `BayFF' meetings in
the San Francisco Bay Area.  All EFF members, guests, and the public
are invited.

The first meeting will be in San Francisco on February 15, 1995, at
7:30PM.  The gracious donor of our first meeting place is:

	Wired Magazine
	520 Third Street, Fourth Floor
	San Francisco, CA
	+1 415 222 6200  voice

John Gilmore and Cindy Cohn will speak on the constitutional issues
around export controls on cryptography.  John is a co-founder of EFF
and Chair of the EFF Board's Crypto Committee.  Cindy is an attorney
in private practice at McGlashen and Sarrail in San Mateo.  These
controls inhibit free speech, publication of software and papers,
academic freedom of inquiry, and personal privacy, as well as having a
strong negative impact on computer security.  We'll explore some of
the implications and prospects for change.

Dave Farber will speak on "Living in the Global Information
Infrastructure -- some concerns".  Dave is an EFF Board member and has
more years of experience in computers and networking than the total
experience at many startup companies.  Vice President Gore has proposed
that the nations of the world undertake the building of a Global
Information Infrastructure -- the GII.  While most leaders agree with
the sprit of the Gore proposal -- namely to provide a mechanism which
could invigorate the world economy in the forthcoming information age,
many disagree with his belief that it will bring democracy to the
world.  They interpret such statements as being another example of
American colonialism.  It is this basic lack of uniform global
agreement on what terms mean, what rules apply to electronic commerce
and what impact a GII will have on their nation that underlies the
comments Dave will make.  These raise questions about the universality
of Cyberspace.  He will seek to table a set of questions that may
stimulate your thinking in this area.

There will also be plenty of time for general and specific questions,
issues, discussion, meeting people, and socializing with frontier-
minded folks.

We will schedule the second monthly meeting near the Computers,
Freedom, and Privacy conference -- tentatively on Friday night,
March 31.  Watch this space for more information.

We hope to see you on Wednesday!

	John Gilmore
	Jane Metcalfe
	Denise Caruso
	(Bay Area members of the EFF Board)


Subject: Electronic Frontier Foundation Seeking Volunteer/Intern BBS Sysop

[For immediate release - please distribute to appropriate areas]

Jan. 20, 1994

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a 501(c)(3) non-profit public
interest civil liberties organization, was founded in July of 1990
to ensure that the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights are protected as new communications technologies emerge.

EFF's BBS is in need of a sysop and/or co-sysops, on a volunteer basis, 
in the DC metro area.  Needed especially: a responsible and helpful sysop 
with multi-line PC-Board DOS BBS experience and knowledgeable about some or 
all of the following: Fido-tech mail systems (FrontDoor/InterMail), UUCP 
gating for Usenet/Internet, crossgating between Fido, QWK, and 
Usenet/mailing list forums, DESQview multitasker experience. Some 
programming skills for making simple doors and utilities also of value. 

Volunteer/intern would need to be onsite for at least some of the tasks,
but may be able to do some maintenance remotely (e.g., via Doorway or similar
programs). The BBS itself will remain on-site, and all equipment will, of 
course, be provided.

The person needed for this role should be willing to commit to fairly
longterm involvement. (i.e., We don't need a Sysop of the Week situation. :)

Some projects this person may be involved in:

* setting up and maintaining EFF's new BBS (the old one is just not 
  serving our, or our members, needs);

* contacting BBS-based networks, and getting the BBS involved in their mail

* creation of a new EFFNet for BBS operators - including gating of EFF mailing
  lists and newsgroups to and from FTN & QWK nets, as well as posting of EFF
  files to software distribution nets;

* passing on EFF alerts and announcements to relevant online forums in the BBS

* helping coordinate EFF's sysop membership program;

* routing legal and other queries from BBS forums to the apropos EFF staff

* mirroring EFF's Internet archives on the BBS;

* documenting the BBS setup so that other EFFers can operate it properly in
  intern sysop's absence;

* coordinating volunteer co-sysops;

* surveying the BBS community, searching for user groups and sysop
  associations, and otherwise making contacts and finding and sharing 

EFF cannot currently offer monetary compensation for this position, but
the sysop would receive valuable work experience in information systems
management and net-based research, an Internet email account, an EFF
membership, etc.  This experience may also qualify as externship experience 
at some schools, and EFF staff members will assist with paperwork and 
evaluations necessary for the sysop to receive proper credit.

To apply, please send a resume detailing general and relevant work,
educational, and computing/networking experience, along with a cover 
letter explaining why you'd like to work here at EFF. (ASCII via Internet 
email preferred; see below for contact info.)

EFF is, of course, an equal opportunity employer and "interner".

 The Electronic Frontier Foundation, attn: Stanton McCandlish
 1667 K St. NW, Suite 801
 Washington DC 20006-1605 USA

 +1 202 861 7717 (voice)
 +1 202 861 1258 (fax)
 +1 202 861 1223 (BBS - 16.8k ZyXEL)
 +1 202 861 1224 (BBS - 14.4k V.32bis)

 Internet fax gate: remote-printer.SMcC/


Subject: Newsbytes

* The EFFector Online mailing list has been cleaned up. It was formerly 
maintained in several versions (some manually maintained, and others run
via the EFF listserv.)  The list is now entirely listserv-operated, and 
the recent rush of new EFF members have been added.  However, there still 
may be some duplicate addresses, people who were on the manually 
maintained version of the list and tried to unsubscribe via the listserv 
but are still subscribed, etc.  If you get EFFector twice from the 
effector-online mailing list, please let us know at  If you 
get EFFector and do not want to receive it, send a message body of:

unsubscribe effector-online

to  New subscribers: send a message body of:

subscribe effector-online

to and you'll be added to the list.

You may also note some format changes for EFFector, including this new
newsbytes section, and reviews.  Let us know if you like them (or don't)

* PBS privacy snub: Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) in Jan. 1995 sent a letter 
and questionnaire to National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting System.  According to an AP 
story, the questionnaire asked, among other things, names of employees 
who previously worked at Pacifica stations, names of employees who had 
worked for Christian stations, and names of employees who had 
contributed more than $250 to certain political causes, as well as age, 
gender and ethnic background information of NPR/PBS employees.

At a press conference Pressler stated he did not think this was an 
privacy invasion, and that the information would not only be made public,
but printed in the _Federal_Register_.  However, according a report by 
Brock Meeks of _Cyberwire_Dispatch_, on Feb. 2, Pressler recinded these 
requests in a letter to the Chair of CPB, stating, "I have given careful 
consideration the concerns you expressed about individual privacy.  
Accordingly, I do not want [these lists of names]..." and asked that CPB 
Chair Henry Cauthen have "no misunderstanding about my intentions in seeking 
information", while contradictorily criticizing CPB's "apparent 
unwillingness" to allow Pressler a "full fiscal picture" and a "careful 
understanding of the finances" of PBS, according to Meeks.

* Staff/Board changes at EFF: EFF's elected a new Chair and Vice-Chair of 
the Board of Directors: David Johnson of Lexis Counsel Connect, and Esther 
Dyson of EDventure, respectively.  Former Chair and Vice-Chair, 
co-founders Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow, of course remain on the 
board and continue to play an active and vital role in directing EFF.
EFF bookkeeper and office manager Doug Craven has taken over Membership 
Coordinator duties, Stanton McCandlish (formerly EFF Online Activist)
is now the Manager of Online Services, and intern Eric Tachibana comes on 
staff at last as Online Services Coordinator.  Those who call by voice 
phone are likely to encounter our new receptionist, Dana Lynn Kirvan.

EFF also welcomes several interns and volunteers, including Benoit 
Jacqmotte, Alex Lloyd, and Fred Bourgeois, who assist with various 
projects, from coordinating global contact and press lists, to maintaining 
lists of Congress contact information and government Internet servers.

Additionally, EFF Chair David Johnson is serving as EFF's Senior Policy 
Fellow to coordinate EFF's programmatic and policy goals, with the help of
EFF's new Membership and Development Manager, Jo Acosta.

For more information on EFF Board, staff and volunteers/interns, see:, /pub/EFF/staff.eff, /pub/EFF/bios.eff, 1/EFF, staff.eff, 1/EFF, staff.eff

* Pensacola busts: Over two months ago, the homes and businesses of several 
BBS operators in Pensacola, Florida were raided, on suspicion of 
transmitting obscene materials. As of this date no charges have been 
filed, according to a _Pensacola_News_Journal_ article.  Two of the 
suspect sysops maintain that their rights have been violated by 
"groundless" equipment seizures, which in at least one case is spelling 
rapid financial ruin for the sysop.  Titan Software Solutions operator 
Clayton Mason stated "They bled my resources, totally", after his system 
was seized by agents from the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement and US 
Customs on Dec. 1, 1994, as was Cliff Hicks's Electric Blue BBS.  Mason 
says he has had to close not only his BBS but also his retail computer 
store, and has been forced to take a minimum wage job to survive.  
"There's nothing I can do without an attorney," Mason said. "Without 
money, I can't get an attorney in this town."  Hicks also indicated he 
would not be pursuing legal action.

Special Agent Supervisor Larry Smith of FDLE stated, "It just 
takes a while to review stuff that's in the hard drives", when asked 
about the delay in filing charges.  The agents conducting the raid also 
inscrutably seized unopened boxes of modems that had nothing to do with 
the BBS system they were after, but were part of Mason's retail stock.

The system operators maintain that none of the material on their system 
was illegal.  EFF's Dir. of Legal Services, Shari Steele, commented:
"There are a lot of cases where...they're never indicted, but they never 
get their equipment back. It's kind of like being found guilty without a 
trial."  Steve Jackson of Steve Jackson Games and the Illuminati Online 
Internet access service (who himself successfully fought a BBS search and 
seizure by the US Secret Service, who read and deleted private Illuminati 
BBS users' email, never filed charges, and refused to return the equipment)
stated that law enforcement agencies have "figured out they can shut down 
a bulletin board...and the victims are usually too terrified and 
intimidated to do anything about it."  Or too bankrupted one might add.

* _EFF's_Guide_to_the_Internet_ news:  _Newsweek_ (week of Jan. 30),
rated EFF's internet guidebook first in their article on "the best guides
to getting online".  The review says: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation 
sponsors this book and its online version.  It also publishes updates, 
available free on the Net, that keep the information timely...The slim 
volume doesn't overburden the reader with Unix, but gives enough 
information to get started."

Also in the EGttI news: Hungarian and Italian versions are now available,
the Hungarian one even in hardcopy.

To get a copy of the guide, send any message to
Text versions of the guide are available at:, /pub/Net_info/EFF_Net_Guide/, 1/Net_info/EFF_Net_Guide
Hypertext, non-English, PostScript and misc. typeset versions are available
in the Other_versions subdirectory. Update newsletters are in the Updates
subdirectory, and can be had by subscription (send a message body of:
to for more info on updates by subscription.)

English-language hardcopy edition available as _Everybody's_Guide_to_the_
Internet_, Adam Gaffin, MIT Pr., 1994, from most good bookstores.

* AABBS Update:  Keith Henson, who has been tracking the AABBS case, 
in which Calif. BBS sysops were tried in Memphis for alleged violations of
Tennessee community standards, noted in a _Computer_underground_Digest_
article that as of Jan. 21, 1995, the AABBS co-sysops were denied bail, and 
that co-sysop Robert Thomas must report to a (possibly intentionally 
distant) federal prison in Springfield, MO on Feb. 8.  Co-sysop Carleen
Thomas, Robert's wife, was sentenced to two years and two months in a 
federal pennitentiary, and must report for incarceration on July 12 in 
Dublin, CA.  The AABBS system continues to operate, and is their sole 
source of income and legal defense funding aside from donations from the 
online community.  

It it probable that the AABBS operators' appeal will be hampered by this 
unreasonable incarceration, as it will be difficult if not impossible to 
prepare all the evidence, much of which requires access to the Thomases' 
computer equipment.

Carleen and Robert Thomas were found guilty in 1994 of several charges, 
including obscenity counts, despite the fact that the prosecution 
clearly perverted the purpose of the community standards processes of 
obscenity cases, which were intended to ensure that defendants are tried 
under the standards of their own communities, rather than those the 
government thinks are most conservative and will most easily generate a 
conviction; despite the fact that it is highly questionable whether the 
standards of a terrestrial community are at all logically applicable to a 
virtual community which is not tied to any particular physical political 
jursidiction; despite the fact that most legal commentators seem to 
agree that the case would not only have not resulted in a convinction in 
the Thomases' native Calif., but would not have even resulted in a trial; 
and despite fact that the technology in question requires that the 
recipient of the downloaded material search for and specifically request 
the material - the Thomases did not send obscene files to Tennessee; 
rather, Tennessee law enforcement purposefully selected and imported 
allegedly obscene material into Tennessee of their own free will and in full 
cognizance of their actions and the nature of the material.

EFF provided information for the Thomases' defense in the original case, 
and hopes to assist in their appeal.

* EFF membership news:

During the months of December and January, we saw a significant increase in
EFF's membership renewals.  Approximately 1400 renewal notices were sent to
those EFF'ers whose membership had expired or that were about to expire and
of those, approximately 80% have been returned to EFF with their membership
renewal. This is a record for us.  EFF also offered several new membership 
catagories ranging from $10 - $500 with an added bonus for those who 
upgraded their membership level to a higher catagory.  Those that 
upgraded their membership received an official EFF t-shirt and a copy of 
EFF's "Frontier Files" disk.  This resulted in approximately 60% worth of 
upgrades from the notices that were sent, far exceeding expectations.  
EFF would like to thank all of our members and donors, from students to 
industry and foundation sponsors!  

The shirt/disk offer will continue until December 1995 and we will keep 
you updated as to the progress of this feature.  

Along with the membership renewals, EFF aquired many new members during 
the month of December & January partly due to the Aerosmith Cybertour 
that EFF presented last Dec.  That event produced approximately 75 new 

As EFF's membership increases, so does our level of member relations.  
We are looking at ways to improve member relations and membership 
services. As always, any comments or suggestions are greatly 
appreciated.  Comments and suggestions can be directed to or

[See also article above on new Bay-area EFF meetings.  In the future such 
meetings may also be held on the east coast, probably in DC, but also 
possibly NYC.]

* CA education code amended:  According to an article by Linda Seebach,
in _Measure_, the California state education code now guarantees students 
the same First Amendment freedom of expression, speech, and press rights 
on-campus that they have off-campus, regardless of the private or public 
nature of the schools, and even applying to high schools as well as higher 
education instututions. Students who file suit under these provisions are 
now also able to collect court costs and attorneys fees as well as 
statutory damages.  Two schools have already settled such cases out of 
court apparently to avoid "almost certain loss in court".  

The reaction has not been wholly positive, however. CSU-Northridge lifted 
a suspension imposed on a fraternity for a sexist flyer. Campus reaction 
was mixed, and included activist demonstrations against the settlement.  
Occidental College agreed to revise it's sexual harassment policy to 
conform to the new state regs. Previous policy had forbidden not only 
material that offended a third party, but also "voluntary relationships 
that might cause someone else to perceive a possibility of prejudicial 
treatment", wrote Seebach.  Another fraternity was facing disciplinary 
action under this policy, but sued, and a settlement was reached.  Student
agitation for punishment of the fraternity continues, though.

The text of the amendment to CA Education Code is available at, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/CA/, 1/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/CA

* Censorship at UM: Jake Baker, who wrote a "sexually violent" story about
a female classmate, with clear disclaimers that it was just a story, and 
a poor one at that, and posted it to the Usenet newsgroup,
apparently via University of Michigan computers, was summarily suspended 
by the University President, James Duderstadt, without a hearing. Baker was
forcibly removed from the campus by police offers with only some clothing,
and forbidden re-entry, despite his being a campus resident.

A student coalition charges that the university seriously violated not 
only its own procedures, but also Baker's rights in suspending him.
Duderstadt claimed that Baker posed an immediate threat to the female
student, but the student opposition group, Students' Civil Liberties Watch, 
noted that the university both claimed Baker was an imminent threat, 
yet delayed for over a month before taking any action; when pressed, agreed
to hold a (closed) hearing to consider reinstating him, yet also 
maintains that he is too dangerous to walk on campus property.

According to a local press summary by Peter Swanson, university 
spokesperson Lisa Baker stated, "It's not the policy of the university to 
punish people for pornographic messages.  There are other issues around 
this that I can't discuss", while university law professor and 
"constitutional scholar" Catharine Mackinnon has called the issue 
one of violence against women rather than one of freedom of speech.

Following attention by the media, the university scheduled a hearing
for Thur., Feb. 9.  The hearing will be closed and Baker has been 
denied representation by an attorney, by school policy.  The 
rammifications of this are particularly serious, since the standard of 
proof to be used in the hearing is lower than that in the US justice 
system, and any statements made by Baker can be used against him in a 
real legal proceeding.  According to local articles, Baker is also under
investigation by the FBI on the presumption that his Usenet posting 
violated federal anti-obscenity law. [One article referred to a "new 
computer-trafficking pornography law", but there is no such law. Cf. the 
article on the Exon bill - there may be such a law shortly...]  

Both the ACLU and Student's Civil Liberties Watch have criticized UM's 
actions, and the ACLU has filed suit regarding the closed hearings and 
denial of legal representation. In a previous case, the ACLU found that 
the defendant in a hearing was subjected to open ridicule, and a single 
university representative acted as prosecutor, mediator and sole 
advisor to the jury. Participants in these closed hearings are also 
denied transcripts of the proceedings, and even in one open hearing have 
been forbidden to bring any kind of recording equipment to the hearing.  
Local press have labelled this system a "kangaroo kourt".

Student's Civil Liberties Watch can be contacted at or

[Disclaimer: EFF is not in any way supportive of hate speech.  However, 
we believe that the solution for bad speech is more speech, not censorship.
Sacrificing one right to protect another usually costs the loss of both.]

* LaMacchia decision will stand: On Dec. 28, 1994 US Dist. Court Judge
Richard Stearns dismissed the indictment brought against David LaMacchia
for alleged "massive" software piracy.  LaMacchia ran an open BBS system,
which was allegedly used by users for copyright infringement, though
LaMacchia maintains he personally did not infringe.  Judge Stearns
noted in his decision that "the government's objective is a laudable one...
if the allegations in the indictment are accurate, LaMacchia's actions 
were at best...heedlessly irresponsible, and at worst...nihilistic, self-
indulgent, and lacking in any fundamental sense of values", and that
"reasonable people might agree" that LaMacchia's actions deserve "the 
sanctions of the criminal law".  However the case was dismissed because 
the law does not in fact permit prosecution of copyright infringement under
the wire fraud statute, the tactic chosen by US Attorney Donald Stern in 
this case.  There was no evidence that LaMacchia had or had intended to 
profit by software piracy.

US Atty. Stern announced that the Justice Dept. would not appeal the 
court's decision, but would instead seek a legislative remedy. "Judge 
Stearns' opinion underscores the desirability of prompt Congressional 
action which would remove any uncertainty that willful, multiple 
infringements of copyrighted software, even where there is no commercial 
motive, is illegal...Large-scale software piracy is a serious problem.  
It will continue to be a priority of this office", stated Stern in a 
press release.

The defense counsel's own press release countered: "We hope and
trust that when Congress takes up the question that the U. S. Attorney
is posing -- that is, whether copying of computer programs without a
profit motive should be a criminal violation of the Copyright statute --
the Congress be sensitive to the important civil liberties question
posed by the LaMacchia prosecution: Whether a Systems Operator...who does 
not himself upload, download, copy, nor distribute software, but who 
merely operates the system, should be designated as a criminal.  The need 
to protect SYSOPS from excessively harsh liability for the actions of 
others who log onto their BBS, is at least as important as the need to 
protect copyright holders from unfair losses of revenue. Given the 
explosive growth of the Internet, more and more ordinary computer users 
will be falling into the category of SYSOPS. Congress should be very 
careful before it seeks to hold them criminally liable for the actions of 
others who use the BBS but over whom the SYSOP does not have control."

More information on the case is available from the David LaMacchia Defense
Fund on request at, or via the WWW at:


Subject: Reviews

* _CYBERIA:_Life_in_the_Trenches_of_Hyperspace_ 
Douglas Rushkoff, 1994
Harper Collins Publishers, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022.

In Cyberia: Life in the Trenches of Hyperspace, Douglas Rushkoff 
massages to the surface hints - hints of our future.  In the anthropological
ethnographic style, Rushkoff scans culture, teasing out underlying and 
motivating themes.  

However, Rushkoff is no traditional anthropologist. Rushkoff studies the 
"emerging" culture of Cyberia and opens the door for a realistic study 
of the future.

When we think about the future, what are we doing? How far into the 
future can we extrapolate from where we are?  What will it mean to be 
sentient in 2012? 

Thinkers from all quarters, from McLuhan to Toffler have called our 
attention the continuing transformation of our culture.  Cultural givens,
which have held together our cultural and individual identities, are 
disintegrating and new ones are solidifying. We are achieving a revolution
analogous only to the industrial, agricultural revolutions...the 
age of enlightenment, the advent of Christianity.  

Things are about to change SIGNIFICANTLY.  And that doesn't mean that 
twenty years from now it will be us pasted onto nano-tech, genetic 
engineering, cold fusion, AI, etc.  We will be fundamentally changed, or 
left behind.  Our very conceptions of the world will be changed.

Like a Post Modern/collage artist, Rushkoff paints us a scene from a 
motley of scattered images- a scene of a culture in transformation, 
effected by non-linear science, quantum mechanics, interdependence, 
designer reality, rapidity of change, role playing games, comic books, 
Nintendo, MTV, Rave Culture, magik, and techno-paganism.

Rushkoff, whose style is readable and entertaining, continues his 
journey from the "Gen X Reader" through "Media Virus" in _Cyberia_, an 
insightful comment on modern culture and its future.

And hey, he even quotes John Perry Barlow in the first chapter. :)

 - Eric Tachibana 


Subject: Calendar of Events

This schedule lists imminent EFF events, and those we feel might be of 
interest to our members.  EFF events (those sponsored by us or featuring 
an EFF speaker) are marked with a "*" instead of a "-" after the date.  
Simlarly, government events, such as deadlines for comments on reports or 
testimony submission, are marked with "!" in place of the "-" after the date.

If you know of an event of some sort that should be listed here, please
send info about it to Stanton McCandlish 

The latest full version of this calendar, which includes material for 
later in the year as well as the next couple of months, is available from:

ftp:, /pub/EFF/calendar.eff
gopher:, 1/EFF, calendar.eff

Feb. 8-                    ^
     11 * TWO BBSCon; Swissotel European Conf. Ctr. (Rheinpark Congress
          Centrum), Duesseldorf, Germany. European version of ONE
          BBSCon; seminar sessions & tradeshow.  Organized in part by
          EFF's Ether Dyson, as well as _BoardWatch_'s Jack Rickard, _PC_
          _Magazine_'s John Dvorak and many others.
          Contact: +41 75 373 28 32 (voice) +41 75 373 30 62 (fax)
                   +41 75 373 66 80 (BBS), (0228)46121005 (X.25 NUA)

Feb. 8-
     12 - Information Technology: Expanding Frontiers conf., sponsored by
          Association for Educational Communications and Technology; 
          Anaheim, Calif.
          Contact: +1 202 347 7834

Feb. 14-
     16 - Networks Expo (NetWorld); Hynes Conv. Ctr., Boston, Mass.
          Contact: 1 800 829 3976 (voice, US-only), +1 201 346 1400 (voice)

Feb. 14-
     18 - The Winter School of Computer Graphics and Visualisation
          Third International Conference in Central Europe on Computer
          Graphics and Visualisation 95 (WSCG'95), U. of W. Bohemia,
          Plzen, Czechoslovakia.  Approx. 60 speakers.
          Contact: +42 19 2171 188, +42 19 2171 212 (voice)
                   +42 19 2171 170, +42 19 7220 019 (fax)
          email: WSCG95@KIV.ZCU.CZ

Feb. 15 * Bay Area EFF meeting; John Gilmore (Electronic Frontier Foundation
          co-founder and boardmember) and Cindy Cohn esq. (McGlashen &
          Sarrail) will speak on constitutional issues of crypto export.
          EFF boardmember David Farber (U.Penn.) will speak on "Living in
          the GII - some concerns". Plenty of time for general and
          specific questions, issues, discussion, meeting people, and
          socializing with electronic frontier-minded folks.  EFF boardmem-
          bers Jane Metcalfe (WIRED president) and Denise Caruso (tech-
          nology journalist) will be there.  Time: 7:30pm PST.  Where:
          offices of WIRED Magazine
          520 Third Street, Fourth Floor
          San Francisco, CA
          +1 415 222 6200  voice

        - Dealine for paper, poster & demo submissions for WWW '95 (see
          Apr. 10, below).

Feb. 15-
     16 - Launching & Managing a Virtual Office: Setting the State for a
          Distributed Workplace; Hyatt Regency, New Orleans, Louisiana.
          Sponsored by The International Quality & Productivity Center.

Feb. 16-
     19 - CapriCon SF Convention (of interest as it features an educational
          Internet "track" of seminars/sessions with various subtopics and
          speakers, incl. Bruce Schneier to lecture on cryptography.)
          Speakers still needed for Internet track.  To be held in the
          Chicago metro area.
          Contact: Mike Bentley, +1 312 508 9009 (voice),
                   +1 312 465 2399 (fax)
          Email:, or crenelle!

Feb. 20-
Mar. 16 - Online Seminar Series: the Law of Electronic Commerce; conducted
          on CompuServe by the Nat'l. Computer Security Assoc. Host:
          Benjamin Wright esq. (Note: most sessions are geared toward
          management, finance and commercial transactions).
          Contact: 1 800 488 4595 (voice, US-only), +1 717 258 1816 (voice)

Feb. 23-
     25 - The Alliance for Public Technology Annual Conference:
          Technologies of Freedom. Washington, DC
          Contact: +1 202 408 1403 (voice/TTY), +1 202 408 1134 (fax)
          Email: Ruth Holder 

Feb. 24 - New Mexico Regional Technology Business Summit, Sweeny Conv. Ctr.,
          Santa Fe, NM. Sponsored by the New Mexico Technology Consortium,
          "this day-long event is geared toward those in both large and
          small companies active in high-tech industries."
          Contact: +1 505 983 6767

Feb. 27-
Mar. 2  - ATM Year Three: The Definitive Conference on the Technology,
          Applications and Business Issues of Asynchronous Transfer Mode
          (ATM); San Jose, Calif.
          Contact: 1 800 200 4884 (voice, US-only)

Feb. 28-
Mar. 2  - NEPCON'95, "the trade show for anyone involved in electronics

Back to top

JavaScript license information