Skip to main content
Podcast Episode: Chronicling Online Communities

EFFector - Volume 9, Issue 15 - Court Declares Crypto Restrictions Unconstitutional


EFFector - Volume 9, Issue 15 - Court Declares Crypto Restrictions Unconstitutional

     ________________          _______________        _______________
    /_______________/\        /_______________\      /\______________\
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/        |||||||||||||||||     / ////////////////
     \\\\\________/\          |||||________\       / /////______\
      \\\\\\\\\\\\\/____      ||||||||||||||      / /////////////
       \\\\\___________/\     |||||              / ////
        \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/     |||||              \////

EFFector Online Volume 09 No. 15      Dec. 20, 1996
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation        ISSN 1062-9424


Court Declares Crypto Restrictions Unconstitutional
eTRUST Launches Pilot Program
More Public Interest Groups Speak Out Against WIPO Treaties
Upcoming Events
Quote of the Day
What YOU Can Do

 * See or, /pub/Alerts/ for more
 information on current EFF activities and online activism alerts! *


Subject: Court Declares Crypto Restrictions Unconstitutional

	    Free Speech Trumps Clinton Wiretap Plan

December 19, 1996, 16:50 Pacific time.

                                Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts:

                                     Shari Steele, Staff Attorney

                                     John Gilmore, Founding Board Member

                                     Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail

San Francisco - On Monday, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel struck down Cold War
export restrictions on the privacy technology called cryptography.  Her
decision knocks out a major part of the Clinton Administration's
effort to force companies to build "wiretap-ready" computers,
set-top boxes, telephones, and consumer electronics.

The decision is a victory for free speech, academic freedom, and the
prevention of crime.  American scientists and engineers will now be
free to collaborate with their peers in the United States and in other
countries.  This will enable them to build a new generation of tools
for protecting the privacy and security of communications.

The Clinton Administration has been using the export restrictions to goad
companies into building wiretap-ready "key recovery" technology.  In a
November Executive Order, President Clinton offered limited
administrative exemptions from these restrictions to companies which
agree to undermine the privacy of their customers.  Federal District
Judge Patel's ruling knocks both the carrot and the stick out of
Clinton's hand, because the restrictions were unconstitutional in the
first place.

The Cold War law and regulations at issue in the case prevented
American researchers and companies from exporting cryptographic
software and hardware.  Export is normally thought of as the physical
carrying of an object across a national border.  However, the
regulations define "export" to include simple publication in the U.S.,
as well as discussions with foreigners inside the U.S.  They also define
"software" to include printed English-language descriptions and
diagrams, as well as the traditional machine-readable object code and
human-readable source code.

The secretive National Security Agency has built up an arcane web of
complex and confusing laws, regulations, standards, and secret
interpretations for years.  These are used to force, persuade, or
confuse individuals, companies, and government departments into making
it easy for NSA to wiretap and decode all kinds of communications.
Their tendrils reach deep into the White House, into numerous Federal
agencies, and into the Congressional Intelligence Committees.  In
recent years this web is unraveling in the face of increasing
visibility, vocal public disagreement with the spy agency's goals,
commercial and political pressure, and judicial scrutiny.

Civil libertarians have long argued that encryption should be widely
deployed on the Internet and throughout society to protect privacy,
prove the authenticity of transactions, and improve computer security.
Industry has argued that the restrictions hobble them in building
secure products, both for U.S. and worldwide use, risking America's
current dominant position in computer technology.  Government
officials in the FBI and NSA argue that the technology is too
dangerous to permit citizens to use it, because it provides privacy to
criminals as well as ordinary citizens.

"We're pleased that Judge Patel understands that our national security
requires protecting our basic rights of free speech and privacy," said
John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which
backed the suit.  "There's no sense in 'burning the Constitution in
order to save it'.  The secretive bureaucrats who have restricted these
rights for decades in the name of national security must come to a
larger understanding of how to support and preserve our democracy."

	Reactions to the decision

"This is a positive sign in the crypto wars -- the first rational
statement concerning crypto policy to come out of any part of the
government," said Jim Bidzos, President of RSA Data Security, one of
the companies most affected by crypto policy.

"It's nice to see that the executive branch does not get to decide
whether we have the right of free speech," said Philip Zimmermann,
Chairman of PGP, Inc.  "It shows that my own common sense
interpretation of the constitution was correct five years ago when I
thought it was safe to publish my own software, PGP.  If only US
Customs had seen it that way."  Mr. Zimmermann is a civil libertarian
who was investigated by the government under these laws when he wrote
and gave away a program for protecting the privacy of e-mail.  His
"Pretty Good Privacy" program is used by human rights activists
worldwide to protect their workers and informants from torture and
murder by their own countries' secret police.

"Judge Patel's decision furthers our efforts to enable secure electronic
commerce," said Asim Abdullah, executive director of CommerceNet.

Jerry Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and
Technology, a Washington-based Internet advocacy group, hailed the
victory.  "The Bernstein ruling illustrates that the Administration
continues to embrace an encryption policy that is not only unwise, but
also unconstitutional.  We congratulate Dan Bernstein, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, and all of the supporters who made this victory
for free speech and privacy on the Internet possible."

"The ability to publish is required in any vibrant academic discipline,"
This ruling re-affirming our obvious academic right will help American
researchers publish without worrying," said Bruce Schneier, author of
the popular textbook _Applied Cryptography_, and a director of the
International Association for Cryptologic Research, a professional
organization of cryptographers.

Kevin McCurley, President of the International Association for
Cryptologic Research, said, "Basic research to further the
understanding of fundamental notions in information should be welcomed
by our society.  The expression of such work is closely related to one
of the fundamental values of our society, namely freedom of speech."

	Background on the case

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel J. Bernstein, Research Assistant
Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed an
"encryption algorithm" (a recipe or set of instructions) that he
wanted to publish in printed journals as well as on the Internet.
Bernstein sued the government, claiming that the government's
requirements that he register as an arms dealer and seek government
permission before publication was a violation of his First Amendment
right of free speech.  This is required by the Arms Export Control Act
(AECA) and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR).

In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that
since Bernstein's ideas were expressed, in part, in computer language
(source code), they were not protected by the First Amendment.  On
April 15, 1996, Judge Patel rejected that argument and held for the
first time that computer source code is protected speech for purposes
of the First Amendment.

	Details of Monday's Decision

Judge Patel ruled that the Arms Export Control Act is a prior restraint
on speech, because it requires Bernstein to apply for and obtain from
the government a license to publish his ideas.  Using the Pentagon
Papers case as precedent, she ruled that the government's "interest of
national security alone does not justify a prior restraint."

Judge Patel also held that the government's required licensing
procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards.  When the
Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce
the chance of illegal censorship by the bureaucrats involved -- in this
case, the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls (ODTC).
Her decision states: "Because the ITAR licensing scheme fails to provide
for a time limit on the licensing decision, for prompt judicial review
and for a duty on the part of the ODTC to go to court and defend a
denial of a license, the ITAR licensing scheme as applied to Category
XIII(b) [i.e., as applied to encryption material] acts as an 
unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." 
Professor Bernstein is now free to publish his ideas without asking the 
government's permission first.

She also ruled that the export controls restrict speech based on the
content of the speech, not for any other reason.  "Category XIII(b) is
directed very specifically at applied scientific research and speech on
the topic of encryption."  The Government had argued that it restricts
the speech because of its function, not its content.

The judge also found that the ITAR is vague, because it does not
adequately define how information that is available to the public
"through fundamental research in science and engineering" is exempt
from the export restrictions.  "This subsection ... does not give
people ... a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited."  The
failure to precisely define what objects and actions are being
regulated creates confusion and a chilling effect.  Bernstein has been
unable to publish his encryption algorithm for over four years.  Many
other cryptographers and ordinary programmers have also been restrained
from publishing because of the vagueness of the ITAR.  Brian
Behlendorf, a maintainer of the popular public domain "Apache" web
server program, stated, "No cryptographic source code was ever
distributed by the Apache project.  Despite this, the Apache server
code was deemed by the NSA to violate the ITAR."  Judge Patel also
adopted a narrower definition of the term "defense article" in order to
save it from unconstitutional vagueness.

The immediate effect of this decision is that Bernstein now is free to
teach his January 13th cryptography class in his usual way.  He can
post his class materials on the Internet, and discuss the upcoming
class's materials with other professors, without being held in
violation of the ITAR.  "I'm very pleased," Bernstein said.  "Now I
won't have to tell my students to burn their notebooks."

It is presently unclear exactly where Judge Patel's decision applies -- 
in the Northern District of California (containing San Francisco and Silicon
Valley) or throughout the country.  Check with your own lawyer if
you contemplate taking action based on the decision.

It is not yet clear from the decision whether the export controls on
object code (the executable form of computer programs which source
code is automatically translated into) have been overturned.  It may
be that existing export controls will continue to apply to runnable
software products, such as Netscape's broswer, until another court
case challenges that part of the restrictions.


Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of
McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono.  Major
additional pro bono legal assistance is being provided by Lee Tien of
Berkeley; M. Edward Ross of the San Francisco law firm of Steefel,
Levitt & Weiss; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First
Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere, Julia Kogan,
and Jeremy Miller of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson.


The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil
liberties organization working in the public interest to protect
privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and
information.  EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case.  EFF
helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the
Bernstein legal team, and helped collect members of the academic
community and computer industry to support this case.

Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is
available from EFF's online archives at:

The full text of Monday's decision is available at:


Subject: eTRUST Launches Pilot Program

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                        12/20/96


               Trial of Global Initiative to Increase 
      Consumer Trust and Confidence in Electronic Transactions

Palo Alto, CA, December 20, 1996 -- eTRUST, a global initiative for
establishing consumer trust and confidence in electronic information exchange,
is launching its pilot program.  The purpose of the pilot is to test the
effectiveness and market desirability of the eTRUST "trustmark" program and to
provide data to refine the offering and ensure success in full global
implementation.  The information gathered will be invaluable in developing
products to be launched in 1997.  

The pilot will focus on addressing privacy issues of data collection on the
Internet which is the first eTRUST project.  Privacy concerns have been
identified as one of the key barriers to the widespread consumer acceptance of
electronic information transactions ranging from commerce to survey data
collection.   Non-consentual collection of personal data over the Internet is
creating "databases of liability" and eTRUST provides a reasonable, effective,
and enforceable system to ensure that personally identifiable information is
not abused.  eTRUST's privacy guidelines and assurance infrastructure will
allow for informed consent of data collection.  Providing a mechanism for
informed consent will increase the level of trust between online
businesses/organizations and users.

Companies or organizations participating in the eTRUST pilot will apply one or
more of three privacy "trustmarks" on their Websites depending on how they
handle the data of the users who visit their sites.  The three options are:

 *	Anonymous or No Exchange - no data is collected on the user.

 *	One-to-One Exchange - data is collected only for the site owner's

 *	Third Party Exchange - data is collected and provided to specified
	third parties but only with the user's knowledge and consent.
	The "trustmark" system allows the user to be informed of exactly how
	their personal data is being used.

The "trustmarks" will also be backed by an assurance process which includes
self-assessment, community monitoring, and most importantly, professional
third-party review and spot auditing.  The Assurance Process committee of
eTRUST which includes leading companies like Coopers & Lybrand LLP and KPMG LLP
is developing a formal review process for Websites which will be tested during
the pilot.

"Coopers & Lybrand is exceedingly pleased to be involved in setting the
standards and direction for the eTRUST initiative, thereby supporting the
Internet in its ability to conduct electronic commerce," said Russell J.
Sapienza, Jr., Partner of Coopers & Lybrand LLP's Computer Assurance Services.

Up to 100 sites, carefully chosen to cover a broad spectrum of Web activities,
will participate in the pilot program.  Sites which are already testing the
"trustmark" system include:

 *	CommerceNet -
 *	Electronic Frontier Foundation -
 *	BritNet -
 *	Webcrawler -
 *	Narrowline -
 *	WorldPages -
 *	Xcert Software -
 *	Down Syn Online -

Sites will be added throughout December 1996 and the pilot will be conducted
through the first quarter of 1997.  eTRUST demonstrated the
"trustmark" system at the Internet World Show in New York, December 11-13,

eTRUST has already received widespread support from industry, consumer groups,
and the government.  CommerceNet, the premier industry association for
developing electronic commerce, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the
leading electronic consumer advocacy group have partnered to move forward to
implement the eTRUST program.  
"The eTRUST project is critical to building public trust in online
transactions," said Marty Tenenbaum, Chairman of CommerceNet.  "It assures
individuals will receive full disclosure on how and where information will be
used and gives them the opportunity to opt out of a transaction."

"We are very concerned with protecting the privacy of users.  The eTRUST pilot
is a major step forward in creating trust online and ensuring the development
of a healthy electronic society and in turn a healthy marketplace," says Lori
Fena, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"People's awareness of how their online behavior is being monitored and
commoditized is approaching a new high watermark," said Eric Theise,
Narrowline's EVP of Research and Information Architecture.  "Our online media
buying and market research systems are less intrusive and more secure than
others, and eTRUST's framework for assessing, refining, and disclosing data
privacy policy gives us an accepted way to convey that to Internet users."

Participation of industry, government, and consumer groups is essential in
order to reach an international consensus on appropriate levels of privacy and
transactional security and how these will be enforced.  By significantly
enhancing consumer trust and confidence in electronic transactions, eTRUST
will promote the positive growth of electronic communications, especially over
the Internet.


eTRUST is a global initiative whose mission is to establish trust and
confidence in electronic communication by creating an infrastructure to
address issues such as privacy and transactional security.  The initiative was
launched in July 1996 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a group
of pioneering Internet companies.  CommerceNet and the EFF then partnered in
October 1996 to move forward in implementing the initiative.  More information
about eTRUST and its pilot program can be found at


CommerceNet is a non-profit industry association and recognized leader working
to transform the Internet into a global electronic marketplace.  Launched in
April 1994, the Silicon Valley-based organization has over 200 members
worldwide, including leading banks, telecommunications companies, Internet
service providers, online services, software service providers and end-users. 
More information about CommerceNet can be found at

Electronic Frontier Foundation

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a non-profit civil liberties
organization working in the public interest to promote, privacy, free
expression, and social responsibility in new media.  More information about
EFF can be found at

	 			Lori Fena
				Electronic Frontier Foundation

				Gigi Wang
				415-858-1930 x221

				Aaron Feigin
				Fleishman-Hillard, Inc.


Subject: More Public Interest Groups Speak Out Against WIPO Treaties

An Open Letter To The Delegates Of The WIPO Diplomatic Conference

December  18, 1996

	We are writing to urge the delegates at this diplomatic 
conference to defer final action on the three proposed 
treaties.  The discussions so far have just began to shed light 
on many of the problematic areas of the treaties.  We believe 
there is much more to be gained from further study, and we are 
concerned that hasty action on novel changes in intellectual 
property laws will lead to many unanticipated problems.  In 
this respect, one has to ask why WIPO, a United Nations body, 
is acting as a super Parliament or Congress on issues which 
have never been resolved by national governments through 
traditional lawmaking processes.

	While there are many problems with the three treaties, 
allow us to highlight four areas of concern.

1.	The Proposed Rights Of "Reproduction" And "Communication" 
Are Far Too Broad. 

	In an effort to give copyright owners the broadest 
possible rights, the treaties would give a new right to deny 
authorization of the "direct and indirect" reproduction of a 
work, "whether permanent or temporary . in any manner or form."  
(Treaty 1, Article 7).  National exceptions would be allowed 
for some temporary or incidental reproductions, provided that 
the reproductions are "authorized by the author" or otherwise 
permitted by law.  It is unclear how broad these exemptions can 
be, or how a patchwork system of national exemptions will 
achieve the international uniformity the treaty seeks.

	The starting point for the reproduction rights are so open 
ended that it would be seem to make the memorization of a poem 
a violation of the author's exclusive rights.

	The issue of the rights of the public to use computers to 
view, study and analyze works is important.  Overbroad 
restrictions on those rights will discourage or impair the 
development of many important and useful new technologies.  For 
example, the new smart searching engines on the Internet's 
World Wide Web routinely read hundreds of thousands, if not 
millions of Web pages, in order to create indexes and abstracts 
of articles and other works.  These new and important software 
tools will vastly expand our ability to identify and locate 

	There is also considerable concern that the "Right of 
Reproduction" (Article 7), combined with the "Right of 
Communication," (Article 10) are written in such a way that 
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will be liable for 
infringements.  Several major ISPs have noted that if they are 
liable for infringements by their customers, they will be 
compelled to engage in intrusive surveillance of private 
communications.  This indeed was the concern of eleven CEOs of 
major Internet and Telecommunication firms [1], who wrote 
President Clinton in opposition to the treaties on December 10, 

	We strongly urge that no treaty be finalized at this time.  
However, we would add that the proposed December 12, 1996 
amendments by the 30 African countries offer a much better 
approach (CRNR/DC/56, Treaty No. 1, Article 7 and Article 10), 
and are preferred to the far too restrictive versions that have 
been advanced by the United States Delegation.

2.	The Technological Measures Are Written Too Broadly 

	 Any language in a treaty that prohibits the development 
of new information technologies is problematic, since there are 
likely to be competing public interests.  The Chairman's 
provisions, in his December 12, 1996 drafts of Treaty No. 1 
(Article 13), and Treaty No. 2 (Article 22), are far too broad.  
They would make unlawful "any . . . device, product or 
component incorporated into a device or product, the primary 
purposes or primary effect of which is to circumvent any 
process, mechanism or system that prevents or inhibits any of 
the rights under this treaty."  (From Treaty 1, Article 13). 

	Taken with the rest of these deeply flawed treaties, there 
would be an enormous chilling effect on the development of new 
information technologies.  For example, the popular Web browser 
Netscape would arguably be an illegal device, not only because 
it is used for reading documents into memory to display them, 
but because it has features which permit the easy reading and 
downloading of source code for HTML documents, as well as 
digital images.  Many of us would say that these types of 
features have made an important contribution to the explosive 
growth of the Internet.  It is worth noting that more 
restrictive proprietary technologies have withered, having 
failed to compete with the more open Internet model.  

	Also, the new generation of Internet searching and index 
tools mentioned above would likely be challenged under the 
proposed treaty language. 

	Again, the language offered as a substitute by the 30 
African countries is a better approach.  Countries would be 
required to provide:

       adequate legal protection and effective legal 
       remedies against the circumvention of effective 
       technological measures that are used by rights 
       holders in connection with the exercise of their 
       rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in 
       respect of their works, which are not authorized by 
       the rights holders concerned or permitted by law. 
       (CRNR/DC/56, Treaty 1, Article 13).

	The more flexible language offered by the African 
countries would give each nation greater latitude in 
implementing anti-circumvention legislation.  This is 
important, given the rapid growth of the Internet, the novelty 
of the technology and the Internet culture, and the need to 
encourage rather than discourage the development of new 
information technologies.  

	However, we cannot endorse even this approach, at this 
time.  The issue of anti-circumvention is not ripe for 
legislation or treaty, given:

-     the lack of experience in matters concerning the Internet 
      by many legislators or policy makers, 
-     the uncertainty concerning the extent to which new 
      encryption based technologies can protect rights owners 
      without additional legal remedies, and
-     the need to gain a better model for enforcement in a world 
      with transnational data flows and radically different 
      concepts of fair use of copyrighted materials. 

3.	Concerns About Privacy Are Not Specifically Addressed In 
The Treaties.

	We come from a tradition of using information products and 
services in ways that are mostly anonymous.  The acquisition of 
newspapers, books, recorded music, and listening to broadcast 
television and radio can be done in anonymity.  The development 
of cable television, video rental stores, online communications 
and other technologies are leading to an explosive growth in 
the ability of the government and private corporations to 
conduct surveillance of what information we receive or share 
with others.  It is essential for a free society that people 
have the practical ability to read and share information with 
friends and colleagues without surveillance.  When it is 
possible to take different approaches in protecting copyright 
owners, it is desirable and important to seek those roads which 
are consistent with a significant degree of personal privacy.  
This principle should be specifically addressed in the 

	As noted above, there are specific concerns about privacy 
in the section of the treaties dealing with the liability of 
ISPs.  There is also concern about the degree to which the 
"Rights Management Information" may be used to provide 
mechanisms for tracking document usage.  Countries should be 
both permitted and encouraged to limit the types of 
technologies used for "rights management information" in order 
to protect personal privacy.

4.	There Should Be No Actions Taken That Would Give A Radical 
New Property Right To Facts Or Other Public Domain Information.

	There is widespread opposition to the concepts underlying 
the proposed database treaty, and no action should be taken at 
this time.  As presently drafted, the treaty would give 
sporting leagues the right to license box scores of sporting 
events, give stock exchanges permanent "ownership" of share 
prices and other financial data, define the practice of 
creating abstracts of scientific journals or web pages as an 
infringement of a database extraction right, and create many 
other unintended consequences.  

	The fact that organizations such as Dun and Bradstreet, 
Bloomberg, and STATS, Inc (sports statistics), vigorously 
oppose the treaty because it goes too far illustrates the 
complexity of this issue.  Value added information providers 
are both producers and consumers of information.  This proposal 
is so deeply flawed it cannot be salvaged at this conference.  
The controversy over the database treaty should also serve as a 
reminder to the delegates that the public domain in matters 
concerning information is something to be protected and 

5.	Closing Comments

	In closing, we urge the delegates to reflect upon how the 
unique features of the Internet have contributed to its amazing 
success, and to tread carefully when asked to dramatically 
change the Internet culture.  Not only is the Internet a 
flourishing and dynamic place to publish information, as 
evidenced by the astronomical rates of growth in usage and 
published content, but there is scant evidence to suggest that 
there are serious threats to the commercial content industry 
from infringements.

	Much of the concern over unauthorized reproductions of 
works on the Internet stem from the very transparency of those 
reproductions, which are visible to everyone, including the 
owners of the works.  Indeed, the Internet indexing and 
abstracting tools which are threatened by these treaties offer 
perhaps the best tools yet for identifying and managing 
inappropriate unauthorized reproductions of works.  

	This transparency of publishing activities on the Internet 
is something new.  We are also just beginning to understand the 
engines which drive the dynamic growth of this publishing 
platform.   We are forced to re-think and re-examine our ideas 
about fair use and other matters which are central to these ill 
conceived treaties.  

	Finally, there is great opposition to the treaties by the 
persons who should matter the most  -  the persons who use the 
Internet, and who are alarmed to the prospects for increased 
surveillance and stifling regulation of new technologies.  As 
delegates you should look beyond the multitude of lobbyists who 
have shaped this treaty, and consider the public.  We urge you 
to conclude this Diplomatic Conference without taking action on 
any of the treaties.

Union for the Public Domain, Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility, Consumer Project on Technology, Net Action, Citizen
Advocacy Center, AIDS Education Global Information System, Visual
Resources Association, Utility Consumers' Action Network, Alliance for
Public Technology, Departamento de Informatica - UFPE, GovAccess

Sources of Information about the WIPO Treaties on the Internet:

Against the Treaties:

Union for the Public Domain
Digital Future Coalition

For the Treaties

Creative Incentive Coalition  
Information Industry Association

For comments on this letter, contact James Love, +1 202 387 8030;
Home +1 xxx xxx xxxx [redacted for privacy reasons -];


[1] PSI, Net, America Online, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Compuserve, MCI, 
MFS  Communications, Netcom On-line Communications, NYNEX, Prodigy, UUNET.


Subject: What YOU Can Do

* The Communications Decency Act & Other Censorship Legislation

The Communications Decency Act and similar legislation pose serious 
threats to freedom of expression online, and to the livelihoods of system 
operators.  The legislation also undermines several crucial privacy 
protections.  The CDA is likely to be found unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court. But, bowing to pressure from theocratic organization,
Congress is likely to introduce and attempt to pass a slightly modified 
version.  Let your legislators know you will not stand for censorship,
nor for the wasting of millions of tax dollars on years of Supreme Court 
litigation over laws that should never have even been proposed much less 
passed in a democracy.

Business/industry persons concerned should alert their corporate govt.
affairs office and/or legal counsel about such censorship measures, 
TODAY, while there is still time to plan.

Join in the Blue Ribbon Campaign - see

Support the EFF Cyberspace Legal Defense Fund:

If you do not have full internet access (e.g. WWW), send your request
for information to

censorious legislation is turning up at the US state and non-US 
national levels.  Don't let it sneak by you - or by the online activism 
community. Without locals on the look out, it's very difficult for the 
Net civil liberties community to keep track of what's happening locally 
as well as globally.

* Find Out Who Your Congresspersons Are

Writing letters to, faxing, and phoning your representatives in Congress
is one very important strategy of activism, and an essential way of
making sure YOUR voice is heard on vital issues.

If you are having difficulty determining who your US legislators are,
try contacting your local League of Women Voters, who maintain a great 
deal of legislator information, or consult the free ZIPPER service
that matches Zip Codes to Congressional districts with about 85%
accuracy at:

Computer Currents Interactive has provided Congress contact info, sorted 
by who voted for and against the Communications Decency Act: (NB: Some of these folks have, 
fortunately, been voted out of office.)

* Join EFF!

You *know* privacy, freedom of speech and ability to make your voice heard
in government are important. You have probably participated in our online
campaigns and forums.  Have you become a member of EFF yet?  The best way to
protect your online rights is to be fully informed and to make your
opinions heard.  EFF members are informed and are making a difference.  Join
EFF today!

For EFF membership info, send queries to, or send any
message to for basic EFF info, and a membership form.



EFFector Online is published by:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation
1550 Bryant St., Suite 725
San Francisco CA 94103 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
Membership & donations:
Legal services:
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries:

Editor: Stanton McCandlish, Online Activist, Webmaster (

This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.

Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.  Signed
articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF.  To reproduce
signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express
permission. Press releases and EFF announcements may be reproduced individ-
ually at will.

To subscribe to EFFector via email, send message body of "subscribe
effector-online" (without the "quotes") to, which will add
you to a subscription list for EFFector.

Back issues are available at:, /pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/, 1/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector

To get the latest issue, send any message to (or, and it will be mailed to you automagically.  You can also get
the file "current" from the EFFector directory at the above sites at any 
time for a copy of the current issue.  HTML editions available at: 
at EFFweb.  HTML editions of the current issue sometimes take a day or 
longer to prepare after issue of the ASCII text version.


End of EFFector Online v09 #15 Digest


Back to top

JavaScript license information