| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 155.1 | Good article | BIODTL::FERGUSON | the rainbow has a beard | Tue Apr 30 1991 15:22 | 27 |
| Fog mon,
A friend of mine at work here loaned me the article to read. That gun
he is holding is hardly a shotgun! It is more like a musket/cannon!! That is
one BIG gun!
Anyways, I read the article last night. Very interesting stuff in
there. I get the impression that the government has basically been caught
with it's pants down; that is, there is a problem and they do not have a
very good solution for it. Maybe they just don't have the brains to figure
out how to handle this. Also, with most of the government "heavies" being
two generations ahead of me (most of them are 50+ years old), they probably
have a fairly slim understanding of computers in general. I grew up in the
computer age, they did not. So, I think the gov't heavies are scared and
they don't understand what all the computer stuff means to them. So, they
trample on people's rights in order to stop/deter others.
They make a reference to Clifford Stole. I've seen Clifford Stole
present his method of tracking down the german hacker. If you have never
seen this man present this, I HIGHLY recommend it. He has a presentation
style that you have never seen before... I saw him at MIT.
Interesting stuff. I copied the file mentioned in the base note.
I'll print/read it when I get a chance...
JC
|
| 155.2 | Latest from EFF | SPICE::PECKAR | Clean Phil Wanted | Wed Jul 31 1991 20:51 | 710 |
| Here is the latest from the EFF. Besides a very important address at the very
bottom (The address to send contributions to), there is some neat info about
free electronic publications. Isn't it nice to know that some people,
somewhere don't give a hoot about copyrights???
fog
Article 5
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!rust.zso.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!world!eff!ckd
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: EFFector Online 1.09
Message-ID: <CKD.91Jul26100851@eff.org>
Date: 26 Jul 91 14:09:08 GMT
Sender: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 652
Approved: effnews@eff.org
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com comp.org.eff.news:5 comp.org.eff.talk:3123
########## | Volume I July 26,1991 Number 9 |
########## | |
### | EFFECTOR ONLINE |
####### | |
####### | |
### | |
########## | The Electronic Newsletter of |
########## | The Electronic Frontier Foundation |
| (eff.org) |
########## | |
########## | |
### | Staff: |
####### | Gerard Van der Leun (van@eff.org) |
####### | Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) |
### | Mitchell Kapor (mkapor@eff.org) |
### | Chris Davis (ckd@eff.org) |
### | Helen Rose (hrose@eff.org) |
| |
########## | Reproduction of Effector Online via all |
########## | electronic media is encouraged.. |
### | To reproduce signed articles individually |
####### | please contact the authors for their express |
####### | permission.. |
### | |
### | Published Fortnightly by |
### | The Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org) |
effector n, Computer Sci. A device for producing a desired change.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
WE WUZ HACKED!
As Monty Python has wisely noted, "NOBODY expects the Spanish
Inquisition!" In like manner, nobody expects people to crack their
system in quite the way that they *are* cracked. After all, if you
knew about an unlocked door in your system, you'd lock it. Right? As
soon as you could get around to it, of course.
One of the machines here at eff.org is named "black-cube". As you might
suspect, that machine is a NeXT. A remote execution daemon called "rexd"
that runs on the NeXT (and many other machines) has an authentication
routine that is effectively brain dead, and is automatically turned on
with a new installation (NeXT Operators Take Note!). Those who know that
one of the eff.org machines is a NeXT, or who might guess it by seeing
the name "black-cube" can exploit the weakness of "rexd" to gain entry
into the system.
On July 1, this happened to us. If you run a NeXT, or even if you don't,
it could happen to you.
The sequence of events, as detailed in Chris Davis' report on the
incident was as follows:
"At about 1 am on July 1, the NeXT was breached by an intruder using
the rexd remote execution daemon. The following things happened, in
uncertain but approximate order:
"(1) rexd mounted file systems from 'kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu'. Only
that, the local disk, and the /home partition from the Sun were
mounted.
"(2) the /etc/inetd.conf internet daemon configuration file was edited,
as user mkapor, to allow rexecd to be run.
"(3) the /etc/nu.cf new user program configuration file was edited or
modified in an unknown fashion as user mkapor (it's possible that only
the modification date was changed).
"(4) a file 'rc', a 16K Mach executable, was created in mkapor's home
directory, as mkapor.
"(5) the /etc/wtmp file was overwritten with an empty file, removing
login accounting timestamps
"User 'mycroft' was logged into kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu at the appropriate
time, and admits entering the machine, but denies 2, 3, 4, and 5."
We note that "mycroft" was the name of Sherlock Holmes' older brother.
He was said to be even more brilliant that Holmes himself. But it
doesn't take great brilliance to crack a machine, only weak routines,
a certain specific knowledge, and the willingness to wander around in
other peoples' homes without being invited.
The security hole was apparently known to CERT (Computer Emergency
Response Team), but the alert was netcast before we owned the NeXT so
we were not aware of it. We've retired black-cube from active service
and have reviewed all other security programs and measures.
We were very careful to close all known security holes on our principal
machine. We were not quite careful enough to apply the same level of
discipline with black-cube.
Eternal vigilance is the price of network security.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
"When the 'oppressors' become too strict, we have what is
known as a police state, wherein all dissent is forbidden,
as is chuckling, showing up in a bow tie, or referring to
the mayor as 'Fats.' Civil liberties are greatly curtailed
in a police state, and freedom of speech is unheard of,
although one is allowed to mime to a record. Opinions
critical of the government are not tolerated, particularly
about their dancing. Freedom of the press is also
curtailed and the ruling party 'manages' the news,
permitting the citizens to hear only acceptable political
ideas and ball scores that will not cause unrest."
Woody Allen, "Without Feathers" (Ballentine,1972)
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
THE AUSTIN EFF ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
by Steve Jackson
An Austin meeting for those interested in the EFF and its mission
was held July 19 at the offices of Steve Jackson Games. About 60
people (50 or so actively interested, and another 10 along for the
ride) attended to cook hot dogs, drink sodas and beer, and talk
about Constitutional freedoms in the electronic age.
The meeting had been publicized almost exclusively over the net
and local BBSs; some attendees read about it first on the Well. Local
media were informed, but as far as we know, none mentioned it.
I introduced the idea of an Austin EFF chapter by pointing out
that the EFF *has* no local chapters, and one of the first missions of
an Austin group - if we started one - would be to find out what a
local chapter was good for.
Suggestions from the group included:
* Liaison with local law enforcement groups, both to influence
their attitudes and to offer expert assistance and cooperation.
* Liaison with media: offering information, correcting errors,
and if necessary being ready to go to editorial boards if facts are
consistently misrepresented.
* Education and communication with others: speaking at schools
and club meetings, writing opinion pieces for newspapers, and so on.
* Education and communication among ourselves. The issue of ``Just
what ARE the laws regarding sysop liability?" was specifically raised.
* Direct political action: querying candidates on their stands on
EFF-related issues, and initiating legislation to preserve civil
rights in the high-tech age.
* More organized input into national EFF concerns, especially
creation of "ethical standards and practices."
* Recruitment of members for the national EFF.
* General networking among people with common interests. (Earl
Cooley, sysop of SMOF - an old and respected, but underutilized, local
board - volunteered to host a local EFF discussion. SMOF, the `World's
Oldest Online SF Convention,' can be reached at 512-467-7317.)
Four people - Bruce Sterling, John Quarterman, Matt Lawrence
and myself - expressed willingness to serve on a local EFF board
"provided no one of us has to do all the work." Four seems to be
about the *minimum* workable number; we'll certainly be looking for
more organizers.
Another attendee was a Houston civil-libertarian, representing a
group of about 20 like-minded computer users; a Houston EFF chapter
is probably in the offing.
10 people signed up as national EFF members at the meeting (several
others had already joined), and many more membership forms were
distributed. A signup sheet was passed around so that everyone could
be contacted directly for further meetings. And there will be more
meetings; the "sense of the crowd" was clear on that. Our four
volunteers will now have to discuss the next step.
Thanks go to Loyd Blankenship, for making sure that all the food,
drink and furniture arrived at the right time and place; to
Monica Stephens, Mike and Brenda Hurst, and John Quarterman for
assorted help with cooking, cleanup and publicity; and to everyone
who brought chairs and food!
*********************
"Think Globally, Act Locally"
We are really encouraged and a bit overwhlemed by the spontaneous
interest in forming chapters. In comp.org.eff.talk several other
individuals offered to help organize local chapters in different parts of
the country. Local activities to promote EFF causes can be a major factor
in civilizing the frontier. Over the summer we will be thinking about
what constitutes a good set of ground rules for chapters and how to
coordinate and support activities from the already-busy EFF office. We'd
certainly like to see more discussion on comp.org.eff.talk about possible
roles for local chapters. Thanks to Steve Jackson for getting the ball
rolling.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
MORE TITLES ON THE EFF MAGAZINE STAND
INTERTEXT, an electronic magazine devoted to fiction, is published
bi-monthly by Jason Snell (jsnell@ucsd.edu).
Although primarily established as a place on the net to publish genres
other than sci-fi/fantasy, it does still contain some. The quality of
the fiction is about that of what you would find in alt.prose.
Jason welcomes submissions of all genres. INTERTEXT is also available
by e-mail subscription and is primarily archived on network.ucsd.edu.
QUANTA is the electronically distributed journal of Science Fiction
and Fantasy. As such, each issue contains fiction by amateur authors as well
as articles, reviews, and other items of interest.
You'll find pretty standard sci-fi/fantasy in QUANTA, with an
occasional gem or two. The editors of INTERTEXT and QUANTA are
friends and they tend to use some of the same editorial policies: they
publish just about whatever they get and they publish their favorite
writers all the time. QUANTA is much sharper in format than INTERTEXT.
QUANTA is edited by Daniel Applequist (daln@andrew.cmu.edu). Submissions
should be sent to quanta@andrew.cmu.edu. Subscription requests should
be sent to quanta+requests-acii@andrew.cmu.edu.
PARSONS MESSENGER AND INTELLIGENCER is a fictional small-town
newspaper consisting primarily of editorials written by the fictional
residents of Parsons, MidWest, USA. The Editor, Jane Smith, is also
fictional.
Most of the letters and opinions etc. are stock stereotypes, but
a few are creative and interesting. It's a fresh idea, but it stales
too quickly.
THE UNPLASTIC NEWS is a brand new little magazine of quips and
quotes from anywhere and everywhere. It's published by Todd Tibbetts
(tibbetts@hsi.hsi.com), who is new to the net and hasn't quite figured
out how to effectively distribute Unplastic yet.
Unplastic's first issue is a collection of fully documented quotes
>from sources outside the net. I get the impression that Todd wants to
collect brilliant offerings from the net for future issues and mix them
in heavily with the quotes from other sources. If he can pull this off
successfully, THE UNPLASTIC NEWS will be one cutting-edge pub.
All four titles are available via anonymous ftp from eff.org. They are
to be found in the Journals Directory.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Paraphrased from Time magazine:
President Bush is finally switching from his manual typewriter to a
personal computer, and taking lessons on how to use it. But he hasn't
set his sights too high. "I don't expect this to teach me how to set
the clock on the VCR or anything complicated," says the President.
-- Denis Coskun, Alias Research Inc., Toronto Canada dcoskun@alias.com
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
HACKER HYSTERIA DOWNUNDER
by Mike Godwin, Staff Counsel, EFF
I had just begun to think we had been making progress against the
reflexive prejudice that so often afflicts the policy debates about
hackers and computer crime. Then I read Tom Forester's recent
distressing article about the need to "clamp down" on hackers.
It's not that I disagree with Forester about the principle that
computer intrusion and vandalism should be illegal. But I was
astonished at both at the moral simplicity and the factual inaccuracy
of Tom Forester's newspaper column.
The article, "Hackers:Clamp Down Now", appeared in an Australian
newspaper earlier this summer. I had expected a well-reasoned article
from Forester, who co-authored COMPUTER ETHICS: CAUTIONARY TALES AND
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN COMPUTING (Blackwell / Allen & Unwin, 1990). After
all, it was a book I had reviewed favorably for WHOLE EARTH REVIEW's
Summer 1991 issue.
But "Hackers:Clamp Down Now" turned out to be a potpourri of various
statements and misperceptions regarding hackers that were common in
the American media a year ago and still persist in many quarters. It
was painful and infuriating to see them surface again in Australia.
Especially when written by someone who should know better.
Among other things, Forester writes:
>Breaking into a computer is no different from breaking into your
>neighbour's house. It is burglary plain and simple - though often
>accompanied by malicious damage and theft of information.
Yet nothing is "plain" or "simple" about analogizing computer trespass
to burglary. The English common law that informs the British,
American, and Australian legal systems has always treated burglary
harshly, primarily because it involves a threat to the victim's
*residence* and to his *person*.
But computer intrusion in general, and the cases Forester discusses in
particular, pose neither threat. A mainframe computer at a university
or business, while it clearly ought to be protected "space" under the
law, is not a house "plain and simple." The kind of invasion and the
potential threat to traditional property interests is not the same.
Consider this: anyone who has your phone number can dial your home--
can cause an electronic event to happen *inside your house*. That
"intruder" can even learn things about you from the attempt
(especially if you happen to answer, in which case he learns your
whereabouts). Do we call this attempted burglary? Do we call it spying
or information theft? Of course not--because we're so comfortable with
telephone technology that we no longer rely on metaphors to do our
thinking for us.
This is not to say that all computer intrusion is innocuous. Some of
it is quite harmful--as when a true "vandal" runs programs that damage
or delete important information. But it is important to continue to
make moral and legal distinctions, based on the intent of the actor
and the character of the damage.
Tom Forester seems to want to turn his back on making such
distinctions. This, to me, is a shameful position to take.
Forester supported his oddly simplistic moral stance with some odder
factual errors. Here are some of the more egregious ones.
>Last year, the so-called 'Legion of Doom' managed to completely
>stuff up the 911 emergency phone system in nine US states, thus
>endangering human life. They were also later charged with trading
>in stolen credit card numbers, long-distance phone card numbers
>and information about how to break into computers.
Only a person who is willfully ignorant of the record could make these
statements. The so-called Legion of Doom never damaged or threatened
to damage the E911 system. If Forester had done even minimal research,
he could have discovered this. What they did, of course, was copy a
bureaucratic memo from an insecure Bell South computer and show it to
each other.
At the trial of Craig Neidorf, who was charged along with Legion of
Doom members, it was revealed that the information in that memo was
publicly available in print.
Thus, there was no proprietary information involved, much less a
threat to the E911 system. Forester is simply inventing facts in order
to support his thesis. For an academic, this is the gravest of sins.
>Leonard Rose Jr. was charged with selling illegal
>copies of a US $77,000 AT&T operating system.
Len Rose was never charged with "selling" anything. His crime
concerned his possession of the expensive source code, which he, like
many other Unix consultants, used in his work.
>Robert Morris, who launched the disastrous Internet worm, got a
>mere slap on the wrist in the form of a US $10,000 fine and 400
>hours' community service.
If Forester had investigated the case, he might have discovered an
explanation for the lightness of Robert Morris Jr.'s sentence: that
Morris never intended to cause any damage to the networks. In any
case, Morris hardly qualifies as a "hacker" in the sense that Forester
uses the word; by all accounts, he was interested neither in "theft"
nor "burglary" nor "vandalism."
Of course, making such subtle distinctions would only blunt the force
of Forester's thesis, so he chooses to ignore them.
>Instead, [the hacker] tends to spend his time with the computer,
>rising at 2pm, then working right through to 6am,, consuming mountains
>of delivered pizza and gallons of soft drink.
This is the kind of stereotyping that Forester should be embarrassed
to parrot in a public forum.
>Some suffer from what Danish doctors are now calling "computer
>psychosis" - an inability to distinguish between the real world
>and the world inside the screen.
>
>For the hacker, the machine becomes a substitute for human
>contact, because it responds in rational manner, uncomplicated by
>feelings and emotions.
And here Forester diagnoses people whom he has never met. One is
forced to wonder where Forester acquired his medical or psychiatric
training. Of the people whose names he blithely cites, I have met or
spoken to half a dozen. None of them has been confused about the
difference between computers and reality, although it may be
understandable that they prefer working with computers to working with
people who prejudge them out of hatred, ignorance, or fear.
>One day, these meddlers will hack into a vital military, utility
>or comms system and cause a human and social catastrophe. It's
>time we put a stop to their adolescent games right now.
History suggests that we have far more to fear from badly designed or
overly complex software than from hackers. Recent failures of phone
networks in the United States, for example, have been traced to
software failures.
Even if we grant that there are some hackers with the ability to
damage critical systems, the question Forester fails to ask is this:
Why hasn't it happened already? The answer seems to be that few
hackers have the skill or desire to damage or destroy the very thing
they are interested in exploring.
Of course, there are some "vandals" out there, and they should be
dealt with harshly. But there are far more "hackers" interested in
exploring and understanding systems. While they may well violate the
law now and then, the punishments they earn should take into account
both their intentions and their youth.
It has been noted many times that each generation faces the challenge
of socializing a wave of barbarians--its own children. We will do our
society little good if we decide to classify all our half-socialized
children into criminals. For an ethicist, Forester seems to have given
little thought to the ethics of lumping all computer trespass into one
category of serious crime.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
"Twas midnight, and the UNIX hacks
Did gyre and gimble in their cave
All mimsy was the CS-VAX
And Cory raths outgrave.
"Beware the software rot, my son!
The faults that bite, the jobs that thrash!
Beware the broken pipe, and shun
The frumious system crash!"
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
STUDENT SUSPENDED FOR MAILING PASSWORDS
by Rita Rouvalis
The University of Georgia's (UGA) Student Judiciary has recently
sentenced a student to two quarters suspension for e-mailing Athena's
/etc/passwd file to an unauthorized user who wanted to break into the
system. Intense debate ensued when the following post was made to
eff.talk:
>The University will soon be issuing a news release about this incident.
>In the meantime, here is a summary:
>(1) A number of unauthorized users have been using various University
>of Georgia computers. Most of them have left much more of a trail than
>they realized and will be hearing from us.
>(2) The first person actually caught as part of this incident has now
>been sentenced to 2 quarters' suspension, plus a probated expulsion,
>by the Student Judiciary. This was a U.Ga. student whose name cannot
>be released due to confidentiality of educational records. What this
>student did was mail a copy of /etc/passwd from athena.cs.uga.edu to a
>"hacker" who had already penetrated another system, and who wanted to
>use a password-guessing program to break into athena. The student was
>fully aware that he was assisting in a break-in.
> -- Michael Covington, sysadmin UGA
Discussion was muddied considerably by confusion with other threads,
and opinions were posted without factual basis. If one looks at the
facts, one finds the student received surprisingly fair treatment from
the University of Georgia, whether or not one agrees with the actual
sentence.
Upon investigating an intrusion into one of the AI Lab's machines, the
sysadmin for the AI lab found that the intruder had saved, on disk, a
copy of Athena's /etc/passwd file with an email header indicating it
had come from the student in question's account on Athena. Assuming at
first that either the e-mail header was bogus, or that the student's
account had also been hacked, the Athena sysadmins deactivated the
account. Notice that this was a file saved under an unauthorized
username; no e-mail was ever intercepted.
Upon further investigation, the student admitted to being the
owner/sender of this e-mail message. He also apparently admitted to
being a member of an "elite group of hackers/phreakers," and knowing
that the /etc/passwd file would be used to try to crack Athena.
When the matter came before them, UGA officials felt the needs of the
student would be better served if he/she was brought before the
Student Judiciary instead of filing criminal charges. The only
punishments the Student Judiciary can hand out are expulsion,
suspension, and community service; all proceedings are kept
confidential as required by federal law.
According to UGA Student Judiciary policy, a student can choose either
an administrative hearing, or a student court hearing before three
specially trained students. In either case, the student is assisted by
a trained defender (also a student) and has the right to have other
people present for his defense. The hearing is supervised by UGA's
staff of Judicial Programs and follow the same rules of evidence and
procedure as a courtroom trial. If convicted, the student can appeal
to the Vice President and to the President (which this student has
done).
Despite protests from a few netters about the sentence the student
received, it is clear that the student court carefully considered the
intent and personality of the student when handing down the sentence
-- a consideration not taken in too many hacker cases. Officials felt
that two quarters suspension would effectively remove the student from
the influence of the hackers/phreakers and realign his priorities.
Community service involving computers was not chosen for the express
reason of not encouraging hacking to prove ability.
While some netters may disagree with the sentence handed down, they
should agree that this case was fairly and thoroughly handled by UGA
officials. Their measured deliberation of all the issues involved
should be used as an example in this era of hacker hysteria.
EFFector Online will keep you posted as the case progresses...
Portions of postings by Michael Covington, sysadmin of one of the UGA
machines involved, are reproduced by permission.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Letters From The Sun
From: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
To: editors@eff.org
Subject: Free software and electronic freedom
There is a convergence of interests between advocates of free software
and the EFF, which I think bears some examination. I think we can
"assist" the government, the police, the media, and the courts by
stressing that what is happening to computers is by no means new. I do
not believe that education (though it will help) can solve our problem.
The people from AT&T who assign $50,000 price tags to login.c and claim
millions of dollars of damage done by Riggs, Darden, and Grant are
completely aware of the real nature of what was done. The same is
certainly true of Apple's claim that irrevocable damage was done by the
distribution of NuPrometheus. We can end, through education, damage to
people like Steve Jackson wrought by overzealous police. But the damage
done by the false claims of knowledgeable people seeking money and
victims will not be ended solely be education.
The possiblility of perjury suits should be considered, of course, but
that is not the only way to end the problem. The computer shares with
certain other inventions several important characteristics: it is cheaper
than older alternatives; it is faster; and it offers new ways of thinking
about the world. The most obvious invention in the past with these
characteristics is the movable-type printing press. Suddenly books could
be published by only a few people, rather than requiring laborious
copying. Printing presses were cheaper than the hundreds of copyists
previously required. And, perhaps most importantly, the availability of
books encouraged people to see the world as somewhat smaller, as
information could suddenly be transmitted more quickly.
Gutenberg's first book was the Bible, published in German translation,
and the Church reacted vehemently to this new "problem". Its monopoly on
Biblical interpretation suddenly ended, and the Church quickly realized
that something "needed" to be done. The index of prohibited books became
its most effective tool. Those who assisted in the production of
unauthorized books (rulers who refused to arrest recalcitrant printers,
for example) would be in turn vilified or even excommunicated.
Even today, in many countries, access to the printed word is difficult
and managed by the state. Those we are fighting must be more visibly
compared with past opponents to free speech. We must be more vocal in
admitting and even pointing out that, yes, the computer is powerful and
dangerous, and in precisely the same ways cheap printing is powerful and
dangerous. We do not believe, in this country, that access to printing
presses should be carefully managed and regulated by the government to
ensure the safe use of this power. Instead, thanks to the wisdom of
Voltaire, and his ultimate victory over Rousseau, we recognize that the
solution to the printing of falsehood is the printing of truth. We must
encourage the same attitude in the public towards computers: that
computers, and associated networks, must be encouraged to grow without
regulation and forced record-keeping. Yes, computers are dangerous. But
they are only dangerous to those who hide in shadows and plot power in
the dark of night, for they are tools for light if available to all.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
"I'm hosed." -- Steve Jobs, after his NeXT machine froze up during a
demonstration to 500 people at Lotus last year.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
If you support the goals and work of EFF, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our quarterly newsletter,
EFFECTOR, our bi-weekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online (if you
have an electronic address that can be reached through the Net), and
special releases and other notices on our activities. But because we
believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these things
even if you do not elect to become a member.
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year for
regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish.
>>>---------------- EFF@eff.org MEMBERSHIP FORM ---------------<<<
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
Online Office Nine
155 Second St.
Cambridge,MA 02141
I wish to become a member of the EFF I enclose:$__________
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $___________
Name:______________________________________________________
Organization:______________________________________________
Address: __________________________________________________
Town: _____________________________________________________
State:_______Zip:________Phone:( )_____________(optional)
FAX:( )____________________(optional)
Email address: ______________________________
I enclose a check [ ].
Please charge my membership in the amount of $_____________
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:____________________________________________________
Expiration date: ____________
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date:______________________
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ].
Initials:___________________________
**OUR PRIVACY POLICY: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never,
under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will,
>from time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations
whose work we determine to be in line with our goals. But with us, member
privacy is the default. This means that you must actively grant us
permission to share your name with other groups. If you do not grant
explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership
disclosed to any group for any reason.**
The EFF is a non-profit, 501c3 organization.
Donations to the EFF are tax-deductible.
******************************************************************
--
Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> | ELECTRONIC MAIL WORDS OF WISDOM #5:
System Manager & Postmaster | "Internet mail headers are
Electronic Frontier Foundation | not unlike giblets."
+1 617 864 0665 | -- Paul Vixie <vixie@pa.dec.com>
Article 4
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!world!eff!ckd
From: bruces@well.sf.ca.us (Bruce Sterling)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.eff.news,alt.bbs,alt.dcom.telecom
Subject: Seeking information on BBS seizures
Message-ID: <CKD.91Jul19122734@eff.org>
Date: 19 Jul 91 16:27:40 GMT
Sender: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 21
Approved: ckd@eff.org
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com comp.org.eff.talk:2931 comp.org.eff.news:4 alt.bbs:5360 alt.dcom.telecom:308
If you, or someone you know, had a bulletin board seized on May
7, 8, or 9, 1990, by policemen or federal agents, I'm very interested in
talking to you regarding a book I am writing on electronic civil
liberties issues: THE HACKER CRACKDOWN, The True Story of the Digital
Dragnet of 1990 and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Also, if you are a policeman, federal agent, informant,
prosecutor or telco security, and you or someone you know was seizing
computers on May 8, I am very interested indeed in your story.
Discretion guaranteed on request. Please contact:
Bruce Sterling, 4525 Speedway, Austin, Texas 78751.
email bruces@well.sf.ca.us
voicephone 512-323-5176
fax 512-479-0912
--
Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> | ELECTRONIC MAIL WORDS OF WISDOM #5:
System Manager & Postmaster | "Internet mail headers are
Electronic Frontier Foundation | not unlike giblets."
+1 617 864 0665 | -- Paul Vixie <vixie@pa.dec.com>
|
| 155.3 | EFF & ISDN | SPICE::PECKAR | Shadow skiing the apocalypse | Mon Jan 13 1992 12:01 | 253 |
|
Here's a story about what the EFF has been workin on for the past few
months. They are pushing for a simple, copper wire-based national network that
is cheap and accessible to all; a reasonable thing for them to be shooting for,
IMHO. Though contraversial (i.e. in competition with "slick: networks like
FDDI), its a fascinating look into where we _could_ be in five years with
existing technology if only the network owners (phone companies) would lighten
up and stop being paranoid about loosing all their business to PC makers...
Fog
From: DECWRL::"mkapor@eff.org" "Mitchell Kapor" 11-JAN-1992 13:15:07.05
To: pub-infra@eff.org (pub-infra mailing list)
CC:
Subj: Newsday ISDN Story
From: "josh quittner" <quit@newsday.com>
Subject: ISDN Story
Greetings: Here's the ISDN story Newsday ran in the science section on
Tuesday.
dt920107. Tuesday
daTuesday. January 7, 1992
scDISCOVERY
kyCOMPUTER. TELEPHONE. INDUSTRY. BUSINESS. SERVICE. INFORMATION.
SERVICE. VIDEO. ELECTRONIC. EQUIPMENT. BUSINESS
ntSEE SIDEBAR: COMPUTER COMMUTERS
idjd
grNewsday Illustration by Gary Viskupic- Telephone cord contain-
ing a computer terminal. Newsday Chart by Tom Redmond- Boosting
Communications. ISDN, or Integrated Services Digital Network, is
a way to get the most out of the standard copper telephone wires
that run into most homes and businesses. A mix of voice, data,
pictures and video is possible (see microfilm)
hdDIALING FOR DATA
SEE SIDEBAR: Telephone Service That Rings of the Future (See end
of text)
byBy Joshua Quittner. STAFF WRITER
txKEYWORD-HIT.
TO JOHN PERRY BARLOW, a point man for the computer culture,
it's the next step in the "Great Work. The physical wiring of
collective human consciousness _ the idea of connecting every
mind to every other mind in full-duplex broadband."
To Ohio Bell, it's a way for customers to have up to nine
telephone numbers _ some for specific friends, some for the bill
collectors _ for the price of one.
This technological Rorschach test is called Integrated Ser-
vices Digital Network. And not since the invention of television
have so many people looked at one thing and interpreted it in so
many different ways.
Technically, ISDN refers to an architecture _ the software,
hardware and protocols needed to deliver a mix of voice, video
and data over a digital telephone network. This is important be-
cause it is a way of squeezing every bit of capacity out of the
twisted pair of copper wires that the local telephone company
runs into your house, bringing the kind of services that are
usually associated with more expensive fiber optic cables.
When Barbara Bush videoconferenced from the White House with
children at a Baltimore hospital at Christmas, she was using an
ISDN connection. When a group of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
scientists work at home, ISDN enables them to use their personal
computers, without a modem, to tap into the lab network and get a
data connection 27 times faster than normal. The Rochester Tele-
phone Co. and AT&T recently completed an ISDN experiment in which
phone company employees used ISDN to telecommute from their
homes.
With the lifting of restrictions that barred local telephone
companies from providing information services, the Baby Bells are
looking for ways of getting into the information business. Fiber
optic cable, the hair-thin strands of glass that convey signals
at the speed of light, is considered the ultimate way to transmit
information services, both for its speed and high capacity. But
the cost of deploying fiber has stalled it at curbside; telephone
companies estimate it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars
to extend it into homes. By using the existing copper wires that
connect homes to lo-
cal telephone companies, ISDN could be a far cheaper, more quick-
ly available alternative, a "ramping up technology," to fiber,
said Barlow. With software developer Mitchell Kapor, who is
famous for the business spreadsheet program Lotus 1-2-3, Barlow
founded the Cambridge, Mass.-based Electronic Frontier Founda-
tion, a public interest group dedicated to defining and promoting
the rights of computer users. The organization is lobbying for
ISDN as the medium for an easy-to-access, national public network
of computer users.
Will ISDN stay where it is, mostly with businesses, or will
it make the connection to people's homes? The answer depends on
whom you ask.
"I think we're at a critical period in the deployment of
ISDN because up until now, it has not been possible to make an
ISDN telephone call from the service area of one phone company to
another," said Marvin Sirbu, a telecommunications expert and
professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Sirbu said
that ISDN gained momentum recently with industrywide agreements
that created standards for equipment makers and service providers
to interconnect nationally. That should occur by the end of 1992.
It means that the 300 or so isolated ISDN islands will be able
to talk to each other and the technology is almost certain to
proliferate, at least between businesses, he said.
BUT SIRBU discounted the EFF's notion of a public national
network based on ISDN and said it was wrong to expect the tele-
phone companies to deploy it for information services.
"I have followed the trials and tribulations of home informa-
tion services for more than 10 years," he said. "Everybody keeps
saying when the technology gets cheaper it will be a big success
or when the technology gets better it will be a big success. But
I haven't seen any applications that would make this a big suc-
cess in the home. The issues here are marketing issues and find-
ing out what the right product is that someone wants at home."
Commercial interest in ISDN seemed to peak in 1986, when
McDonald's Corp. was the first business to try it out. (Two exec-
utives, two miles apart, spoke on the phone while looking at
video images of each other and while transmitting a graphic of
the Golden Arches onto their computer screens.) Though the tech-
nology spread to the rest of corporate and high-tech America, it
did so slowly; uses were pretty much limited to a kind of ad-
vanced Caller ID option.
For instance, if you call your credit card company's 800 num-
ber from home, chances are your name and records will pop up
automatically _ before you even identify yourself _ on the com-
puter screen of the customer service rep as he takes your call.
With ISDN, a company can also tell if you called, were put on
hold and hung up without ever speaking to a person; if they want
to, they can call you back. It also allows them to note in their
database that you speak only Spanish and automatically route you
to a bilingual operator.
The anticipated _ and current uses _ for ISDN run from the
poetic to the prosaic.
On the poetic end of the spectrum is the Electronic Frontier,
which is pushing ISDN as the ideal platform for what has beendubbed the
National Public Network. Barlow said that that network
would carry, in addition to normal telephone calls, multimedia
electronic mail, in which users could send a mixture of voice and
video; personal faxes, software, games "and other media not yet
imagined." The network, in his view, would be the ultimate ex-
pression of "global free speech," giving all users an unprece-
dented chance to interact.
"We believe that ISDN, whatever its limitations, is rapid
enough to jump start the greatest free market the world has ever
known," said Barlow.
ISDN can deliver data 27 times faster than a 2400-baud modem,
the telephone-computer interface that most PC users use. It does
this digitally, by creating two 64-kilobit-a-second channels that
can be used for voice or data, and one 16-kilobit-a-second chan-
nel, on your phone line. With developing data-compression techni-
ques, users could get a combination of voice, pictures, music and
video. "Multimedia postcards," as Kapor put it.
"Today, it's the case that you can do very high-quality pic-
ture phones over ISDN at very, very good quality," he said.
"Compression techniques are continuing to evolve so it's rea-
sonable to expect that we will have VHS-level quality" over cop-
per wires.
But, while more than 60 percent of the country will be ISDN-
ready within two years, Kapor, Barlow and others worry that the
telephone companies will do little with it for residential users,
aside from offering their business customers _ where most of the
money is for phone companies _ some ISDN services.
"Telco mindset was developed in an era of highly centralized
networks in which it took a decade of court battles to give you
the right to attach a suction cup to your telephone," said Kapor.
"Computer industry mindset, especially PCs, was born in garages
and attics where teenagers, kids, and outsiders invented the Ap-
ple II and Lotus 1-2-3." So Kapor and the EFF has been trying to
line up the support of computer and software manufacturers, among
others, to lobby in Congress and among the public utility commis-
sions state by state, for a more directed and speedy deployment
of ISDN.
Currently, there are some 300 ISDN "islands," each centered
around discrete ISDN-equipped phone switches. No one knows exact-
ly how many there are, nor how many users they serve, though the
vast majority are dedicated telephone lines that run from tele-
phone company switches to specific businesses.
Though users within each island can interact using ISDN,
they can not interact between islands because the companies that
manufacture ISDN switches used different standards, and because
there was no standard interface between the ISDN that a local
telephone company uses, and the ISDN that a long-distance carrier
uses.
However, standards by Bellcore, the research arm of the Baby
Bells, should bring all the switches into conformity by the fall
of 1992.
Stan Kluz, an ISDN expert at Lawrence Livermore, recently
hooked the first group of ISDN users off site, into the
laboratory's computer network. Kluz said that through this ar-rangement, 12
scientists who live near the University of Califor-
nia at Berkeley can use their computers at home, and have access
to data at 64 kilobits a second.
With speeds that fast, the scientists can manipulate huge
amounts of data and see their problems displayed in three
dimensional graphics on their home computers.
Kluz sees the future of telecommunications and it is ISDN. He
says that videoconferencing on all ISDN-equipped computers at
Lawrence Livermore will be available soon; with nationwide inter-
connection agreements, he hopes to see "distance learning" in
which a class in, say, nuclear physics, could be videoconferenced
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to the computer of a
Lawrence Livermore scientist, who can take part in the class.
But Kluz, who also serves as president of the California ISDN
Users Group, echoed Kapor and said that the phone companies
aren't moving fast enough to create demand for the service.
"They're not marketing it well," he said.
NYNEX spokesman Joe Gagen _ as well as virtually everyone
else interviewed for this story _ said residential ISDN is a
classic chicken and egg problem. In order for people to want it,
there have to be services. But information service providers
won't proliferate until there's a demand. Gagen said that
residential demand will grow as people become exposed to ISDN at
work.
"It's not going to happen overnight," said Colin Beasley,
staff director of network planning at NYNEX. "My guess is that
from an affordability and deployment point of view, you're proba-
bly talking about 1994-1995 before you'll see broad penetration
into the [New York] residence market."
****
Telephone Service That Rings of the Future
ISDN has already penetrated New Albany, Ohio, where 16 ISDN-
accessible homes have been built. The country-club-style develop-
ment (median house price, $700,000) surrounds a Jack Nicklaus-
designed golf course and, its developers say, is the first com-
mercial application of residential ISDN.
Neil Toeppe of Ohio Bell Telephone Co. said homeowners have
the option of giving out up to nine telephone numbers from an ex-
isting telephone line, each with a different function. For in-
stance, the number listed in a phone book could be programmed to
run into an answering machine; a second line can be given out to
friends, and ring only on telephones in designated rooms; a third
number could be for the children's phone and it could divert to
voice mail after 7:30 p.m.
Within a year or so, residents will be able to have the local
utility company monitor their thermostats, using the 16 kilobit
data channel. That will let homeowners subscribe to a kind of
power sharing agreement under which the power company will vir-
tually control the thermostat in exchange for discounted rates.
Other features will also be available _ as soon as someone fig-
ures out what they are.
****
--
josh quittner
voice: 1.800.544.5410 (2806 at tone)
quit@newsday.com
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA29671; Sat, 11 Jan 92 10:14:52 -0800
% Received: by eff.org id AA17481 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for pub-infra-exploder); Sat, 11 Jan 1992 12:21:21 -050
% Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 12:21:13 -0500
% Message-Id: <199201111721.AA17475@eff.org>
% From: Mitchell Kapor <mkapor@eff.org>
% Subject: Newsday ISDN Story
% Precedence: bulk
% To: pub-infra@eff.org (pub-infra mailing list)
|
| 155.4 | the latest from John Barlow | AIMHI::KELLER | I'm not broke, I'm on a financial diet | Mon Aug 03 1992 14:27 | 645 |
| Article: 37870
From: 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Big Brother is ALWAYS watching!
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:57:47 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
The following may be of interest to those concerned with issues of E-mail
(or any kind of) privacy, as discussed here in the PGP thread recently.
W. K. Gorman
For info on the EFF, try E-mail to <listserv@eff.org>
------------------------------------
|=====================================================================
|EFFector Online JULY 29, 1992 Issue 3.1 / Part 1
| A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
| ISSN 1062-9424
|=====================================================================
|...
| -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
|
| Decrypting the Puzzle Palace
| by
| John Perry Barlow
| barlow@eff.org
|
| "A little sunlight is the best disinfectant."
| --Justice Louis Brandeis
|
|Over a year ago, in a condition of giddier innocence than I enjoy today, I
|wrote the following about the discovery of Cyberspace:
|
|"Imagine discovering a continent so vast that it may have no other side.
|Imagine a new world with more resources than all our future greed might
|exhaust, more opportunities than there will ever be entrepreneurs enough to
|exploit, and a peculiar kind of real estate which expands with
|development."
|
|One less felicitous feature of this terrain which I hadn't noticed then is
|what seems to be a long-encamped and immense army of occupation.
|
|This army represents interests which are difficult to define, guards the
|area against unidentified enemies, meticulously observes almost every
|activity undertaken there, and continuously prevents most who inhabit its
|domain from drawing any blinds against such observation.
|
|It marshals at least 40,000 troops, owns the most advanced computing
|resources in the world, and uses funds the dispersal of which does not fall
|under any democratic review.
|
|Imagining this force won't require from you the inventive powers of a
|William Gibson. The American Occupation Army of Cyberspace exists. Its
|name is the National Security Agency.
|
|It may be argued that this peculiar institution inhibits free trade, has
|directly damaged American competitiveness, and poses a threat to liberty
|anywhere people communicate with electrons. It's principal function, as
|miff colleague John Gilmore puts it, is "wire-tapping the world," which it
|is free to do without a warrant from any judge.
|
|It is legally constrained from domestic surveillance, but precious few
|people are in a good position to watch what, how, or whom the NSA watches.
|And those who are tend to be temperamentally sympathetic to its objectives
|and methods. They like power, and power understands the importance of
|keeping it own secrets and learning everyone else's.
|
|Whether it is meticulously ignoring every American byte or not, the NSA is
|certainly pursuing policies which will render our domestic affairs
|transparent to anyone who can afford big digital hardware. Such policies
|could have profound consequences on our liberty and privacy.
|
|More to point, the role of the NSA in the area of domestic privacy needs to
|be assessed in the light of other recent federal initiatives which seem
|directly aimed at permanently denying privacy to the inhabitants of
|Cyberspace, whether foreign or American.
|
|Finally it seems a highly opportune time, directly following our
|disorienting victory in the Cold War, to ask if the threats from which the
|NSA purportedly protects us from are as significant as the hazards its
|activities present.
|
|Like most Americans I'd never given much thought to the NSA until recently.
|(Indeed its very existence was a secret for much of my life. Beltway types
|used to joke that NSA stood for "No Such Agency.")
|
|I vaguely knew that it was another of the 12 or so shadowy federal spook
|houses which were erected shortly after the Iron Curtain with the purpose
|of stopping its further advance. It derives entirely from a memorandum sent
|by Harry Truman on October 24, 1952 to Secretary of State Dean Acheson and
|Defense Secretary Robert Lovatt. This memo, the official secrecy of which
|remained unpenetrated for almost 40 years, created the NSA, placed it under
|the authority of the Secretary of Defense, and charged it with monitoring
|and decoding any signal transmission relevant to the security of the United
|States.
|
|Even after I started noticing the NSA, my natural immunity to paranoia
|combined with a general belief in the incompetence of all bureaucracies...
|especially those whose inefficiencies are unmolested by public scrutiny...
|to mute any sense of alarm. But this was before I began to understand the
|subterranean battles raging over data encryption and the NSA's role in
|them. Lately, I'm less sanguine.
|
|Encryption may be the only reliable method for conveying privacy to the
|inherently public domain of Cyberspace. I certainly trust it more than
|privacy protection laws. Relying on government to protect your privacy is
|like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds.
|
|In fact, we already have a strong-sounding federal law protecting our
|electronic privacy, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or ECPA. But
|this law has not particular effective in those areas were electronic
|eavesdropping is technically easy. This is especially true in the area of
|cellular phone conversations, which, under the current analog transmission
|standard, are easily accessible to anyone from the FBI to you.
|
|The degree of law enforcement apprehension over secure cellular encryption
|provides mute evidence of how seriously they've been taking ECPA. They are
|moving on a variety of fronts to see that robust electronic privacy
|protection systems don't become generally available to the public. Indeed,
|the current administration may be so determined to achieve this end that
|they may be willing to paralyze progress in America's most promising
|technologies rather than yield on it.
|
|Push is coming to shove in two areas of communications technology: digital
|transmission of heretofore analog signals and the encryption of transmitted
|data.
|
|As the communications service providers move to packet switching, fiber
|optic transmission lines, digital wireless, ISDN and other advanced
|techniques, what have been discrete channels of continuous electrical
|impulses, voices audible to anyone with alligator clips on the right wires,
|are now becoming chaotic blasts of data packets, readily intelligible only
|to the sender and receiver. This development effectively forecloses
|traditional wire-tapping techniques, even as it provides new and different
|opportunities for electronic surveillance.
|
|It is in the latter area where the NSA knows its stuff. A fair percentage
|of the digital signals dispatched on planet Earth must pass at some point
|through the NSA's big sieve in Fort Meade, Maryland, 12 underground acres
|of the heaviest hardware in the computing world. There, unless these
|packets are also encrypted with a particularly knotty algorithm, sorting
|them back into their original continuity is not so difficult.
|
|Last spring, alarmed at a future in which it would have to sort through an
|endless fruit salad of encrypted bits, the FBI persuaded Senator Joseph
|Biden to include language in Senate Bill 266 which would have directed
|providers of electronic communications services and devices (such as
|digital cellular phone systems or other multiplexed communications
|channels) to implement only such encryption methods as would assure
|governmental ability to extract from the data stream the plain text of any
|voice or data communications in which it took a legal interest. It was if
|the government had responded to a technological leap in lock design by
|requiring building contractors to supply it with skeleton keys to every
|door in America.
|
|The provision raised wide-spread concern in the computer community, which
|was better equipped to understand its implications than the general public,
|and in August of last year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in
|cooperation with Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and other
|industry groups, successfully lobbied to have it removed from the bill.
|
|Our celebration was restrained. We knew we hadn't seen the last of it. For
|one thing, the movement to digital communications does create some serious
|obstacles to traditional wire-tapping procedures. I fully expected that law
|enforcement would be back with new proposals, which I hoped might be ones
|we could support. But what I didn't understand then, and am only now
|beginning to appreciate, was the extent to which this issue had already
|been engaged by the NSA in the obscure area of export controls over data
|encryption algorithms.
|
|Encryption algorithms, despite their purely defensive characteristics, have
|been regarded by the government of this country as weapons of war for many
|years. If they are to be employed for privacy (as opposed to
|authentication) and they are any good at all, their export is licensed
|under State Department's International Traffic in Arms Regulations or ITAR.
|
|The encryption watchdog is the NSA. It has been enforcing a policy, neither
|debated nor even admitted to, which holds that if a device or program
|contains an encryption scheme which the NSA can't break fairly easily, it
|will not be licensed for international sale.
|
|Aside for marveling at the silliness of trying to embargo algorithms, a
|practice about as practicable as restricting the export of wind, I didn't
|pay much attention to the implications of NSA encryption policies until
|February of this year. It was then that I learned about the deliberations
|of an obscure group of cellular industry representatives called the Ad Hoc
|Authentication Task Force, TR45.3 and of the influence which the NSA has
|apparently exercised over their findings.
|
|In the stately fashion characteristic of standard-setting bodies, this
|group has been working for several years on a standard for digital cellular
|transmission, authentication, and privacy protection to be known by the
|characteristically whimsical telco moniker IS-54B.
|
|In February they met near Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ. At that
|meeting, they recommended, and agreed not to publish, an encryption scheme
|for American-made digital cellular systems which many sophisticated
|observers believe to be intentionally vulnerable. It was further thought
|by many observers that this "dumbing down" had been done indirect
|cooperation with the NSA.
|
|Given the secret nature of the new algorithm, its actual merits were
|difficult to assess. But many cryptologists believe there is enough in the
|published portions of the standard to confirm that it isn't any good.
|
|One cryptographic expert, one of two I spoke with who asked not to be
|identified lest the NSA take reprisals against his company, said:
|
|"The voice privacy scheme, as opposed to the authentication scheme, is
|pitifully easy to break. It involves the generation of two "voice privacy
|masks" each 260 bits long. They are generated as a byproduct of the
|authentication algorithm and remain fixed for the duration of a call. The
|voice privacy masks are exclusive_ORed with each frame of data from the
|vocoder at the transmitter. The receiver XORs the same mask with the
|incoming data frame to recover the original plain text. Anyone familiar
|with the fundamentals of cryptanalysis can easily see how weak this scheme
|is."
|
|And indeed, Whitfield Diffie, co-inventor of Public Key cryptography and
|arguably the dean of this obscure field, told me this about the fixed
|masks:
|
|"Given that description of the encryption process, there is no need for the
|opponents to know how the masks were generated. Routine cryptanalytic
|operations will quickly determine the masks and remove them.''
|
|Some on committee claimed that possible NSA refusal of export licensing had
|no bearing on the algorithm they chose. But their decision not to publish
|the entire method and expose it to cryptanalytical abuse (not to mention
|ANSI certification) was accompanied by the following convoluted
|justification:
|
|"It is the belief of the majority of the Ad Hoc Group, based on our current
|understanding of the export requirements, that a published algorithm would
|facilitate the cracking of the algorithm to the extent that its fundamental
|purpose is defeated or compromised."(Italics added.)
|
|Now this is a weird paragraph any way you parse it, but its most singular
|quality is the sudden, incongruous appearance of export requirements in a
|paragraph otherwise devoted to algorithmic integrity. In fact, this
|paragraph is itself code, the plain text of which goes something like this:
|"We're adopting this algorithm because, if we don't, the NSA will slam an
|export embargo on all domestically manufactured digital cellular phones."
|
|Obviously, the cellular phone systems manufacturers and providers are not
|going to produce one model for overseas sale and another for domestic
|production. Thus, a primary effect of NSA-driven efforts to deny some
|unnamed foreign enemy secure cellular communications is on domestic
|security. The wireless channels available to private Americans will be
|cloaked in a mathematical veil so thin that, as one crypto-expert put it,
|"Any county sheriff with the right PC-based black box will be able to
|monitor your cellular conversations."
|
|When I heard him say that, it suddenly became clear to me that, whether
|consciously undertaken with that goal or not, the most important result of
|the NSA's encryption embargoes has been the future convenience of domestic
|law enforcement. Thanks to NSA export policies, they will be assured that,
|as more Americans protect their privacy with encryption, it will be of a
|sort easily penetrated by authority.
|
|I find it increasingly hard to imagine this is not their real objective as
|well. Surely, they must be aware of how ineffectual their efforts have been
|in keeping good encryption out of inimical military possession. An
|algorithm is somewhat less easily stopped at the border than, say, a
|nuclear reactor. As William Neukom, head of Microsoft Legal puts it, "The
|notion that you can control this technology is comical."
|
|I became further persuaded that this was the case upon hearing, from a
|couple of sources, that the Russians have been using the possibly
|uncrackable (and American) RSA algorithm in their missile launch codes for
|the last ten years and that, for as little as five bucks, one can get a
|software package called Crypto II on the streets of Saint Petersburg which
|includes both RSA and DES encryption systems.
|
|Nevertheless, the NSA has been willing to cost American business a lot of
|revenue rather than allow domestic products with strong encryption into the
|global market.
|
|While it's impossible to set a credible figure on what that loss might add
|up to, it's high. Jim Bidzos, whose RSA Data Security licenses RSA, points
|to one major Swiss bid in which a hundred million dollar contract for
|financial computer terminals went to a European vendor after American
|companies were prohibited by the NSA from exporting a truly secure network.
|
|The list of export software containing intentionally broken encryption is
|also long. Lotus Notes ships in two versions. Don't count on much
|protection from the encryption in the export version. Both Microsoft and
|Novell have been thwarted in their efforts to include RSA in their
|international networking software, despite frequent publication of the
|entire RSA algorithm in technical publications all over the world.
|
|With hardware, the job has been easier. NSA levied against the inclusion of
|a DES chip in the AS/390 series IBM mainframes in late 1990 despite the
|fact that, by this time, DES was in widespread use around the world,
|including semi-official adoption by our official enemy, the USSR.
|
|I now realize that Soviets have not been the NSA's main concern at any time
|lately. Naively hoping that, with the collapse of the Evil Empire, the NSA
|might be out of work, I then learned that, given their own vigorous crypto
|systems and their long use of some embargoed products, the Russians could
|not have been the threat from whom this forbidden knowledge was to be kept.
|Who has the enemy been then? I started to ask around.
|
|Cited again and again as the real object of the embargoes were Third-World
|countries. terrorists and... criminals. Criminals, most generally
|drug-flavored, kept coming up, and nobody seemed terribly concerned that
|some of their operations might be located in areas supposedly off-limits to
|NSA scrutiny.
|
|Presumably the NSA is restricted from conducting American surveillance by
|both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and a series
|of presidential directives, beginning with one issued by President Ford
|following Richard Nixon's bold misuse of the NSA, in which he explicitly
|directed the NSA to conduct widespread domestic surveillance of political
|dissidents and drug users.
|
|But whether or not FISA has actually limited the NSA's abilities to conduct
|domestic surveillance seemed less relevant the more I thought about it. A
|better question to ask was, "Who is best served by the NSA's encryption
|export policies?" The answer is clear: domestic law enforcement. Was this
|the result of some spook plot between NSA and, say, the Department of
|Justice? Not necessarily.
|
|Certainly in the case of the digital cellular standard, cultural congruity
|between foreign intelligence, domestic law enforcement, and what somebody
|referred to as "spook wannabes on the TR45.3 committee" might have a lot
|more to do with the its eventual flavor than any actual whisperings along
|the Potomac.
|
|Unable to get anyone presently employed by the NSA to comment on this or
|any other matter and with little opportunity to assess the NSA's
|congeniality toward domestic law enforcement from the inside, I
|approached a couple of old hands for a highly distilled sample of
|intelligence culture.
|
|I called Admirals Stansfield Turner and Bobby Ray Inman. Not only had their
|Carter administration positions as, respectively, CIA and NSA Directors,
|endowed them with considerable experience in such matters, both are
|generally regarded to be somewhat more sensitive to the limits of
|democratic power than their successors. None of whom seemed likely to
|return my calls anyway.
|
|My phone conversations with Turner and Inman were amiable enough, but they
|didn't ease my gathering sense that the NSA takes an active interest in
|areas which are supposedly beyond its authorized field of scrutiny.
|
|Turner started out by saying he was in no position to confirm or deny any
|suspicions about direct NSA-FBI cooperation on encryption, but he didn't
|think I was being exactly irrational in raising the question. In fact, he
|genially encouraged me to investigate the matter further.
|
|He also said that while a sub rosa arrangement between the NSA and the
|Department of Justice to compromise domestic encryption would be
|"injudicious," he could think of no law, including FISA (which he helped
|design), which would prevent it.
|
|Most alarmingly, this gentleman who has written eloquently on the hazards
|of surveillance in a democracy did not seem terribly concerned that our
|digital shelters are being rendered permanently translucent by and to the
|government.
|
|He said, "A threat could develop...terrorism, narcotics, whatever...where
|the public would be pleased that all electronic traffic was open to
|decryption. You can't legislate something which forecloses the possibility
|of meeting that kind of emergency."
|
|Admiral Inman had even more enthusiasm for assertive governmental
|supervision. Although he admitted no real knowledge of the events behind
|the new cellular encryption standard, he wasn't the least disturbed to hear
|that it might be flawed.
|
|And, despite the fact that his responsibilities as NSA Director had been
|restricted to foreign intelligence, he seemed a lot more comfortable
|talking about threats on the home front.
|
|"The Department of Justice," he began, "has a very legitimate worry. The
|major weapon against white collar crime has been the court-ordered wiretap.
|If the criminal elements go to using a high quality cipher, the principal
|defense against narcotics traffic is gone." This didn't sound like a guy
|who, were he still head of NSA, would rebuff FBI attempts to get a little
|help from his agency.
|
|He brushed off my concerns about the weakness of the cellular encryption
|standard. "If all you're seeking is personal privacy, you can get that with
|a very minimal amount of encipherment."
|
|Well, I wondered, Privacy from whom?
|
|And he seemed to regard real, virile encryption to be something rather like
|a Saturday Night Special. "My answer," he said, "would be legislation
|which would make it a criminal offense to use encrypted communication to
|conceal criminal activity."
|
|Wouldn't that render all encrypted traffic automatically suspect? I asked.
|
|"Well, he said, "you could have a registry of institutions which can
|legally use ciphers. If you get somebody using one who isn't registered,
|then you go after him."
|
|You can have my encryption algorithm, I thought to myself, when you pry my
|cold dead fingers from its private key.
|
|It wasn't a big sample, but it was enough to gain a better appreciation of
|the cultural climate of the intelligence community. And these guys are the
|liberals. What legal efficiencies might their Republican successors be
|willing to employ to protect the American Way?
|
|Without the comfortably familiar presence of the Soviets to hate and fear,
|we can expect to see a sharp increase in over-rated bogeymen and virtual
|states of emergency. This is already well under way. I think we can expect
|our drifting and confused hardliners to burn the Reichstag repeatedly until
|they have managed to extract from our induced alarm the sort of government
|which makes them feel safe.
|
|This process has been under way for some time. One sees it in the war on
|terrorism, against which pursuit "no liberty is absolute," as Admiral
|Turner put it. This, despite the fact that, during last year for which I
|have a solid figure, 1987, only 7 Americans succumbed to terrorism.
|
|You can also see it clearly under way in the War on Some Drugs. The Fourth
|Amendment to the Constitution has largely disappeared in this civil war.
|And among the people I spoke with, it seemed a common canon that drugs (by
|which one does not mean Jim Beam, Marlboros, Folger's, or Halcion) were a
|sufficient evil to merit the government's holding any more keys it felt the
|need for.
|
|One individual close to the committee said that at least some of the
|aforementioned "spook wannabes" on the committee were "interested in weak
|cellular encryption because they considered warrants not to be "practical"
|when it came to pursuing drug dealers and other criminals using cellular
|phones."
|
|In a miscellaneously fearful America, where the people cry for shorter
|chains and smaller cages, such privileges as secure personal communications
|are increasingly regarded as expendable luxuries. As Whitfield Diffie put
|it, "From the consistent way in which Americans seem to put security ahead
|of freedom, I rather fear that most of them would prefer that all
|electronic traffic was open to government decryption right now if they had
|given it any thought."
|
|In any event, while I found no proof of an NSA-FBI conspiracy to gut the
|American cellular phone encryption standard, it seemed clear to me that
|none was needed. The same results can be delivered by a cultural
|"auto-conspiracy" between like-minded hardliners and cellular companies who
|will care about privacy only when their customers do.
|
|You don't have to be a hand-wringing libertarian like me to worry about the
|domestic consequences of the NSA's encryption embargoes. They are also, as
|stated previously, bad for business, unless, of course, the business of
|America is no longer business but, as sometimes seems the case these days,
|crime control.
|
|As Ron Rivest (the "R" in RSA) said to me, "We have the largest information
|based economy in the world. We have lots of reasons for wanting to protect
|information, and weakening our encryption systems for the convenience of
|law enforcement doesn't serve the national interest."
|
|But by early March, it had become clear that this supposedly business-
|oriented administration had made a clear choice to favor cops over commerce
|even if the costs to the American economy were to become extremely high.
|
|A sense of White House seriousness in this regard could be taken from their
|response to the first serious effort by Congress to bring the NSA to task
|for its encryption embargoes. Rep. Mel Levine (D-Calif.) proposed an
|amendment to the Export Administration Act to transfer mass market software
|controls to the Commerce Department, which would relax the rules. The
|administration responded by saying that they would veto the entire bill if
|the Levine amendment remained attached to it.
|
|Even though it appeared the NSA had little to fear from Congress, the
|Levine amendment may have been part of what placed the agency in a
|bargaining mood for the first time. They entered into discussions with the
|Software Publishers Association who, acting primarily on behalf of
|Microsoft and Lotus, got to them to agree "in principle" to a streamlined
|process for export licensing of encryption which might provide for more
|robust standards than have been allowed previously.
|
|But the negotiations between the NSA and the SPA were being conducted
|behind closed doors, with the NSA-imposed understanding that any agreement
|they reached would be set forth only in a "confidential" letter to
|Congress. As in the case of the digital cellular standard, this would
|eliminate the public scrutiny by cryptography researchers which anneals
|genuinely hardened encryption.
|
|Furthermore, some cryptographers worried that the encryption key lengths to
|which the SPA appeared willing to restrict its member publishers might be
|too short to provide much defense against the sorts of brute-force
|decryption assaults which advances in processor technology will yield in
|the fairly near future. And brute force has always been the NSA's strong
|suit.
|
|Whether accurate or not, the impression engendered by the style of the
|NSA-SPA negotiations was not one of unassailable confidence. The lack of it
|will operate to the continued advantage of foreign manufacturers in an era
|when more and more institutions are going to be concerned about the privacy
|of their digital communications.
|
|But the economic damage which the NSA-SPA agreement might cause would be
|minor compared to what would result from a startling new federal
|initiative, the Department of Justice's proposed legislation on digital
|telephony. If you're wondering what happened to the snooping provisions
|which were in Senate Bill 266, look no further. They're back. And they're
|bigger and bolder than ever.
|
|They are contained in a sweeping proposal which have been made by the
|Justice Department to the Senate Commerce Committee for legislation which
|would "require providers of electronic communications services and private
|branch exchanges to ensure that the Government's ability to lawfully
|intercept communications is unimpeded by the introduction of advanced
|digital telecommunications technology or any other telecommunications
|technology."
|
|Amazingly enough, this really means what it says: before any advance in
|telecommunications technology can be deployed, the service providers and
|manufacturers must assure the cops that they can tap into it. In other
|words, development in digital communications technology must come to a
|screeching halt until Justice can be assured that it will be able to grab
|and examine data packets with the same facility they have long enjoyed with
|analog wire-tapping.
|
|It gets worse. The initiative also provides that, if requested by the
|Attorney General, "any Commission proceeding concerning regulations,
|standards or registrations issued or to be issued under authority of this
|section shall be closed to the public." This essentially places the
|Attorney General in a position to shut down any telecommunications advance
|without benefit of public hearing.
|
|When I first heard of the digital telephony proposal, I assumed it was a
|kind of bargaining chip. I couldn't imagine it was serious. But it now
|appears they are going to the mattresses on this one.
|
|Taken together with NSA's continued assertion of its authority over
|encryption, a pattern becomes clear. The government of the United States is
|so determined to maintain law enforcement's traditional wire-tapping
|abilities in the digital age that it is willing to fundamentally cripple
|the American economy to do so. This may sound hyperbolic, but I believe it
|is not.
|
|The greatest technology advantage this country presently enjoys is in the
|areas of software and telecommunications. Furthermore, thanks in large part
|to the Internet, much of America is already wired for bytes, as significant
|an economic edge in the Information Age as the existence of a railroad
|system was for England one hundred fifty years ago.
|
|If we continue to permit the NSA to cripple our software and further convey
|to the Department of Justice the right to stop development the Net without
|public input, we are sacrificing both our economic future and our
|liberties. And all in the name of combating terrorism and drugs.
|
|This has now gone far enough. I have always been inclined to view the
|American government as pretty benign as such creatures go. I am generally
|the least paranoid person I know, but there is something scary about a
|government which cares more about putting its nose in your business than it
|does about keeping that business healthy.
|
|As I write this, a new ad hoc working group on digital privacy, coordinated
|by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is scrambling to meet the challenge.
|The group includes representatives from organizations like AT&T, the
|Regional Bells, IBM, Microsoft, the Electronic Mail Association and about
|thirty other companies and public interest groups.
|
|Under the direction of Jerry Berman, EFF's Washington office director, and
|John Podesta, a capable lobbyist and privacy specialist who helped draft
|the ECPA, this group intends to stop the provisions in digital telephony
|proposal from entering the statute books.
|
|We also intend to work with federal law enforcement officials to address
|their legitimate concerns. We don't dispute their need to conduct some
|electronic surveillance, but we believe this can be assured by more
|restrained methods than they're proposing.
|
|We are also preparing a thorough examination of the NSA's encryption export
|policies and looking into the constitutional implications of those
|policies. Rather than negotiating behind closed doors, as the SPA has been
|attempting to do, America's digital industries have a strong self-interest
|in banding together to bring the NSA's procedures and objectives into the
|sunlight of public discussion.
|
|Finally, we are hoping to open a dialog with the NSA. We need to develop a
|better understanding of their perception of the world and its threats. Who
|are they guarding us against and how does encryption fit into that
|endeavor? Despite our opposition to their policies on encryption export, we
|assume that NSA operations have some merit. But we would like to be able to
|rationally balance the merits against the costs.
|
|We strongly encourage any organization which might have a stake in the
|future of digital communication to become involved. Letters expressing your
|concern may be addressed to: Sen. Ernest Hollings, Chairman, Senate
|Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC and to Don Edwards,
|Chairman, Subcommitee on Constitutional Rights, House Judiciary Committee.
|(I would appreciate hearing those concerns myself. Feel free to copy me
|with those letters at my physical address, c/o P.O. Box 1009, Pinedale, WY
|82941 or in Cyberspace, barlow@eff.org.)
|
|If your organization is interested in becoming part of the digital privacy
|working group, please contact EFF's Washington office at: 666 Pennsylvania
|Avenue SE, Suite 303, Washington, DC 20003, 202/544- 9237, FAX:
|202/547-5481. EFF also encourages individuals interested in these issues to
|join the organization. Contact us at: Electronic Frontier Foundation, 155
|Second Street, Cambridge, MA 02141,617/864- 0665, eff-request@eff.org.
|
|The legal right to express oneself is meaningless if there is no secure
|medium through which that expression may travel. By the same token, the
|right to hold certain unpopular opinions is forfeit unless one can discuss
|those opinions with others of like mind without the government listening in.
|
|Even if you trust the current American government, as I am still largely
|inclined to, there is a kind of corrupting power in the ability to create
|public policy in secret while assuring that the public will have little
|secrecy of its own.
|
|In its secrecy and technological might, the NSA already occupies a very
|powerful position. And conveying to the Department of Justice what amounts
|to licensing authority for all communications technology would give it a
|control of information distribution rarely asserted over English-speaking
|people since Oliver Cromwell's Star Chamber Proceedings.
|
|Are there threats, foreign or domestic, which are sufficiently grave to
|merit the conveyance of such vast legal and technological might? And even
|if the NSA and FBI may be trusted with such power today, will they always
|be trustworthy? Will we be able to do anything about it if they aren't?
|
|Senator Frank Church said of NSA technology in 1975 words which are more
|urgent today:
|
|"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people
|and no American would have any privacy left. There would be no place to
|hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, the technological capacity
|that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to
|impose total tyranny. There would be no way to fight back, because the most
|careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no
|matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to
|know. Such is the capacity of this technology."
|
|San Francisco, California
|May, 1992
|
|Reprinted from Communications of the ACM, June 1992
|by permission of the author
|...
| Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged
| To reproduce signed articles individually,
| please contact the authors for their express permission.
|=====================================================================
| This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
|
| 155.5 | summary... | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | spinning that curious sense | Mon Aug 03 1992 19:15 | 112 |
| For those of ya that just skipped over this cause it was too long, lemme
summarize (IMHO, of course)...
The NSA (National Security Agency) has been sticking its nose where it don't
belong: our computer networks. Barlow explains how the NSA is strictly
chartered to stay out of domestic affairs, but since there aint no Evil Empire,
and there _is_ a war on civil liberties, oop, I meant drugs, they've empowered
themselves to affect national policy on digital technology and networks.
Barlow uses the example of the NSA's meddlings with recent cryptographic
standards for Digital Cellular telephony, which are badly needed since all you
need to listen in on Cellular phone calls is a radio scanner and a cheap
crystal, available at every radio shack. basically, Barlow relates how he
suspects the NSA uses the threat of export restrictions to force the industry
to adopt a cryptography standard which is basically no more secure than not
encrypting the signals at all. Barlow explains how the NSA believes it can
legislate control on encryption algorithms, which is about as rediculous a
concept, he says, "as restricting the export of wind".
He goes on to talk about how the EFF fought (and won) an attempt by Sen. Joseph
Biden to open a "back door" to all digital encryptions scemes. The Bill was
Senate Bill 266, and the attempt was...
...to implement only such encryption methods as would assure
|governmental ability to extract from the data stream the plain text of any
|voice or data communications in which it took a legal interest.
Thats only the beggining of the battle, though, the Men in the Grey Suits are
at it again. Here is the beef of what Barlow and the EFF are up against now:
|But the economic damage which the NSA-SPA agreement might cause would be
|minor compared to what would result from a startling new federal
|initiative, the Department of Justice's proposed legislation on digital
|telephony. If you're wondering what happened to the snooping provisions
|which were in Senate Bill 266, look no further. They're back. And they're
|bigger and bolder than ever.
|
|They are contained in a sweeping proposal which have been made by the
|Justice Department to the Senate Commerce Committee for legislation which
|would "require providers of electronic communications services and private
|branch exchanges to ensure that the Government's ability to lawfully
|intercept communications is unimpeded by the introduction of advanced
|digital telecommunications technology or any other telecommunications
|technology."
|
|Amazingly enough, this really means what it says: before any advance in
|telecommunications technology can be deployed, the service providers and
|manufacturers must assure the cops that they can tap into it. In other
|words, development in digital communications technology must come to a
|screeching halt until Justice can be assured that it will be able to grab
|and examine data packets with the same facility they have long enjoyed with
|analog wire-tapping.
|
|It gets worse. The initiative also provides that, if requested by the
|Attorney General, "any Commission proceeding concerning regulations,
|standards or registrations issued or to be issued under authority of this
|section shall be closed to the public." This essentially places the
|Attorney General in a position to shut down any telecommunications advance
|without benefit of public hearing.
Clearly, the feds want total control of all our data nets. While some controls
are needed, these blatent attempts to monopolize on the precedents set by forty
years of cold war mentality will set back the whole industry, and maybe even
the ability of the United States to compete in the emerging global brave new
world of the information age, since clearly this where things are really at in
the future. They know this, and are very afraid. We know this, and must stand
up for our rights to privacy and our access to technology.
If ya wanna help, read on...
Thanks,
Fog
|We strongly encourage any organization which might have a stake in the
|future of digital communication to become involved. Letters expressing your
|concern may be addressed to: Sen. Ernest Hollings, Chairman, Senate
|Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC and to Don Edwards,
|Chairman, Subcommitee on Constitutional Rights, House Judiciary Committee.
|(I would appreciate hearing those concerns myself. Feel free to copy me
|with those letters at my physical address, c/o P.O. Box 1009, Pinedale, WY
|82941 or in Cyberspace, barlow@eff.org.)
|
|If your organization is interested in becoming part of the digital privacy
|working group, please contact EFF's Washington office at: 666 Pennsylvania
|Avenue SE, Suite 303, Washington, DC 20003, 202/544- 9237, FAX:
|202/547-5481. EFF also encourages individuals interested in these issues to
|join the organization. Contact us at: Electronic Frontier Foundation, 155
|Second Street, Cambridge, MA 02141,617/864- 0665, eff-request@eff.org.
|
|The legal right to express oneself is meaningless if there is no secure
|medium through which that expression may travel. By the same token, the
|right to hold certain unpopular opinions is forfeit unless one can discuss
|those opinions with others of like mind without the government listening in.
|
|Even if you trust the current American government, as I am still largely
|inclined to, there is a kind of corrupting power in the ability to create
|public policy in secret while assuring that the public will have little
|secrecy of its own.
|
|In its secrecy and technological might, the NSA already occupies a very
|powerful position. And conveying to the Department of Justice what amounts
|to licensing authority for all communications technology would give it a
|control of information distribution rarely asserted over English-speaking
|people since Oliver Cromwell's Star Chamber Proceedings.
|
|Are there threats, foreign or domestic, which are sufficiently grave to
|merit the conveyance of such vast legal and technological might? And even
|if the NSA and FBI may be trusted with such power today, will they always
|be trustworthy? Will we be able to do anything about it if they aren't?
|
|
| 155.6 | Summary summary... | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | spinning that curious sense | Mon Aug 03 1992 19:17 | 6 |
|
I didn't mean for that sumamry to be 112 lines long. For those who skipped the
summary cuz it was too long -- Go back, its really less than a page after you
strip off the 40 or so lines of pro-EFF blather at the end.
:-)
|
| 155.7 | it's not really paranoia when the *are* out to get you! :^) | JUNCO::DWEST | if wishes were horses... | Mon Aug 03 1992 19:31 | 4 |
| seeing that i thought that only you, oh pedantic one, could produce
a summary that's almost as long as the original notice! :^)
da ve
|
| 155.8 | | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | tim grady | Mon Aug 03 1992 21:50 | 28 |
| The law has been on the books for years now that the NSA
must approve the export of any encrypted data or encryption
algorithm. The law apparently indicates that the NSA has
the legal power to intercept any communications medium, and
this is an extention of that dangerous precedent.
Current Cellular telephone technology is analog, and hence
as Fog mentions, easily intercepted. The next generation
of Cellular telephony will be digital, and more difficult
to tap. Encryption is a hot topic, not only in the actual
data being transmitted, but also in the authentication and
identification systems used to verify that the Cellular
phone really is who it purports to be. There are lots of
people making money nowadays with the 90's version of the
old 'blue box' - hotbox cellular phones with changeable
identification codes who can make phone calls to anywhere
for free, cuz somebody else is paying that bill...
Encryption is the only solution to this form of
theft, and NSA wants a 'back door', they say, for
national security reasons. I say, Just Say No.
It always bodes ill when the government tries to be above
the law. Including the law of privacy (if only there
were any!).
tim
|
| 155.9 | | LJOHUB::RILEY | Namer of chaotic individuals everywhere! | Tue Aug 04 1992 17:56 | 20 |
|
I actually had an experience with the NSA in May. Our product uses an
encryption technology (RSA) and we had to brief NSA on our
implementation of it in Washington D.C....
Well, turns out we've got a guy who has a lot of experience in working
with NSA, and knows what they like to hear. Not that we deceived them,
but knowing what they are afraid of and having an existing relationship
with them goes a long way to gain their approval. They classified our
product as exportable under Dept. of Commerce instead of ITAR.
They actually treat encryption technology like munitions! DEC actually
had to get a license to sell heavy artillery in Europe in order to sell
some of our software!!!
Interesting world we live in... And yes, I think it's ludicrous what
the NSA does in regulating export... This encryption technology is
readily available on the internet fer chrissake!!!
Tree
|
| 155.10 | | ZENDIA::FERGUSON | Prez term: 4 yrs; Sup. Court: LIFE | Tue Aug 04 1992 18:25 | 21 |
| re <<< Note 155.9 by LJOHUB::RILEY "Namer of chaotic individuals everywhere!" >>>
> They actually treat encryption technology like munitions! DEC actually
> had to get a license to sell heavy artillery in Europe in order to sell
> some of our software!!!
Yes, this is correct. And you know the Captain Crunch Secret Decoder Ring
that comes [or used to come] with Captain Crunch cerial? Well, it is ITAR
and cannot be exported!! Can you believe that? This is true; it is on tyhe
munitions list...
> Interesting world we live in... And yes, I think it's ludicrous what
> the NSA does in regulating export... This encryption technology is
> readily available on the internet fer chrissake!!!
And, one wonders why the US economy sucks. We have a ton of governmental
controls in place that make it hard for companies like DEC to export _anything_
with encryption in it. And... I'm sure there a lot of other places where
Big Bro (tm) keeps the lid on US technology.
|
| 155.11 | look for your Ring of Sarcasm in boxes of Crunchios | STAR::HUGHES | Captain Slog | Tue Aug 04 1992 20:26 | 13 |
| I used to work at one of the first VAX sites in Australia. In order to
finally receive our floating point accelerator, we had to sign various
documents promising not to use the FPA in an act of aggression against
the USofA.
You can get a nasty cut from those circuit boards :-)
The stream of idiotic paperwork that this generated was a source of
entertainment at staff meetings for months. At one point we received a
'notification of change of regulations' informing us that individuals
could no longer import battleships.
gary
|
| 155.12 | unix/encryption question | SSGV01::STROBEL | No particular reason, officer. Why do you ask? | Tue Aug 04 1992 21:36 | 10 |
| warning**** non-technical type attempting to be technical ***
For anyone who might know:
don't various flavors of UNIX (tm) like OSF1 have encryption
capabilities imbedded in it?
*** back to my bean counting ****
jeff
|
| 155.13 | There are always two versions of unix | SFBAY::UBELL | | Wed Aug 05 1992 22:44 | 5 |
| Every U* vendor I have delt with always had a domestic and an export
version of their software. The export did not have the encription stuff
in it.
All the stuff that the NSA will not let US companies export is readily
available in Europe from European vendors.
|
| 155.14 | Clinton's Technology policy | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | fast times at Decnet High | Mon Nov 09 1992 16:01 | 621 |
| From: SPICE::DECWRL::"rita@eff.org" "Rita Marie Rouvalis 05-Nov-1992 2012" 5-NOV-1992 20:11:01.39
To: eff-news@eff.org (eff-news mailing list)
CC:
Subj: EFFector Online 3.08
########## ########## ########## |
#### #### #### | A TECHNOLOGY POLICY FOR AMERICA
######## ######## ######## | by President-Elect Bill Clinton
######## ######## ######## |
#### #### #### |
########## #### #### |
########## #### #### |
=====================================================================
EFFector Online November 4, 1992 Issue 3.08
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
ISSN 1062-9424
=====================================================================
A TECHNOLOGY POLICY FOR AMERICA Six Broad Initiatives
by Bill Clinton
(September, 1991)
The Clinton-Gore technology policy consists of six broad initiatives
that together will restore America's technological leadership:
1. Building a 21st Century Technology Infrastructure.
Infrastructure has traditionally been the responsibility of federal and
state governments. Investing in infrastructure means more than repairing
bridges, harbors and highways. Today, the United States faces a new
series of communications, transportation and environmental needs for the
21st century. The creation of a 21st century infrastructure program
would serve as a critical technology driver for the nation. It would
stimulate major new national R&D efforts; create large, predictable
markets that would prompt significant private sector investments; and
create millions of new jobs.
A 21st century infrastructure would address many practical problems. For
example, the government can serve as a catalyst for the private sector
development of an advanced national communications network, which would
help companies collaborate on research and design for advanced
manufacturing; allow doctors across the country to access leading
medical expertise; put immense educational resources at the fingertips
of American teachers and students; open new avenues for disabled people
to do things they can't do today; provide technical information to small
businesses; and make telecommuting much easier. Such a network could do
for the productivity of individuals at their places of work and learning
what the interstate highway of the 1950s did for the productivity of the
nation's travel and distribution system.
Each year, I plan to devote a significant portion of my four year, $80
billion Rebuild America fund to laying the groundwork for the nation's
infrastructure needs in the 21st century. Federal funding for the
National Research and Education Network is one example of how the
federal government can serve as a catalyst for private sector
infrastructure investment. We will also provide additional funding to
network our schools, hospitals and libraries.
As part of the effort to assess U.S. needs and develop appropriate
programs, the federal government must monitor, or "benchmark", what
foreign governments are doing. For example, the Japanese government has
committed to invest over $120 billion by 1995 to develop a digital
broadband communication infrastructure called the Information Network
System, and plans to invest another $150 billion to establish model
programs for business and residential users.
A comprehensive infrastructure program must also include effective
standards and regulations. By establishing reasonable standards and a
constructive regulatory environment, the government can send clear
signals to industry about important, emerging markets and spur private
sector investment. For example, the digital standard that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), in cooperation with industry,
established for high resolution television provides an excellent
indication of the future technical direction of the industry and will do
much to facilitate private sector R&D.
A 21st century infrastructure program should consist of the following
five elements:
Funding the establishment of key networks and demonstration
projects;
Benchmarking U.S. programs against those of other major industrial
nations;
Establishing standards and a regulatory climate that fosters
private sector investment;
Involving the federal labs, companies, and universities in
conducting R&D on key technical issues; and
Providing training for users of networks and databases.
2. Establishing Education and Training Programs for a High-Skill
Workforce.
The U.S. education system must make sure that American workers have the
requisite skills. The focus should be not only on the top American
students who measure up to world-class standards, but also on average
and disadvantaged students. It must also take into account the need to
upgrade workers' skills and help people make the difficult transition
from repetitive, low-skill jobs to the demands of a flexible, high-skill
workplace. Unlike Germany, the United States does not have a
sophisticated vocational education program, and unlike Japan, U.S. firms
do not have a strong incentive to invest in the training and retraining
of their workers. We need more of both, geared to meet the needs of the
mobile U.S. workforce.
I will implement the following programs to strengthen the skills of
America's workforce:
Establish tough standards and a national examination system in
core subjects like writing, communication, math and science;
level the playing field for disadvantaged students;
reduce class sizes;and give parents the right to chose the public
schools their child attends.
Establish a national apprenticeship program that offers non-
college bound students training in a marketable skill.
Give every American the right to borrow money for college by
establishing a National Service Trust Fund. Students can repay
their borrowing as a percent of their earnings over time, or by
serving their communities for one or two years doing work their
country needs.
Stimulate industry to provide continuing, high skills training to
its front-line workers.
For small manufacturers to compete today, it is not good enough simply
to have access to new equipment and new technologies if their workers do
not have the skills and know-how to operate them efficiently, and engage
in truly flexible production. Yet, too much of our training is for only
top executives or workers after they have lost their jobs.
My plan calls for companies with over 50 employees to ensure that 1.5
percent of their payroll goes to training throughout the workforce --
not just for the top executives. But we must do more for smaller
companies who cannot afford to set up the training programs. These
companies need to adapt to new technologies and new equipment and the
constantly new demands.
New production technology should be worker-centered and skill-based, not
skill-eliminating. In the high-performance workplace, workers have more
control over production and worker responsibility is increased. Some
companies that have invested billions in new capital equipment have
found that genuine employee involvement and good labor-management
relations are ultimately more important. Therefore we need to undertake
the following:
Manufacturing training centers:
We need to promote private sector-led efforts to set up training
for small companies. These can be done by building off community
colleges training and should be an integral part of the network of
Manufacturing Extension provisions. These would also be integrated
with my Apprenticeship initiative so that young people will have
the opportunity to learn specific skills needed for specific
manufacturing jobs or industries. Councils including private
sector and academic leaders as well as workers would help decide
generic areas for training.
Certificate of training guarantees:
In order to be eligible for federal funds for manufacturing
training centers, such centers would have to provide all future
employers with a Certificate of Guarantee. This would ensure that,
when workers do not pick up the necessary skills the first time,
these centers would provide additional training -- at no
additional cost to the employer.
Best Practices on Worker Participation:
An integral function of the Manufacturing Extension Centers will
be to collect and disseminate information on "best practices" with
regards to worker participation. Increasing worker productivity is
one of the keys to increasing overall manufacturing productivity.
3. Investing in Technology Programs that Empower America's Small
Businesses.
A healthy and growing small-business sector is essential to America's
economic well-being. America's 20 million small businesses account for
40 percent of our GNP, half of all employment, and more than half of the
job creation. My technology policy will recognize the importance of
small and medium-sized business to America's economic growth with:
Market-driven extension centers:
Creating 170 manufacturing centers will put the best tools in the
hands of those companies that are creating the new jobs on which
the American economy depends by helping small- and medium- sized
manufacturers choose the right equipment, adopt the top business
practices, and learn cutting-edge production techniques. In order
to enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness, public policy must
promote the diffusion and absorption of technology across the U.S.
industrial base. Some state and local governments are already
involved in technology diffusion using manufacturing centers. They
are helping small businesses improve the productivity of their
existing machinery and equipment, adopt computer-integrated or
flexible manufacturing techniques, and identify training needs.
The Commerce Department has five Manufacturing Technology Centers across
the country and has plans for two more. Unfortunately, these efforts are
only a drop in the bucket compared to those of our major competitors.
Germany has over 40 contract R&D centers (Fraunhofer Gesellschaft) and a
broad network of industry associations and research cooperatives that
effectively diffuse technology across industry. In Japan, major
government-sponsored research projects, 170 kohsetsushi technology
support centers for small businesses, and tight links between companies
and their suppliers serve much the same function. There is no comparable
system in the United States.
A Clinton-Gore Administration will build on the efforts of state and
local governments to create a national technology extension program,
designed to meet the needs of the millions of small businesses that have
difficulty tracking new technology and adapting it to their needs.
The involvement of workers is critical to developing and executing
successful industrial extension programs. In technology, as in other
area, we must put people first. New production technology should be
worker-centered and skill-based, not skill-eliminating. In the high-
performance workplace, workers have more control over production and
worker responsibility is increased. Some companies that have invested
billions in new capital equipment have found that genuine employee
involvement and good labor-management relations are ultimately more
important.
No less than 25 of these new manufacturing centers will be regional
technology alliances devoted to regions hit hard by defense cut-backs.
These alliances could promote the development of dual-use technologies
and manufacturing processes on a regional basis. Extending the Small
Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR)
In addition to creating a national technology extension service for
small and medium-sized businesses, I will also expand the Small Business
Innovation Research Program. By requiring that federal agencies set-
aside 1.25 percent of their R&D budget for small businesses, this
program has helped create billions of dollars of new commercial activity
while improving the research programs of the federal government. Given
this track record, the SBIR program should be doubled over a period of
four years to 2.5% to accelerate the development of new products by
innovative small businesses.
Funding private sector-led training centers:
We also need a fundamental change in the way we deal with R&D and
technology if we are to lead a new era of American manufacturing.
Currently, our R&D budget reflects neither the realities of the post-
Cold War era nor the demands for a new national security. At present,
60% of the federal R&D budget is devoted to defense programs and 40%
percent to non-defense programs. The federal government should aim to
restore a 50-50 balance between defense and non-defense R&D. That is why
I have called for a new civilian research and development program to
support research in the technologies that will launch new growth
industries and revitalize traditional ones.
This civilian technology program will:
Invest in Private-Sector Led Consortia: When the private sector
creates consortia to share risks, pool resources, avoid
duplication and make investments that they would not make without
such agreements, government should be willing to do its part.
Support for consortia such as the SEMATECH, National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences and the Advanced Battery is appropriate. By
requiring firms to match federal contributions on at least a 50:50
basis, the government can insure that we are leveraging public
dollars and that they are market-led and market-oriented. Often
major companies are reluctant to invest in their suppliers and
assist them in quality management techniques, because they fear
they will go to another company. Private-sector-led consortia
allow the major companies to cure that problem by coming together
and agreeing on industry-wide efforts to invest in smaller
suppliers. Some of these consortia will be funded by the Advanced
Technology Program.
Inward Technology Transfer: While we must strengthen the links
between American R&D and American jobs, we must also develop a
strategy for acquiring, disseminating, and utilizing foreign
technologies. Our Government must increase the collection,
translation and dissemination of foreign scientific and technical
information.
4. Increasing Dramatically the Percentage of Federal R&D for Critical
Technologies.
I will view the support of generic industrial technologies as a priority
mission. The government already spends $76 billion annually on R&D. This
funding should be refocused so that more resources are devoted to
critical technologies, such as advanced materials, information
technology and new manufacturing processes that boost industrial
performance.
At present, 60% of the federal R&D budget is devoted to defense programs
and 40% percent to non-defense programs. This level of support for
defense R&D is a holdover from the massive arms build-up of the 1980s.
At the very least, in the next three years the federal government should
shift the balance between defense and non-defense programs back to a 50-
50 balance, which would free-up over $7 billion for non-defense R&D.
Having achieved this balance, the government should examine whether
national security considerations and economic conditions warrant further
shifts.
I will also create a civilian research and development program to
support research in the technologies that will launch new growth
industries and revitalize traditional ones.
This civilian technology program will:
Help companies develop innovative technologies and bring new
products to market;
Take the lead in coordinating the R&D investments of federal
agencies;
and Cooperate and consult with industry, academia and labor in the
formulation and implementation of technology policy and R&D
programs.
Advanced Manufacturing R&D:
The United States is currently underinvesting in advanced manufacturing
R&D. The federal government should work with the private sector -- with
the private sector taking the lead -- to develop an investment strategy
for those technologies critical to 21st century manufacturing.
Following the lead of my running mate, Al Gore, and several of his
colleagues, we must do more to support industry's efforts to develop the
advanced computer-controlled equipment ("intelligent machines") and the
electronic networks that will enable American factories to work as
quickly and efficiently as their Japanese counterparts. These
technologies also include flexible micro- and nanofabrication,
simulation and modeling of manufacturing processes, tools for concurrent
engineering, electronic networks that allow firms to share business and
product data within and between firms, and environmentally-conscious
manufacturing. According to industry experts, the United States has an
opportunity to capitalize on the emerging shift from mass production to
flexible or "agile" manufacturing.
5. Leveraging the Existing Federal Investment in Technology to Maximize
its Contribution to Industrial Performance.
R&D conducted at the federal labs and consortia should be carefully
evaluated to assure that it has a maximum impact on industrial
performance. Furthermore, cooperation between universities and industry
should be encouraged.
America's 726 federal laboratories collectively have a budget of $23
billion, but their missions and funding reflect the priorities that
guided the United States during the Cold War. Approximately one-half of
their budget is directed toward military R&D. By contract, the budget
for the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) - the
only federal agency whose principal mission is to assist industry -
accounts for less than one percent of the total federal lab budget.
Despite several years of legislative reform and many new directives, the
labs still do not have the autonomy or funding to pursue joint ventures
and industry aggressively.
These labs and other private non-profit research centers are national
treasures because they house large, multi-disciplinary teams of
researchers who have honed the skills of balancing basic and applied
research for long-term, mission-oriented projects. It would take years
to match these special capabilities elsewhere. Today, the labs and
industry cooperate on defense needs; we need to change regulations and
orientation to get this cooperation on technology development for
commercial usage.
To remedy these problems, I propose the following:
The budget of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
should be doubled. Federal labs which can make a significant
contribution to U.S. competitiveness should have ten to twenty
percent of their existing budget assigned to establish joint
ventures with industry.
Private corporations should compete for this funding through
review by panels managed by the labs and made up of corporate and
academic experts. Lab directors should have full authority to
sign, fund and implement cooperative R&D agreements with industry.
Some labs, such as NIST, already have this authority, but others
do not.
Industry and the labs should jointly develop measures to determine
how well the technology transfer process is working and review
progress after 3 years. If these goals have not been met, industry
and the labs should reevaluate their involvement, and funds should
be redirected to consortia, universities and other organizations
that can work more effectively with industry for results.
University research accounts for a large part of the federal basic
research budget. Funding for basic university research should
continue to be provided for a broad range of disciplines, since it
is impossible to predict where the next breakthrough may come.
While maintaining America's leadership in basic research,
government, universities and industry must all work together to
take advantage of these new breakthroughs to enhance U.S.
competitiveness.
Cooperative R&D programs represent another opportunity. Consortia can
help firms share risks, pool resources, avoid duplication, and make
investments that they would not undertake individually. By requiring
that firms match federal contributions on at least a 50:50 basis, the
government can leverage its investments and ensure that they are market-
oriented.
Many industries are demonstrating a new found willingness to cooperate
to meet the challenge of international competition: SEMATECH has proven
to be an important investment for the industry and the Nation. It has
helped improve U.S. semiconductor manufacturing technology, helped
reversed the decline in world-wide market share of U.S. semiconductor
manufacturing equipment companies, and improved communications between
users and suppliers. U.S. automakers have recently formed the United
States Council for Automotive Research to develop batteries for electric
cars, reduce emissions, improve safety, and enhance computer-aided
design. The Michigan-based National Center for Manufacturing Sciences,
which now has 130 members, is helping to develop and deploy the
technologies necessary for world-class manufacturing. The
Microelectronics Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) is developing an
information infrastructure which will enable businesses to develop,
manufacture, deliver and support products and services with superior
speed, flexibility, and quality. U.S. steel-makers are cooperating to
develop manufacturing processes which would use less energy, create
fewer pollutants, and slash the time required to turn iron ore and coal
into steel.
A Clinton-Gore Administration will work to build a productive
partnership between government, research labs, universities, and
business.
6. Creating a World-Class Business Environment for Private Sector
Investment and Innovation.
Changes in America's tax, trade and regulatory policies are also needed
to help restore America's industrial and technological leadership. In a
global economy in which capital and technology are increasingly mobile,
we must make sure that the United States has the best business
environment for private sector investment. Tax incentives can spur
investment in plant and equipment, R&D and new businesses. Trade policy
can ensure that U.S. firms have the same access to foreign markets that
our competitors enjoy in the U.S. market. Antitrust reform will enable
U.S. firms to share risks and pool resources. Strengthening commercial
sections of our embassies will increase our ability to promote U.S.
goods abroad. Streamlining export controls will reduce the bureaucratic
red tape which can undermine competitiveness. And an overhaul of
cumbersome defense procurement regulations will strengthen both our
civilian and defense industrial bases. Permanent incentives for private
sector investment:
Too many federal incentives meant to spur innovation are on-again-off-
again programs that industry views as unreliable. As a result, they have
not realized their full impact. Several permanent tax measures should be
put in place immediately to stimulate commercial activity. They include
the following:
Make the R&D tax credit permanent to provide incentives for U.S.
companies that invest in developing new technology.
Place a permanent moratorium on Treasury Regulation 1.861-8: This
regulation increases the effective rate of U.S. taxation of R&D
and creates a disincentive for companies to conduct R&D in the
United States.
Provide a targeted investment tax credit to encourage investment
in the new equipment that we need to compete in the global
economy, and ensure that depreciation schedules reflect the rapid
rate of technological obsolescence of today's high-tech equipment.
Help small businesses and entrepreneurs by offering a 50% tax
exclusion to those who take risks by making long-term investments
in new businesses.
An effective trade policy:
The Bush-Quayle Administration has failed to stand up for U.S. workers
and firms. We need a President who will open foreign markets and respond
forcefully to unfair trade practices. I will:
- Enact a stronger, sharper Super 301 to ensure that U.S.
companies enjoy the same access to foreign markets that foreign
companies enjoy to our market.
- Successfully complete the Uruguay Round. This will help U.S.
manufacturers and high-tech companies by reducing foreign tariffs,
putting an end to the rampant theft of U.S. intellectual property,
and maintaining strong disciplines against unfair trade practices.
- Insist on results from our trade agreements. Although the U.S.
has negotiated many trade agreements, particularly with Japan,
results have been disappointing. I will ensure that all trade
agreements are lived up to, including agreements in sectors such
as telecommunications, computers and semiconductors. Countries
that fail to comply with trade agreements will face sanctions.
- Promote manufactured goods exports by small and medium
companies: To promote exports of manufactured goods, I will
strengthen the commercial sections of our embassies abroad so that
they can promote U.S goods, participate in foreign standards-
setting organizations, and support the sales efforts of small and
medium-sized businesses. We should also provide matching funds to
trade associations or other organizations who establish overseas
centers to promote U.S. manufactured goods exports.
Streamline Exports Controls:
Export controls are necessary to protect U.S. national security
interests and prevent the proliferation of nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons. Nonetheless, these controls are often overly
restrictive and bureaucratic, creating a mountain of red tape and
costing the U.S. tens of billions of dollars in exports -- while
undermining the competitiveness of the high-tech industries on which our
national security depends. The United States should:
- Further liberalize East-West export controls that are
unnecessary given the end of the Cold War.
- Avoid unilateral export controls and controls on technology
widely available in world markets. Unilateral controls penalize
U.S. exporters without advancing U.S. national security or foreign
policy interests.
- Streamline the current decision-making process for export
controls. While our competitors use a single agency to administer
export controls, the United States system is often characterized
by lengthy bureaucratic turf wars between the State Department,
the Commerce Department, the Pentagon's Defense Technology
Security Agency, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the
Department of Energy, and the National Security Agency.
Antitrust Reform:
Increasingly, the escalating cost of state-of-the-art manufacturing
facilities will require firms to share costs and pool risks. To permit
this cooperation, the United States should extend the National
Cooperative Research Act of 1984 to cover joint production ventures.
Civil-military integration:
Department of Defense procurement regulations are so cumbersome that
they have resulted in an unnecessary and wasteful segregation of our
civilian and defense industrial bases. The military specification for
sugar cookies is 10 pages long. Government procurement is so different
from private sector practices that companies now set up separate
divisions and manufacturing facilities to avoid distorting the
commercial part of their business. The U.S. must review and eliminate
barriers to the integration of our defense and civilian industrial base.
These barriers include cost and price accounting, unnecessary military
specifications, procurement regulations, inflexibility on technical data
rights, and a failure to develop technologies in a dual-use context.
Taken together, the six initiatives discussed above comprise a
technology policy that will restore economic growth at home, help U.S.
firms succeed in world markets, and help American workers earn a good
standard of living in the international economy.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
newsletter, EFFector Online, the @eff.org newsletter
and special releases and other notices on our activities. But because
we believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these
things even if you do not elect to become a member.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year for
regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish.
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never, under
any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will, from
time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations whose
work we determine to be in line with our goals. If you do not grant
explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership
disclosed to any group for any reason.
---------------- EFF MEMBERSHIP FORM ---------------
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
155 Second St. #38
Cambridge, MA 02141
I wish to become a member of the EFF I enclose:$__________
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
$100.00(Corporate or company membership.
This allows any organization to
become a member of EFF. It allows
such an organization, if it wishes
to designate up to five individuals
within the organization as members.)
I enclose an additional donation of $
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone:( ) (optional)
FAX:( ) (optional)
Email address:
I enclose a check [ ] .
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:
Expiration date:
Signature:
Date:
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ] .
Initials:
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
=====================================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141
Phone: +1 617 864 0665 FAX: +1 617 864 0866
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
for their express permission.
=====================================================================
This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA14898; Thu, 5 Nov 92 17:11:07 -0800
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA09811; Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:42:31 -0500
% Received: by eff.org id AA19419 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4/pen-ident for eff-com-exploder); Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:35:09 -0500
% From: Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@eff.org>
% Message-Id: <199211051802.AA18764@eff.org>
% Subject: EFFector Online 3.08
% Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:02:12 EST
% To: eff-news@eff.org (eff-news mailing list)
|
| 155.15 | Hmmm, when was it written? | MR4DEC::WENTZELL | Just a little sweetness | Mon Nov 09 1992 18:37 | 9 |
| RE -.1
The date on this is listed as September, 1991 but in the body of the text it
refers to Clinton-Gore. Is this a type-o (should say September, 1992), or is
it an edit of a previously written document?
Just curious. 8^)
Scott
|
| 155.16 | More cynicism from Barlow... | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | Pray for snow | Wed Dec 23 1992 13:31 | 119 |
|
I have cut out the stuff after the Barlow item. -Fog
From: SPICE::DECWRL::"van@eff.org" "Gerard Van der Leun 22-Dec-1992 1823" 22-DEC-1992 18:23:36.94
To: eff-news@eff.org (eff-news mailing list)
CC:
Subj: EFFector Online 4.03
////////////// //////////////// //////////////
//// //// ////
_________ /////////________ /////////_______ /////////________________
//// //// ////
////////////////// //// ////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
EFFector Online 4.2 12/23/1992 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-424
IN THIS ISSUE:
THE NEW, STREAMLINED BILL O' RIGHTS by John Perry Barlow
CRACKER BREAKS INTO ATHENA @ MIT: The Security Alert
EFF'S LEGISLATIVE WATCH by Shari Steele
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
The New, Streamlined
BILL O' RIGHTS
(As amended by the recent federal & state decisions)
Amendment 1
Congress shall encourage the practice of Judeo-Christian religion by
its own public exercise thereof and shall make no laws abridging the
freedom of responsible speech, unless such speech contains material
which is copyrighted, sexually arousing, or deeply offensive to
non-Europeans, non-males, differently-abled or alternatively
preferenced persons; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, unless such assembly is taking place on corporate or
military property or within an electronic environment, or to make
petitions to the Government for a redress of grievances, unless those
grievances relate to national security.
Amendment 2
A well-regulated Militia having become irrelevant to the security of
the State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms against one
another shall nevertheless remain uninfringed.
Amendment 3
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the owner, unless that house is thought to
have been used for the distribution of illegal substances.
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, may
be suspended to protect public welfare, and no Warrants need be
issued, but upon the unsupported suspicion of law enforcement
officials, any place or conveyance shall be subject to immediate
search and such places or conveyances and any property within
them may be permanently confiscated without further judicial proceeding.
Amendment 5
Any person may be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime involving illicit substances, terrorism, or child pornography,
or upon any suspicion whatever; and may be subject for the same
offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, once by the
State courts and again by the Federal Judiciary; and may be
compelled by various means, including interrogation or the forced submission of
breath samples, bodily fluids, or encryption keys, to be a witness
against himself, refusal to do so constituting an admission of guilt;
and may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without further
legal delay; and any property thereby forfeited shall be dedicated
to the discretionary use of law enforcement agents.
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and private plea bargaining session before pleading guilty.
He is entitled to the Assistance of underpaid and incompetent
Counsel to negotiate his sentence, except where such sentence falls under
federal mandatory sentencing requirements.
Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the contesting parties have nearly
unlimited resources to spend on legal fees, the right of trial by
jury shall be preserved.
Amendment 8
Sufficient bail may be required to ensure that dangerous criminals
will remain in custody, where cruel punishments are usually
inflicted.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others which may be asserted by the
Government as required to preserve public order, family values, or
national security.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
shall be reserved to the United States Departments of Justice and
Treasury, except that the States shall have the right to ban
abortions.
Derived by J. P .Barlow
New York, New York
December 21, 1992
|
| 155.17 | | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | Pray for snow | Wed Dec 23 1992 13:33 | 347 |
|
Some of the more interesting stuff that I cut out from -.1
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Our Farflung Correspondents
From: Roland H. Pesch <pesch@cygnus.com>
To: junk@cygnus.com
Subject: 20 years of progress in Scotts Valley, CA
A front-page story (headlined "High tech, high crimes") in today's
Santa Cruz Sentinel features a fascinating quote from the Chief of
Police of Scotts Valley:
"It's all new", says Scotts Valley Police Chief Steve Walpole.
"Twenty years ago, who would have thought you could arrest
someone for what's in his head?"
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
BBS Legislative Watch
Legislation from Last Congress that May Affect
Your Online Communications
by Shari Steele (EFF attorney)
For those of us communicating electronically, it is often hard to see
how involvement in the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C., could have
any positive impact on our lives online. But laws that can have great
effect on our online rights are constantly introduced and modified in
the United States Congress and local legislatures, and last year was
no exception. While the 102nd Congress is now history, here is a sample
of the legislation introduced over the past year that will likely affect
those of us building communities on the electronic frontier.
Threats to Privacy
FBI's Wiretapping Proposal Thwarted
In a move that worried privacy experts, software manufacturers and
telephone companies, the FBI proposed legislation to amend the
Communications Act of 1934 to make it easier for the Bureau to
perform electronic wiretapping. The proposed legislation, entitled "Digital
Telephony," would have required communications service providers
and hardware manufacturers to make their systems "tappable" by
providing "back doors" through which law enforcement officers could intercept
communications. Furthermore, this capability would have to be
provided undetectably, while the communication was in progress, exclusive of
any communications between other parties, regardless of the mobility of
the target of the FBI's investigation, and without degradation of service.
The security risks are obvious; if law enforcement officers can "tap"
into a conversation, so can others with harmful intent. The privacy
implications are also frightening. Today, all sorts of information
about who we are and what we do, such as medical records, credit reports
and employment data, are held on electronic databases. If these
databases have government-mandated "tappability," this private
information could potentially be accessed by anyone tapping in. To add
insult to injury, the FBI proposal suggests that the cost of providing
this wiretapping "service" to the Bureau would have to be bourne by
the service provider itself, which ultimately means you and I will be
paying higher user fees.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation organized a broad coalition of
public interest and industry groups, from Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR) and the ACLU to AT&T and Sun MicroSystems,
to oppose the legislation. A white paper produced by EFF and ratified
by the coalition, entitled, "An Analysis of the FBI Digital Telephony
Proposal," was widely distributed throughout the Congress. Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Representative Don Edwards (D-
California), chairs of two key committees, referred to the EFF paper as they
delayed introduction of the FBI's proposal. As Leahy stated before the
Senate, "Our goal is to assist law enforcement," but "without jeopardizing
privacy rights or frustrating the development of new communications
technologies." The Justice Department lobbied hard in the final days
to get Congress to take up the bill before Congress adjourned, but the
bill never even found a Congressional sponsor (and was therefore never
officially introduced). The FBI will almost certainly reintroduce
"Digital Telephony" when the 103rd Congress convenes in January.
Cellular Scanners Prohibited
The wrong solution won out as Congress attempted to protect the
privacy of users of cellular telephones. Congress chose to ban scanners as it
amended the Communications Act of 1934 with the FCC Authorization Act of
1991. The Authorization Act, among other things, prohibits the U.S.
manufacture and importation of scanning receivers capable of:
receiving cellular transmissions, being easily altered to receive cellular
transmissions, or being equipped with decoders to convert digital
cellular transmissions to analog voice audio. While privacy
protection is always important, EFF opposed the bill, arguing that technical
solutions, such as encryption, are the only way to protect private
communications carried over the airwaves.
Unable to stop the scanner ban, EFF worked with Representative
Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) and Senator Ernest Hollings (D-South
Carolina) to add an amendment to the legislation requiring the FCC to study
the impact of this law on privacy. Sometime in 1993, the FCC must also
conduct a public inquiry and issue a report on alternative means for
protecting cellular telephone conversations with a focus on
encryption.
Threats to Free Speech
Federal Agency to Study Hate Crimes on BBSs
Recognizing that electronic media have been used more and more
often to spread messages of hate and bigotry, Congress mandated the
National Telecommunications and Information Adminstration (NTIA) to
conduct a study on "the role of telecommunications in crimes of hate and
violent acts against ethnic, religious, and racial minorities." Computer
bulletin boards are specifically mentioned as one of the targeted
media to be studied under the Telecommunications Authorization Act of
1992. Representative Markey, while supporting the Act in the House,
cautioned NTIA to be sensitive to privacy concerns while conducting the study.
A report on the results of the study will be presented to the Senate
before the end of June, 1993.
Congress Regulates Video Transmissions
Much has been written about the passage of the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, more commonly known as
the "Cable Act." While specifically designed to regulate rates, establish
customer service requirements and prevent unfair competition for
cable television providers, the Cable Act may have broader implications for
those of us communicating online. The communications networks of
the future will include video and data transmission, as well as the voice
transmission we are now used to using over the telephone lines. The
Cable Act is Congress's first attempt to regulate the wire/cable
transmissions that will make up our networks of the future. EFF is
currently studying the implications of this legislation, specifically as
it applies to free speech over the network.
Threats to the Public's Right to Government Information
Fees Charged for Use of Government BBS
In a poorly thought-out move designed to raise federal revenues,
Congress passed a law permitting the Federal Maritime Commission
to charge user fees on its Automated Tariff Filing and Information
System (AFTI). The law requires shippers, freight forwarders, ocean carriers
and third-party information vendors to pay 46 cents for every
minute they are connected to the government-sponsored electronic database.
EFF joined with many other groups, including library groups, the
Information Industry Association and The Journal of Commerce, in
opposing this legislation. EFF and the others fear that this precedent
of allowing the government to charge citizens more than the
government's cost for information could be applied to many other federal
databases and impinge on the public's access to government data in electronic
formats.
Federal Employees Denied Copyrights for Government Software
EFF joined with several other organizations to successfully stop the
Technology Transfer Improvements Act in a Senate committee after
it had passed in the House of Representatives. This Act would have allowed
the federal government to claim copyright in certain computer software
created by federal employees working with non-federal parties.
Because so much government information is stored only in computerized
formats, EFF and the others, including the Software Publishers Association,
American Library Association, and Information Industry Association,
were concerned that this legislation would impinge on a citizen's right to
obtain and use government information that he or she has the right
to obtain and use.
Reproducing Copyrighted Software Now a Felony
Under the strong lobby of the Software Publishers Association, Congress
decided to stiffen penalties for individuals making illegal
reproductions of copyrighted software. The amended law makes
reproducing copyrighted software a felony if certain conditions are
met. According to the statute, any person who makes 1) at least ten copies
2) of one or more copyrighted works 3) that have a retail value of more
than $2500, can be imprisoned for up to five years and/or fined
$250,000. In order for the infringement to be a criminal violation,
however, the copies must be made "willfully and for purposes of
commerical advantage or private financial gain." While the term
"willfully" is not defined in the statute, previous criminal court cases
on copyright law have held that the person making the copies must
have known that his or her behavior was illegal. Software backups are not
illegal (in fact, they are usually encouraged by software providers),
and therefore do not fall under the scope of this statute.
Like most of us, EFF is concerned about the ramifications of this
legislation. While the statute itself provides safeguards that seem to
place heavy restrictions on how the law is applied, we are wary that
improper application of the law could result in extreme penalties for
software users. We will be monitoring cases brought under this
statute and intervening if we see civil liberties violations taking place.
Network Access for All
Commercial Users Given Internet Access
Congress gave the National Science Foundation (NSF), the agency
overseeing the Internet, the authority to relax some of its access rules
governing certain types of information travelling over the network,
including commercial information. The Internet has been an educational
and research-oriented network since the 1980s. Over the past few
years, however, the Internet has become increasingly open to non-
educational and commercial uses. The National Science Foundation Act was
amended to encourage an increase in network uses that will ultimately support
research and education activities.
While the amendment was still being considered by the House Science
Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Richard Boucher (D- Virginia),
EFF's President, Mitch Kapor, argued for more flexible rules to spur
diversity and innovation on the Internet. Relying in part on Kapor's
contentions, Representative Boucher sponsored the amendment as it
passed in the full House of Representatives; Senator Albert Gore (D-
Tennessee) championed it in the Senate. EFF lobbied to convince potential
congressional and industry opponents that the legislation would
facilitate, not impede, wider access to the Internet.
EFF's Open Platform Proposal Introduced
This past Fall, Mitch Kapor testified before the House Subcommittee
on Telecommunications and Finance about the perceived dangers of
regional Bell telephone company entry into the information services market.
To combat the fear that the Bells would engage in anticompetitive
behavior, EFF proposed an information network for the near future that would
be affordable, equitable, and easily-accessible (EFF's Open Platform
Proposal). Kapor suggested that ISDN could make such a network
possible sooner rather than later and at little expense.
Legislation was circulated near the end of Congress which included
the Open Platform Proposal. The proposed legislation, entitled the
"Telecommunications Competition and Services Act of 1992," was
sponsored by House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommitee Chair
Markey and would give government support to anyone moving forward to
provide digital telecommunications now over existing copper wires. This,
in turn, would pave the way for a broadband network requiring
telecommunications infrastructure modernization in the future. This
piece of legislation laid the groundwork for a major debate in the
next Congress, especially since President-elect Clinton and Vice-President-
elect Gore have committed themselves to an infrastructure of
information highways.
As you can see, Congress has been very busy creating legislation that
may affect your lives online. Next month, we will make some
predictions of areas where the 103rd Congress is likely to concentrate
its efforts.
Shari Steele is a Staff Attorney with the Washington office of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Steele can be reached at
ssteele@eff.org.
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
newsletter, EFFector Online, the @eff.org newsletter
and special releases and other notices on our activities. But because
we believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these
things even if you do not elect to become a member.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year
for regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish.
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never,
under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will,
from time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations
whose work we determine to be in line with our goals. If you do not grant
explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your
membership disclosed to any group for any reason.
---------------- EFF MEMBERSHIP FORM ---------------
Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
155 Second St. #41
Cambridge, MA 02141
I wish to become a member of the EFF I enclose:$__________
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
$100.00(Corporate or company membership.
This allows any organization to
become a member of EFF. It allows
such an organization, if it wishes
to designate up to five individuals
within the organization as members.)
I enclose an additional donation of $
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone:( ) (optional)
FAX:( ) (optional)
Email address:
I enclose a check [ ] .
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:
Expiration date:
Signature:
Date:
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ] .
Initials:
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
=====================================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141
Phone: +1 617 864 0665 FAX: +1 617 864 0866
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
for their express permission.
=====================================================================
This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA18965; Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:22:16 -0800
% Received: by eff.org id AA15446 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4/pen-ident for eff-com-exploder); Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:33:23 -0500
% From: Gerard Van der Leun <van@eff.org>
% Message-Id: <199212222120.AA15191@eff.org>
% Subject: EFFector Online 4.03
% Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:20:13 EST
% To: eff-news@eff.org (eff-news mailing list)
|
| 155.18 | | TERAPN::PHYLLIS | in the shadow of the moon | Thu Jan 14 1993 12:36 | 211 |
|
MAJOR CHANGES AT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
Cambridge, Massachusetts
eff@eff.org
Wednesday, January 13, 1993
The Electronic Frontier Foundation was founded in July, 1990 to assure
freedom of expression in digital media, with a particular emphasis on
applying the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
to computer-based communication.
EFF has met many of those challenges. We have defended civil liberties in
court. We have shaped the policy debate on emerging communications
infrastructure and regulation. We have increased awareness both on the Net
and among those law enforcement officials, policy makers, and corporations
whose insufficient understanding of the digital environment threatened the
freedom of Cyberspace.
But we've found that Cyberspace is huge. It extends not only beyond
constitutional jurisdiction but to the very limits of imagination. To
explore and understand all the new social and legal phenomena that
computerized media make possible is a task which grows faster than it can
be done.
Maintaining an office in Cambridge and another in Washington DC, has been
expensive, logistically difficult, and politically painful. Many functions
were duplicated. The two offices began to diverge philosophically and
culturally. We had more good ideas than efficient means for carrying them
out. And an unreasonable share of leadership and work fell on one of our
founders, Mitch Kapor.
These kinds of problems are common among fast-growing technology startups
in their early years, but we recognize that we have not always dealt with
them gracefully. Further, we didn't respond convincingly to those who began
to believe that EFF had lost sight of its founding vision.
Against that background, the EFF Board met in Cambridge on January 7, 8,
and 9 to revisit EFF's mission, set priorities for the Foundation's future
activities, adopt a new structure and staff to carry them out, and clarify
its relationship to others outside the organization.
1. EFF'S CAMBRIDGE OFFICE WILL CLOSE.
We will be shutting down our original Cambridge office over the next six
months, and moving all of EFF's staff functions to our office in
Washington.
2. JERRY BERMAN HAS BEEN NAMED EFF'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
In December, we announced that Mitch Kapor would be leaving the job of
Executive Director. He wanted to devote more time and energy to specific
EFF projects, such as The Open Platform Initiative, focusing less on
administrative details and more on EFF's strategic vision. We also said
that we would conduct a search for his replacement, appointing Jerry Berman
as our Interim Director. Jerry's appointment is now permanent, and the
search is terminated.
3. CLIFF FIGALLO WILL MAINTAIN EFF'S PRESENCE ON-LINE, AND WILL DIRECT THE
TRANSITION PROCESS.
Cambridge Office Director Cliff Figallo will manage the EFF transition
process, working out of Cambridge. He is now considering a move to
Washington for organizational functions yet to be defined. In the meantime,
he will oversee our on-line presence and assure electronic accessibility.
4. STAFF COUNSEL MIKE GODWIN'S ROLE TO BE DETERMINED
We recognize the enormous resource represented by Mike Godwin. He probably
knows more about the forming Law of Cyberspace than anyone, but differences
of style and agenda created an impasse which left us little choice but to
remove him from his current position. EFF is committed to continuing the
services he has provided. We will discuss with him a new relationship which
would make it possible for him to continue providing them.
5. COMMUNICATIONS STAFFERS GERARD VAN DER LEUN AND RITA ROUVALIS WILL LEAVE
EFF.
Despite the departure of the Cambridge communications staff, we expect to
continue publishing EFFector Online on schedule as well as maintaining our
usual presence online. Both functions will be under the direction of Cliff
Figallo, who will be assisted by members of the Board and Washington staff.
6. JOHN PERRY BARLOW WILL ASSUME A GREATER LEADERSHIP ROLE.
John will replace Mitch Kapor as Chairman of EFF's Executive Committee,
which works closely with the Executive Director to manage day to day
operations. Mitch will remain as Board Chairman of EFF. All of the
directors have committed themselves to a more active role in EFF so that
decisions can be made responsively during this transition.
7. EFF WILL NOT SPONSOR LOCAL CHAPTERS, BUT WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH
INDEPENDENT REGIONAL GROUPS.
We have labored mightily and long over the whole concept of chapters, but,
in the end, the Board has decided not to form EFF chapters. Instead, EFF
will encourage the development of independent local organizations concerned
with Electronic Frontier issues. Such groups will be free to use the phrase
"Electronic Frontier" in their names (e.g., Omaha Electronic Frontier
Outpost), with the understanding that no obligation, formal or informal, is
implied in either direction between independent groups and EFF. While EFF
and any local groups that proliferate will remain organizationally
independent and autonomous, we hope to work closely with them in pursuit of
shared goals. The EFF Board still plans to meet with representatives of
regional groups in Atlanta next week to discuss ideas for future
cooperation.
8. WE CLARIFIED EFF'S MISSION AND ACTIVITIES
In undertaking these changes, the board is guided by the sense that our
mission is to understand the opportunities and challenges of digital
communications to foster openness, individual freedom, and community.
We expect to carry out our mission through activities in the following areas:
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ADVOCACY. EFF has been working to promote an open
architecture for telecommunications by various means, including the Open
Platform Initiative, the fight against the FBI's Digital Telephony wiretap
proposal, and efforts to free robust encryption from NSA control.
FOSTERING COMMUNITY. Much of the work we have done in the Cambridge office
has been directed at fostering a sense of community in the online world.
These efforts will continue. We have realized that we know far less about
the conditions conducive to the formation of virtual communities than is
necessary to be effective in creating them. Therefore, we will devote a
large portion of our R & D resources to developing better understanding in
this area.
LEGAL SERVICES. We were born to defend the rights of computer users against
over-zealous and uninformed law enforcement officials. This will continue
to be an important focus of EFF's work. We expect to improve our legal
archiving and dissemination while continuing to provide legal information
to individuals who request it, and support for attorneys who are
litigating. Both the board and staff will go on writing and speaking about
these issues. Our continuing suit on behalf of Steve Jackson Games is
unaffected by these changes.
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT. We have started many projects over the years as
their need became apparent. Going forward, EFF will allocate resources to
investigating and initiating new projects. To ensure that our projects have
the greatest impact and can reasonably be completed with the resources
available, EFF will sharpen its selection and review process.
IN CONCLUSION...
We expect that the foregoing may not sit well with many on the Net. We may
be accused of having "sold out" our bohemian birthright for a mess of
Washingtonian pottage. It may be widely, and perhaps hotly, asserted that
the "suits" have won and that EFF is about to become another handmaiden to
the large corporate interests which support our work on telecommunications
policy.
However plausible, these conclusions are wrong. We made these choices with
many of the same misgivings our members will feel. We have toiled for many
months to restore harmony between our two offices. But in some cases,
personal animosities had grown bitter. It seems clear that much of the
difficulty was structural. We believe that our decisions will go far to
focus EFF's work and make it more effective. The decision to locate our one
office in Washington was unavoidable; our policy work can only be done
effectively there.
Given the choice to centralize in Washington, the decision to permanently
appoint Jerry Berman as our Executive Director was natural. Jerry has, in a
very short time, built an extremely effective team there, so our confidence
in his managerial abilities is high. But we are also convinced of his
commitment to and growing understanding of the EFF programs which extend
beyond the policy establishment in Fortress Washington.
We recognize that inside the Beltway there lies a very powerful reality
distortion field, but we have a great deal of faith in the ability of the
online world to keep us honest. We know that we can't succeed in insightful
policy work without a deep and current understanding of the networks as
they evolve -- technically, culturally, and personally.
To those who believe that we've become too corporate, we can only say that
we founded EFF because we didn't feel that large, formal organizations
could be trusted with the future of Cyberspace. We have no intention of
becoming one ourselves.
Some will read between these lines and draw the conclusion that Mitch Kapor
is withdrawing from EFF. That is absolutely not the case. Mitch remains
thoroughly committed to serving EFF's agenda. We believe however, that his
energies are better devoted to strategy and to developing a compelling
vision of future human communications than in day to day management.
The difficult decision to reject direct chapter affiliation was based on a
belief that no organization which believes so strongly in
self-determination should be giving orders or taking them. Nevertheless, we
are eager to see the development of many outposts on the Electronic
Frontier, whether or not they agree with us or one another on every
particular. After all, EFF is about the preservation of diversity.
This has been a hard passage. We have had to fire good friends, and this is
personally painful to us. We are deeply concerned that, in moving to
Washington, EFF is in peril for its soul. But we are also convinced that we
have made the best decisions possible under the circumstances, and that EFF
will be stronger as a result. Please cut us some slack during the
transition. And please tell us (either collectively at eff@eff.org or
individually at the addresses below) when we aren't meeting your
expectations. In detail and with examples. We don't promise to fix
everything, but we are interested in listening and working on the issues
that affect us all.
The Board of Directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Mitch Kapor, mkapor@eff.org
John Perry Barlow, barlow@eff.org
John Gilmore, gnu@toad.com
Stewart Brand, sbb@well.sf.ca.us
Esther Dyson, edyson@mcimail.com
Dave Farber, farber@cis.upenn.edu
Jerry Berman, jberman@eff.org
Cliff Figallo, fig@eff.org
|
| 155.19 | | CXDOCS::BARNES | | Thu Jan 14 1993 13:41 | 1 |
| can you ssay "rightsizing".....
|
| 155.20 | | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | Pray for snow | Thu Jan 14 1993 13:41 | 2 |
|
I'm looking forward to hearing more from Barlow.
|
| 155.21 | :^) | STUDIO::IDE | Can't this wait 'til I'm old? | Thu Jan 14 1993 13:54 | 6 |
| It's inevitable that the underground becomes the establishment. Don't
trust anyone over thirty who writes "mission statements."
JPB is a great lyricist!
Jamie
|
| 155.22 | | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | Pray for snow | Thu Jan 14 1993 16:14 | 160 |
|
<><><><><><><><> T h e V O G O N N e w s S e r v i c e <><><><><><><><>
Edition : 2742 Friday 8-Jan-1993 Circulation : 7322
US Data Highway - Gathers speed. Rules of the road eyed for computer network
{The Boston Globe, 26-Dec-92, p. }
{Contributed by David Ofsevit, who got it from the Internet}
Note: Although I've chosen not to use articles from sources like the
Internet, I'm making an exception here. I'd scanned the article in the
Globe, but only managed to save the last half of it for use in VNS.
Since I'd seen it, I've decided to use the Internet transcription. - TT
By Charles A. Radin - Globe staff
Construction of the information superhighway that Vice President-elect Al
Gore and may others say is essential to America's future has already begun and
is now expanding at incredible speed.
The Internet, which began in 1969 by linking a handful of elite universities
and defense-research laboratories, now includes an estimated 20 million
computer-users in the United States and abroad. It has been expanded from
interactive computer communications to audio and video capabilities and now
links about 10,000 smaller computer networks, through which it is possible to
send and receive information about everything from software to sex.
During the vice presidential campaign, and for years before in the Senate,
Gore advocated development of a system so vast that very home and school in
America would be tied through fiber optic cables capable of handling large
amounts of data and video images.
The interim technologies and private-sector initiatives that Gore said could
bring the information highway to the nation's doorsteps long before the
fiber-optic cables could be laid are the stuff of the Internet. No other
network approaches its size, utility and sophistication.
But use of the Internet is doubling annually, straining its informal,
largely unregulated methods of operation, and Internet advocates and observers
agree there are issues that must be addressed if it is to develop into the
much larger and more sophisticated interstate highway of the information age
that political leaders envision.
o The Internet is accessible to nearly all professors and students at
research universities, to employees of many large corporations, and to many
government employees, who can use it free of charge. But individuals have had
limited opportunities to learn how they can use the Internet, and must be
willing to spend at least $20 a month if they want to log onto the system.
Few primary and secondary schools -- those institutions Gore specifically
targeted--are linked.
o The federal government, which spawned the Internet, has one foot in the
organization and one foot out, clouding issues of governance and, especially,
the network's commercial potential.
o The Internet is on the way to becoming a major public facility, but the
major questions that implies -- Are any forms of communication to be forbidden
or restricted? What about individual privacy rights? -- have hardly been
discussed, much less resolved.
o Protection of intellectual property rights is extremely difficult, a
situation disliked by those whose primary interest in the information
superhighway is commercial, but applauded by advocates of unrestricted flow of
information.
Transmissions grow rapidly
While these questions simmer, use of the Internet is growing rapidly.
Transmissions of packets of information have swelled from about 50 million a
month in 1988 to more than 20 billion a month now.
Vinton Cerf, a codesigner of the Internet and now president of the nonprofit
Internet Society, predicts that there will be 100 million US Internet users by
the end of the decade, and that there will be tens of millions more users
abroad.
"You have to imagine that this kind of reaching out from anywhere in the
world to anywhere else in the world, at your fingertips, has got to change the
way we think about our world," Cerf said.
All concerned agree that the rapid expansion of the Internet's reach, and
the parallel growth in its uses and information resources, make the cost of
access for poor nations and individuals a primary consideration.
Noting that the Internet has expanded far beyond its original focus on
interactive computer communications and is now able to transmit audio and
video, and that use of the network for electronic mail communications has
grown well beyond expectations, Cerf said "it will become critical for
everyone to be connected. Anyone who doesn't will essentially be isolated
from the world community."
Rich, poor gap seen widening
Professor Michael L. Dertouzos, director of MIT's laboratory for computer
science, says "the gap between rich and poor is increasing as a result of
these technologies" -- widening differences between rich and poor nations and
between rich and poor people within individual nations. "Left to its own
devices, it will increase much more."
Dertouzos advocates "foreign aid, domestic aid, social welfare" and says
that "we must constantly work at the benefactory process of making sure
information goes to the people and the nations that are poor."
Many users and observers of the Internet's development hope this will become
a priority for Gore and others in the incoming administration who advocate
building a super-modern technology infrastructure.
"Gore talks about building a fiber-optic network to schools," says Daniel
Weitzner of the Washington-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a
technology-development advocacy group, "but in all likelihood what will
happen, and what we think ought to happen" is that government will provide
funds to schools "to buy access the same way you buy a telephone line. It
will take 20 years to wire the whole country with fiber, and you could do this
very soon."
The Internet planners and users hope the government also will obligate
companies offering connections and other Internet services to provide service
to institutions and individuals without regard to the content of
communications so long as illegal activities are not involved.
Common carriage rule
Such a rule -- called "common carriage" -- exists now for telephone
companies and would, applied to the Internet, "become the First Amendment of
the Information Age," Weitzner said.
This sort of nondiscriminatory approach has been the rule so far on the
Internet -- if such a loosely organized, informally run organization can be
said to have rules. But some of the growing number of companies providing
Internet access for fees are beginning to suggest that certain types of
communication should be regulated or prohibited.
While individual access remains much more complicated than logging on
through a corporate or university connection, the difficulties are declining.
Local companies, such as Software Tool & Dye in Brookline, provide connections
for individuals with home computers for as little as $20 a month, with no
per-message charges.
Finding one's way around the Internet also seems complex initially, but in
recent months at least a half dozen books have appeared to help users figure
out the system. These include "Zen and the Art of the Internet," "The
Internet Companion," "The Whole Internet Users Guide and Catalogue," and
"Exploring the Internet: A Technical Travelogue."
Freedom brings reactions
The extreme freedom of action available to travelers on the Internet is
exhilarating to some people and frightening to others.
"When it's more intricate than the US road system and it's all over the
world, can you police it?" MIT's Dertouzos asks. "Maybe not. The FBI is
concerned. The NFS" -- National Science Foundation -- "is concerned."
"There are so many networks and subnetworks on the Internet, nobody knows
who's on it," Dertouzos said. "It could mean that there is no longer any
meaning to international boundaries. People in China and Iraq are talking to
people in the United States" without any of their governments knowing about
it.
While dangers are recognized -- the computer virus released by a Cornell
graduate student in 1988 seriously affected the Internet -- so too are real
benefits. The Internet provided the chief communications tool used by
prodemocracy Soviets when other media were jammed during the attempted coup in
1991.
======================================================================
[Two graphics are included with this article, and are described below:]
The first graphic shows "A schematic of the Internet system" showing
"Users" on a "Local network" being connected to "Other US networks," "Foreign
networks," "Data banks," and "Super computers." Accompanying bullets on the
graphic state:
"> Users' computers are linked through their company or university. Single
users can log in through private companies."
"> About 10,000 smaller networks are currently linked into a system called
Internet."
"> Participants can crunch huge numbers on the system's most powerful
computers, retrieve data from archives full of scientific and government
research, conduct open discussions with the other 20 million users and send
and receive electronic mail. Audio and video transmissions also are
possible."
The second graphic shows "Traffic on the system" from 1988 through November
1992. The vertical scale is "Billions of packets of information sent via
Internet. A packet is a bundle of data or other information. Many packets
may be required to transfer large files." The graph rises as a fairly smooth
exponential curve from less than 1 billion per month in 1988 to approximately
24 billion in the most recent month.
|
| 155.23 | | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | under eternity | Tue Jan 26 1993 13:43 | 2 |
|
DECwindow's notes users beware, the next reply is 759 lines long...
|
| 155.24 | | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | under eternity | Tue Jan 26 1993 13:43 | 759 |
|
BEING IN NOTHINGNESS
Virtual Reality and the Pioneers of Cyberspace
By John Perry Barlow
Published in Microtimes Magazine
"Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily
by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation...A
graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of
every computer in the human system. Unthinkable
complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the
mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights,
receding..."
--William Gibson, Neuromancer
Suddenly I don't have a body anymore.
All that remains of the aging shambles which usually constitutes my
corporeal self is a glowing, golden hand floating before me like
Macbeth's dagger. I point my finger and drift down its length to the
bookshelf on the office wall.
I try to grab a book but my hand passes through it.
"Make a fist inside the book and you'll have it," says my invisible
guide.
I do, and when I move my hand again, the book remains embedded in
it. I open my hand and withdraw it. The book remains suspended
above the shelf.
I look up. Above me I can see the framework of red girders which
supports the walls of the office...above them the blue-blackness of
space. The office has no ceiling, but it hardly needs one. There's never
any weather here.
I point up and begin my ascent, passing right through one of the
overhead beams on my way up. Several hundred feet above the office,
I look down. It sits in the middle of a little island in space. I
remember the home asteroid of The Little Prince with its one volcano,
it's one plant.
How very like the future this place might be: a tiny world just big
enough to support the cubicle of one Knowledge Worker. I feel a wave
of loneliness and head back down. But I'm going too fast. I plunge
right on through the office floor and into the bottomless indigo below.
Suddenly I can't remember how to stop and turn around. Do I point
behind myself? Do I have to turn around before I can point? I flip into
brain fugue.
"Just relax," says my guide in her cool clinical voice. "Point straight
up and open your hand when you get where you want to be."
Sure. But how can you get where you want to be when you're coming
from nowhere at all?
And I don't seem to have a location exactly. In this pulsating new
landscape, I've been reduced to a point of view. The whole subject of
"me" yawns into a chasm of interesting questions. It's like Disneyland
for epistomologists. "If a virtual tree falls in the computer-generated
forest..?" Or "How many cybernauts can dance on the head of a
shaded solid?" Gregory Bateson would have loved this. Wittgenstein,
phone home.
At least I know where I left my body. It's in a room called Cyberia in a
building called Autodesk in a town called Sausalito, California. Planet
Earth. Milky Way. So on and so forth. My body is cradled in its usual
cozy node of space-time vectors.
But I...or "I"...am in cyberspace, a universe churned up from computer
code by a Compaq 386 and a pair of Matrox graphics boards, then fed
into my rods and cones by VPL Eyephones, a set of goggles through
whose twin, parallax-corrected video screens I see this new world.
When I move my head, the motion is tracked by a a Polhemus
magnetic sensor and the imaging engine of cyberspace is instructed to
alter what I see accordingly. Thus, having made a controlled ascent
back up through the floor of the "office," I turn to the left and I see red
chair with a desk behind it. I turn to the right and I see a door leading
out onto the floating platform.
The configuration and position of my right hand is fed into the system
by a VPL DataGlove, also with an Polhemus attached to it. The
relationship between my hand and the eyephones is precisely
measured by the two trackers so that my hand appears where I would
expect it to. When I point or make a fist, the fiber optics sewn into the
DataGlove convert kinesthetics into electronics. For a decisecond or so,
my hand disappears and then reappears, glowing and toon-like, in the
appropriate shape.
Despite the current confines of my little office-island, I know that I
have become a traveller in a realm which will be ultimately bounded
only by human imagination, a world without any of the usual limits of
geography, growth, carrying capacity, density or ownership. In this
magic theater, there's no gravity, no Second Law of Thermodynamics,
indeed, no laws at all beyond those imposed by computer processing
speed...and given the accelerating capacity of that constraint, this
universe will probably expand faster than the one I'm used to.
Welcome to Virtual Reality. We've leapt through the looking glass.
Now what? Go ask Alice.
The Next Big Thing
Money from Nuthin'
"I think this is the biggest thing since we landed on the Moon," says
Jaron Lanier, the dread-locked CEO of VPL Research. (Who was 9
years old at that time.) I don't choke on that one. Indeed, I'd take it a
bit farther, guessing that Columbus was probably the last person to
behold so much usable and unclaimed real estate (or unreal estate) as
these cybernauts have discovered.
At Autodesk, the Sausalito publisher of AutoCAD drafting software,
they spent the summer of T89 in product development heaven, talking
telephone, automobile, airplane, computer. They invoked Edison, Bell,
Ford, and Jobs. And there was that loincloth-and-machete sense of
enterprise which one might have experienced in the Wright Brothers'
Akron Bicycle Shop or Paul Jobs' garage in Mountain View...as well as
countless less-chronicled shots at perpetual motion or baldness cures.
Neil Armstrong's small step ran about 70 Billion Real Dollars, but
when John Walker, the Hacker King of Autodesk, committed his
company to creating the first commercially-available "world in a can,"
he figured that the prototype "gizmo" could be built for about $25,000.
VPL, the other trading post on VR frontier, isn't much fatter, although
internal synergy seems to magnify output. Since their incorporation in
1985, they've had two Scientific American covers and produced the
DataGlove, DataSuit, the PowerGlove, Swivel 3-D and VPL
EyePhones, the only commercially available head-mounted display.
They've been in a couple of big lawsuits (one, just concluded to their
satisfaction, with Stanford University), and create, at a distance, the
mirage of a fair-sized company going at it pretty hard.
But up close, one can get on a first-name basis with every VPL
employee in the course of an afternoon. They have yet to outgrow the
third floor of their slightly tacky building at the Redwood City yacht
harbor.
While Apple's research gazillions yield such dubious fruit as
multimedia and the AppleFax Modem, while IBM replicates methods
for chaining bureaucrats to its mainframes, it begins to appear that the
Next Big Thing will begin its commercial evolution as humbly as the
personal computer.
As usual, the Big Guys have neither the means nor the desire to engage
in such open-ended creation as settling the virtual universe will
require. Like the Union Pacific Railroad awaiting the fact of empire,
they prefer to let the rag-tag pioneers die all over the frontier before
they come out to claim it.
When the Altairs and Osbornes of Virtual Reality have made their fatal
errors are headed for Chapter 11, IBM probably will issue forth the
SolutionStation VR Network or some such and accelerate natural
selection in the field.
But as I write this, VPL and Autodesk still have it to themselves.
Actually, they are not the first to make virtual landfall. They are only
the first at financial risk. Unlike the first automobiles or telephones
their commercial fledglings had the advantage of long incubation by
government and Academia.
Virtual Reality, as a concept, found first form at the University of Utah
over twenty years ago in the fecund cranium of Ivan E. Sutherland, the
godfather of computer graphics and the originator of about every Big
Computer Idea not originated by Alan Kay or Doug Englebart. In
1968, he produced the first head-mounted display. This was the
critical element in VR hardware, but it was so heavy that it had to be
suspended from the ceiling...at some peril to its wearer. Damocles was
mentioned.
Besides, once you got it on, there wasn't much to see in there. There
wasn't a computer in existence which could churn out enough
polygons per second to simulate a reality much more full-bodied than
a game of Pong.
So Virtual Reality passed a generation waiting for the equipment to
arrive. In 1985 the Japanese finally (and unintentionally) provided us
with the right video displays when NASA's Mike McGreevy happened
to notice that the Citizen Watch Co. LCD displays in a Radio Shack
mini-TV were small enough to fit two in a head-mounted.
I hardly need to detail what happened to CPU horsepower during that
period. By 1985, graphics engines of appropriate juice were almost
within financial range of entities not involved in the defense of our
nation.
Also by this time, NASA had made a strong commitment to VR
research, though mostly in the service of "telepresence," the ability to
project one's judgement and actions into a robot located some real
place you'd rather not be, like space. They were less persuaded by the
attractions of unreal places.
The Air Force was also conducting research at Wright-Patterson under
the direction of Tom Furness, but most of this was directed at the usual
dismal purpose, simplifying the annihilation of non-virtual humans.
Heads up displays and looks that kill were their speciality.
For all this expenditure of tax dollars, Virtual Reality still lacked two
critical elements: a sense of whimsy and a fluid, three-dimensional
method for "grabbing" and manipulating the furniture of cyberspace.
VPL was on the case.
VPL's Tom Zimmerman had always wanted the ability to actually play
air guitar. It was the sort of desire his "boss," Jaron Lanier, could
understand. Jaron had only gotten into computers after concluding
that musical composition was not a reliable day job. And his
ownership of more than 300 musical instruments might indicate, if
nothing else, a probing dissatisfaction with the limits of each one.
Over a two year period, Zimmerman and Young Harvill (also of VPL)
created the DataGlove, a hand with which to strum those invisible
strings. While they were creating this hardware interface (though the
Spandex feel of the DataGlove makes "leisureware interface" seem like
a more appropriate term), Jaron and Chuck Blanchard were writing
Body Electric, the software necessary to map the actual movements of
the DataGlove and eyephones onto the virtual landscape.
The commercial colonization of cyberspace was beginning. VPL's
strategy was to build the most powerful simulations current
technology would allow, without regard to hardware cost, selling the
spin-offs at increasingly affordable prices. Once such item, the
PowerGlove, is a Nintendo game controller based on the DataGlove
which VPL has licensed to Mattel. (Available this Christmas at a store
near you for $85.00.)
Another VPL spin-off product is Swivel 3-D, odds on the best 3-D
modeler for the Macintosh. Young Harvill wrote it as a tool to create
an artificial reality quickly and easily on Mac before integrating it into
Body Electric and sending it over the twin Silicon Graphics CPUs
which blow it up to full size.
In September of 1988, John Walker wrote an internal Autodesk white
paper called Through the Looking Glass: Beyond "User Interfaces." In it
he proposed an "Autodesk Cyberpunk Initiative" to produce within 16
months a doorway into cyberspace...available to anyone with $15,000
and a 386 computer. The project's motto: "Reality Isn't Enough Any
More." (I wondered if they considered: "I'd rather have a computer in
front of me than a frontal lobotomy...")
Since NASA's Virtual Realities were running in the millions and VPL's
in the middle hundreds of thousands, Walker envisioned a significant
discount over previous models, but he knew that his customers, if any,
would be more bargain-conscious than, say, the U.S. Air Force.
Autodesk's Cyberia Project was running hard by Christmas, 1988,
staffed by William and Meredith Bricken, Eric Gullichsen, Pat Gelband,
Eric Lyons, Gary Wells, Randy Walser, and John Lynch. When I
arrived on the scene in May, they had been keeping hacker's hours for
a long time.
And they were ready to make a product. They'd made a promo video
starring Timothy Leary. Gullichsen had even registered William
Gibson's term "cyberspace" as an Autodesk trademark, prompting an
irritated Gibson to apply for trademark registration of the term "Eric
Gullichsen." By June, they had an implementation which, though
clearly the Kitty Hawk version of the technology, endowed people
with an instantaneous vision of the Concorde level.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, things were getting complicated.
While everyone who went to Autodesk's Cyberia agreed that Virtual
Reality was something, there was less agreement as to what.
Part of the problem was the scale of possibilities it invoked. They
seemed to be endless and yet none of them was anywhere near ready
to return an investment. But when something has endless possibilities,
each of them is liable to dilute down to a point where people start to
say things like, "Sure, but what's it really good for." At which point the
devoted cybernut might lapse into random syllables, his tongue heavy
with all that golden potential.
Virtual Reality induces a perception of huge potency underlying
featureless ambiguity. There is a natural tendency to fill this gap
between power and definition with ideology. And the presence of
such unclaimed vastness seems to elicit territorial impulses from
psychic regions too old to recognize the true infinity of this new
frontier. Disputes appeared like toadstools in the rich new soil of
cyberspace.
Thus, by mid-November, the Autodesk half of the Next Big Thing was
down to one full-time hacker: Randy Walser. The Brickens had headed
to Seattle to join Tom Furness in a (non-lethal) VR research program at
the University of Washington. Eric Gullichsen and Pat Gelband had
formed their own VR company, Sense 8. (Get it?)
Within, VPL's soulful band remained as tightly bonded as a Hell's
Angels chapter. Without, they found themselves increasingly tangled
in legal hassles. They were in court with AGE (a group of New York
toy developers who are not just in it for their health), trying to protect
their rights to the PowerGlove. They'd just settled a suit with Stanford
University. In general, they were having experiences which made me
question the axiom that you can't cheat an honest man.
Still, everyone realized that a baby this size would be bound to
occasion some labor pains. As the general media began to pick up on
Virtual Reality, its midwives were preparing themselves for interesting
times. It would be worth it. But why?
To the people who will actually make the future, such a question is
beside the point. They will develop cyberspace because, like Mallory's
mountain, it's there. Sort of.
There some practical reasons for the settlement of cyberspace. They
aren't as much fun to think about as the impractical ones, but they
exist. First among them is that this is the next logical step in the quest
to eliminate the interface...the mind-machine information barrier.
Over the last twenty years, our relations with these magic boxes have
become intimate at a rate matched only by the accelerating speed of
their processors. From the brutal austerity of batch-processed punch-
cards to the snuggly Macintosh, the interface has become far less
cryptic and far more interactive.
There have remained some apparently unbreachable barriers between
us and the CPU. One of them was the keyboard, which even with the
graphical interface and the accompanying infestation of mice,
remained the principal thoroughfare from human perception to RAM.
The thin alphanumeric stream which drips from our fingertips and
into the computer is a pale reflection of the thoughts which produce it,
arriving before the CPU at a pace absurdly mis-matched to its
chewing/spitting capacities.
Then there is the screen itself. While a vast improvement on the
flickering LED's of the Altair or even the amber text of DOS, the
metaphorical desktop remains flat as paper. There is none of the depth
or actual spatiality of experience.
After we get past what few documents we can keep on the screen at
one time, we are back to the alphabetized hierarchy. We can't pile it,
as most of us tend to do in real life. We have to file it. And this is not
the way the mind stores information. One doesn't remember the
names of his friends alphabetically. When looking for a phase in a
book, you are more likely to look for its spatial position on the page
than it's intellectual position in context.
The actual operation of human memory works on a model more like
the one Saint Thomas Aquinas used. Aquinas, who carried around in
his head almost all the established knowledge of his simpler world, is
said to have imagined a mind-castle with many different rooms in
which varying kinds of ideas dwelled. The floor plan increased with
his knowledge.
Nicholas Negroponte recreated a modest version of Aquinas' castle in
the 70's. He came up with a virtual office, represented in cartoon form
on the screen. One could mouse around to the "piles" of "paper"
stacked on the "desk" or "filing cabinet," leafing through them not by
the first letter of their subject name but by their archaeological layer of
deposition.
The problem was the screen. Negroponte created a flat picture of an
office rather than something more like the real thing because that was
all one could display on a screen. In two dimensions, the image of
desktop seemed a lot more natural than the image of the desk. Thence
the Macintosh.
I used to think that the only way around these narrow I/O apertures
lay in such heroic solutions as brain implants. I think I was about 14
when it occurred to me that this was the answer. Brain surgery
seemed a minor nuisance if it left one with the ability to remember
everything.
I suppose I'd still be willing to put a Cray in my cranium, but my faith
in technology has moderated since early adolescence. I'm more
comfortable with the possibility of an interface which fills the gap
between keyboarding and neurological hardwiring and involves no
cortical knife-play. Virtual Reality is almost certainly that.
And indeed, Virtual Reality may be so close to the implant side of the
continuum that, as Randy Walser of Autodesk insists, it's not even
appropriate to call it an interface. It more a place...kind of like Fibber
McGee's Ultimate Closet...than the semi-permeable information
membrane to which we're accustomed.
Whatever you want to call it, Autodesk's John Walker puts it this way,
"If cyberspace truly represents the next generation of human
interaction with computers, it will represent the most profound change
since the development of the personal computer." Right.
But that still doesn't tell us what it's good for besides extending human
quirkiness to the storage of immaterial stuff. After all, most of what
humans do with computers is merely an improvement over what they
did with other keyboard-bound devices, whether typewriters or
calculators. Word processing and numerical analysis will be no easier
"inside" the machine than it was outside.
But let's quit being giddy for a moment. We're talking bucks here.
Right now a good working platform costs almost as much as a CAT
scanner. Who's going to buy one without something like Blue Cross
footing the bill? And why?
Alright, there is a reason why Autodesk is involved in this enterprise
besides some daydream of the Ultimate Hack. Whatever adventures
they might entertain they afford by selling AutoCAD, the Dbase III of
architecture. How many architects have dreamed of the ability to take
their clients on a walk inside their drawings before their
miscommunications were sealed in mortar?
Virtual Reality has already been put to such use at the University of
North Carolina. There Sitterman Hall, the new $10 million home of
UNC's computer science department, was designed by virtual means.
Using a head-mounted display along with a handlebar-steerable
treadmill, the building's future users "walked through" it, discovering,
among other things, a discomforting misplacement of a major interior
wall in the lobby. At the point of the discovery, moving the wall out
was cheap. A retrofit following the first "real" walk-through would
have cost more by several orders of magnitude. Thus, one can imagine
retrofit savings from other such examples which could start to make
DataSuits as common a form of architectural apparel as chinos and
tweed.
Given the fact that AutoCAD is already generating about a hundred
seventy million dollars a year even without such pricy appurtenances
as cyberspace design tools, it isn't hard to imagine a scenario in which
developing workstations for virtual architecture comes to look like
very shrewd business.
Then there is the burgeoning scientific market. Computers are the new
microscopes. Increasingly, they allow us to see into worlds which are
not only too small but too weird to bring to human scale before. For
example, they are showing us the infinitely detailed order of chaos,
never before observable, in a form which makes it possible to
appreciate its simplicity as well as its complexity.
Virtual Reality promises the ability to not only see but to "touch"
forbidden realms. Again at UNC, work is already quite advanced in
which one can assemble complex molecules like Tinkertoys, the
attraction or repulsion between individual atoms in the assembly
modelled to the scale of human tactile perceptions. The drug industry
alone could have uses for such capacity sufficient to sustain a lot of
CyberBiz.
One can imagine a lot of heretofore inaccessible "places" in which
one's presence might be scientifically illuminating. A Fantastic Voyage
through the circulatory system will become possible (with or without
Raquel Welch). Or travel to alien worlds. (Thanks to JPL, I have
already taken an extremely convincing helicopter ride down the Vallis
Marinaris on Mars.)
Then there all the places which have never before had physical
existence on any scale: the rolling plains of mathematical topologies,
the humming lattice of quantum states, cloud chambers in which mu
mesons are the size of basketballs and decay over weeks rather than
picoseconds.
The possibility for less sober uses seems equally fertile. One can
imagine VR salons, video game parlors for big kids with Gold Cards,
in which a central supercomputer provides the opportunity for a score
of people to be Ms. Pacman. Or whatever. Nolan Bushnell, the
founder of Atari and something of an expert on the subject of video
games, is already at work on something like this.
The list of possibilities is literally bounded only by the imagination.
Working bodies for the damaged. Teleconferencing with body
language. Virtual surgery. Hey, this is a practical thing to do!
And yet I suspect that something else altogether, something not so
practical, is at the root of these yearnings. Why do we really want to
develop Virtual Reality? There seems to be a flavor of longing here
which I associate with the desire to converse with aliens or dolphins or
the never-born.
On some level, I think we can now see the potential for technology,
long about the business of making the metaphorical literal, of reversing
the process and re-infecting ordinary reality with luminous magic.
Or maybe this is just another expression of what may be the third
oldest human urge, the desire of have visions. Maybe we want to get
high.
Drugs, Sex, & Rock Tn' Roll
Boot Up, Jack In, Get Virtual
Technology is the new drug.
Jerry Garcia
Knowing that Garcia is a sucker for anything which might make a
person question all he knows, I gave him a call not long after my first
cyberspace demo. Hell yes, he was interested. When? If I'd told him
6:00 AM, I think he'd have been there on time.
He adapted to it quicker than anyone I'd watched other than my 4 year
old daughter Anna (who came home and told her sisters matter-of-
factly that she been to a neat "place" that afternoon.)
By the time he crossed back over to our side of Reality Horizon, he was
pretty kid-like himself. "Well," he finally said, "they outlawed LSD.
It'll be interesting to see what they do with this."
Which brings me to a point which makes Jaron Lanier very
uncomfortable. The closest analog to Virtual Reality in my experience
is psychedelic, and, in fact, cyberspace is already crawling with
delighted acid heads.
The reason Jaron resents the comparison is that it is both inflammatory
(now that all drugs are evil) and misleading. The Cyberdelic
Experience isn't like tripping, but it is as challenging to describe to the
uninitiated and it does force some of the same questions, most of them
having to do with the fixity of reality itself.
While you can hardly expect people to lay down $15,000 for something
just because it shakes their basic tenets, that's enough to make it worth
the trip for me. I think the effort to create convincing artificial realities
will teach us the same humbling lesson about reality which artificial
intelligence has taught us about intelligence...namely, that we don't
know a damned thing about it.
I've never been of the cut-and-dried school on your Reality Question. I
have a feeling VR will further expose the conceit that "reality" is a fact.
It will provide another reminder of the seamless continuity between
the world outside and the world within delivering another major hit to
the old fraud of objectivity. RTReal'," as Kevin Kelly put it, "is going to
be one of the most relative words we'll have."
And that's just fine with me, since so much of what's wrong in
America is based on the pathological need for certainty and the idiotic
delusion that such a condition can even exist.
Another reason for relating this to acid is the overwhelming sense of its
cultural scale. It carries with it a cosmic titillation I haven't
experienced since 1966. There is also the same dense shower of
synchronicities surrounding it. (I must have run into William and
Meredith Bricken ten times, always unexpectedly and sometimes in the
strangest of places. Today, as I was typing his name, Jaron called me
for the first time in three weeks. Then I felt strangely moved to call
Eric Gullichson after a couple of months of silence. He told me that
yesterday had been his last day at Autodesk. Etc. Etc. Etc.)
Finally, Timothy Leary is all excited again. Now I don't endow every
one of his pronouncements with oracular qualities...I remember the
Comet Starseed... but I have always thought that Uncle Tim is kind of
like a reverse of the canary in the coal mine. Whenever the culture is
about to make a big move, he's the first canary to start jumping up and
down.
He's also, like Zelig, a kind of Zeitgeist chameleon. He spent the 40's in
the Army. In the 50's, he was a tweedy young college professor, a
Jules Feiffer cartoon. In the 60's, he was, well, Timothy Leary. In the
70's, he became, along with H. R. Haldeman, a political prisoner. He
lived up the material 80's in Beverly Hills. Whatever America is about
to do, Tim starts doing it first.
When I visited him recently, he was already as cyberpunk as he had
been psychedelic when I last saw at Millbrook 22 years ago. Still, his
current persona seems reasonable, even seraphic. He calmly scored a
long list of persuasive points, the most resonant of which is that most
Americans have been living in Virtual Reality since the proliferation of
television. All cyberspace will do is make the experience interactive
instead of passive.
"Our brains are learning how to exhale as well as inhale in the data-
sphere." he said. Like our finny ancestors crawling up on land, we are
about to be come amphibians again, equally at home in visceral and
virtual frames.
The latest bus is pulling out of the station. As usual, Leary has been on
it for a while, waiting patiently for it to depart.
Then there is the...uhhhm...sexual thing. I have been through eight or
ten Q. & A. sessions on Virtual Reality and I don't remember one
where sex didn't come up. As though the best thing about all this will
be the infinite abundance of shaded polygonal party dolls. As though
we are devising here some fabulously expensive form of Accu-jac.
This is strange. I don't what to make of it, since, as things stand right
now, nothing could be more disembodied or insensate than the
experience of cyberspace. It's like having had your everything
amputated. You're left mighty under-endowed and any partner
would be so insubstantial you could walk right through her without
either of you feeling a thing. (In fact, when people play tag in Jaron's
Reality Built for Two, one strategy is to hide inside the other person's
head.)
And I did overhear the word "DataCondom" at one point... Maybe the
nerds who always ask this question will get a chance to make it with
their computers at long last. (I prefer not to think too much of how
anyone who would want to make it with a machine might treat the
women in their lives...if any there be.)
Fortunately, I think these dreams of cybersex will be thwarted by their
own realization. Yes, it will work for that purpose and it will be easy.
But the real point of Virtual Reality, as with life itself, is contact.
Contact with oneself alone is certainly a laudable enough goal, but the
presence of half a million dollars worth of equipment between that
subject and object is neither necessary nor desirable.
Even if Virtual Reality turns out to provide the format for the ultimate
pornographic film...a "feelie" with a perfect body...it will serve us
better as the ultimate telephone.
Life in the DataCloud
Scratching Your Eyes Back In
There was a man who lived in town
And he was wondrous wise.
He jumped into a bramble bush
And scratched out both his eyes.
And when he saw what he had done,
With all his might and main,
He jumped back in the bramble bush
And scratched them in again.
Old English Nursery Rhyme
Information is alienated experience.
Jaron Lanier
Since the Sumerians starting poking sticks into clay and claiming that
the resulting cuneiform squiggles meant something, we've been living
in the Information Age. Only lately did someone come up with a name
for it. I suppose that was because we quit making anything else of
value. Before that, they just called it civilization.
Indeed, one could make a pretty good case that consciousness, as we
define it, arose simultaneously with the ability to communicate its
products symbolically. (See The Origin of Consciousness and the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Brain by Julian Jaynes for related
conclusions.)
The Sumerians had a pretty clear perspective on what this stuff was
good for. The preponderance of their runic tablets turn out to be, on
translation, calendars, inventories, and mnemonic devices for such
data as one might need to remember but which was too trivial to merit
conversion into the other storage form of the era, epic poetry. They
didn't use it to describe anything.
Perhaps they recognized that even the most mundane experience
would beggar any effort to describe it if one were serious about
creating a genuine simulation.
The Egyptians didn't have any such illusions either, but, in addition to
keeping track of cubits and high water, they found symbols useful for
their elaborate liturgical purposes. With so many dramatis personae in
the pantheon, some method was required for sorting out each one's
ritualistic preferences.
The Greeks, as was their wont, expanded the envelope further. To the
previously established (and sensible) uses for writing, they added
commentary, philosophy, calculation and drama.
Still, they restrained themselves from attempting to simulate
experience on paper (or whatever it was they wrote on). One might
argue that drama was an effort to do that, but I think that the likes of
Sophocles probably just found it easier not to have to personally teach
his actors all their lines.
As early as the 5th Century B.C. we hear the first warnings that
information might constitute an abuse of experience. Socrates
suggested that writing things down might damage your ability to
remember them in their proper, full-bodied form. (An admonition we
know about since Plato went ahead and wrote it down as soon as
Socrates was hemlocked out of the ability to stop him.)
It wasn't until the 17th Century that things really got out of hand.
Cervantes wrote Don Quixote and fiction was born. From that point,
any experience could be plucked from its holy moment in time and
pressed like a flower in a book, to be reconstituted later in the
imagination of the reader.
The thin, alphanumeric trickle that is language was suddenly thought
to be a acceptable surrogate for the boiling torrent of shapes, smells,
colors, sounds, memories, and context which amalgamate in the
cauldron of a human skull and become there something called Reality.
No longer did one have to "be there." One could read about it and get
the flavor well enough.
This absurd delusion is now universal. The only reason anyone
believes it is that everyone does.
I, on the other hand, began to have my doubts around the time I
started trying to create some of this magical information myself.
Sometime in the 4th Grade, I began to write about the things that
happened to me. For awhile, the approval others showed my efforts
was enough to inspire their continuation.
Gradually, however, the effort became painful. The inadequacy of my
word-replicas for experience was increasingly clear. I tried poetry.
This seemed to work until I realized that it did so because a poem is
about itself and thus has no "real thing" to be compared to.
Writing about something continues to cause me nothing but anguish.
The symbolic tools are hopelessly mis-matched to their three-
dimensional analogues. For example, the word "chair" is in no way
like any chair.
Nor does it begin to imply the vast range of dissimilar objects to which
one might apply it. You can hop it up with adjectives... "big red
chair"...or additional phrases... "big red chair that Washington sat
in"...but the result is usually bad writing without much advancement
of your cause. I mean, "the big, deeply red, densely-brocaded,
Georgian love seat that Washington sat in while being bled by leeches"
is still, for all its lugubrious mass, not a chair.
And if it were, it wouldn't move in the way that real things do even
when they're standing still. Words just sit there. Reality vibrates and
hums. I have a pet phrase for this element of the mismatch: Using
words to describe an experience is like using bricks to build a full-
sized, operational model of a fog bank.
Perhaps it was a subliminal recognition of this fact that caused
America to fall in love with statistics. As a descriptive tool, numbers
are even worse than words. They are very purely themselves and
nothing else. Nevertheless, we now put everything from flowing
water to the human psyche into these rigid numerical boxes and are
especially straight-faced as we claim it fits in them.
In doing this, we usually follow a rule I call, with characteristic
modesty, Barlow's Law of Real Numbers. This states that the
combination of any two speculative numbers by any arithmetic
operation will always yield a real number. The more decimal places
the better.
Computers have hardly been part of the solution in this area. We pass
our measuring grids over pulsating reality, shovel the results into our
machines, thrash them with micro-circuits, and pretend that what
floats up to the screen is "real."
Horseshit.
What computers can do, and have done to a fare-thee-well, is to
provide us with a hyper-abundance of such processed lies. Everything
from U.S. News and World Report to Penthouse is now a dense thicket
of charts, tables, graphs, and %'s. All purporting to tell us something
about what is.
But it's all just information. Which, apart from the fact that it's not to
be confused with experience, has several problems which Jaron Lanier
succinctly enumerated for me: "The first problem is that it's in-
formation. The second problem is that it's linear information. And the
third problem is that it's false information."
Or, as we say in Wyoming, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
Virtual Reality is probably not going to cure this nonsense any more
than television, its one-way predecessor, has done. The global supply
of words, numbers, statistics, projections, analyses, and gossip...what I
call the DataCloud... expands with thermonuclear vigor and all the
Virtual Reality we can manufacture isn't going to stop that.
But it may go a long way toward giving us means to communicate
which are based on shared experience rather than what we can
squeeze through this semi-permeable alphanumeric membrane. If it
won't contain the DataCloud, it might at least provide some
navigational aids through it.
Maybe it can scratch our eyes, blinded by information, back in again.
|
| 155.25 | For those with short attention spans... :-) | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | under eternity | Tue Jan 26 1993 14:25 | 125 |
| Highlights...
...
The actual operation of human memory works on a model more like
the one Saint Thomas Aquinas used. Aquinas, who carried around in
his head almost all the established knowledge of his simpler world, is
said to have imagined a mind-castle with many different rooms in
which varying kinds of ideas dwelled. The floor plan increased with
his knowledge.
...
Drugs, Sex, & Rock Tn' Roll
Boot Up, Jack In, Get Virtual
Technology is the new drug.
Jerry Garcia
Knowing that Garcia is a sucker for anything which might make a
person question all he knows, I gave him a call not long after my first
cyberspace demo. Hell yes, he was interested. When? If I'd told him
6:00 AM, I think he'd have been there on time.
He adapted to it quicker than anyone I'd watched other than my 4 year
old daughter Anna (who came home and told her sisters matter-of-
factly that she been to a neat "place" that afternoon.)
By the time he crossed back over to our side of Reality Horizon, he was
pretty kid-like himself. "Well," he finally said, "they outlawed LSD.
It'll be interesting to see what they do with this."
Which brings me to a point which makes Jaron Lanier very
uncomfortable. The closest analog to Virtual Reality in my experience
is psychedelic, and, in fact, cyberspace is already crawling with
delighted acid heads.
The reason Jaron resents the comparison is that it is both inflammatory
(now that all drugs are evil) and misleading. The Cyberdelic
Experience isn't like tripping, but it is as challenging to describe to the
uninitiated and it does force some of the same questions, most of them
having to do with the fixity of reality itself.
While you can hardly expect people to lay down $15,000 for something
just because it shakes their basic tenets, that's enough to make it worth
the trip for me. I think the effort to create convincing artificial realities
will teach us the same humbling lesson about reality which artificial
intelligence has taught us about intelligence...namely, that we don't
know a damned thing about it.
...
Another reason for relating this to acid is the overwhelming sense of its
cultural scale. It carries with it a cosmic titillation I haven't
experienced since 1966. There is also the same dense shower of
synchronicities surrounding it. (I must have run into William and
Meredith Bricken ten times, always unexpectedly and sometimes in the
strangest of places. Today, as I was typing his name, Jaron called me
for the first time in three weeks. Then I felt strangely moved to call
Eric Gullichson after a couple of months of silence. He told me that
yesterday had been his last day at Autodesk. Etc. Etc. Etc.)
Finally, Timothy Leary is all excited again. Now I don't endow every
one of his pronouncements with oracular qualities...I remember the
Comet Starseed... but I have always thought that Uncle Tim is kind of
like a reverse of the canary in the coal mine. Whenever the culture is
about to make a big move, he's the first canary to start jumping up and
down.
He's also, like Zelig, a kind of Zeitgeist chameleon. He spent the 40's in
the Army. In the 50's, he was a tweedy young college professor, a
Jules Feiffer cartoon. In the 60's, he was, well, Timothy Leary. In the
70's, he became, along with H. R. Haldeman, a political prisoner. He
lived up the material 80's in Beverly Hills. Whatever America is about
to do, Tim starts doing it first.
When I visited him recently, he was already as cyberpunk as he had
been psychedelic when I last saw at Millbrook 22 years ago. Still, his
current persona seems reasonable, even seraphic. He calmly scored a
long list of persuasive points, the most resonant of which is that most
Americans have been living in Virtual Reality since the proliferation of
television. All cyberspace will do is make the experience interactive
instead of passive.
"Our brains are learning how to exhale as well as inhale in the data-
sphere." he said. Like our finny ancestors crawling up on land, we are
about to be come amphibians again, equally at home in visceral and
virtual frames.
The latest bus is pulling out of the station. As usual, Leary has been on
it for a while, waiting patiently for it to depart.
...
Perhaps it was a subliminal recognition of this fact that caused
America to fall in love with statistics. As a descriptive tool, numbers
are even worse than words. They are very purely themselves and
nothing else. Nevertheless, we now put everything from flowing
water to the human psyche into these rigid numerical boxes and are
especially straight-faced as we claim it fits in them.
In doing this, we usually follow a rule I call, with characteristic
modesty, Barlow's Law of Real Numbers. This states that the
combination of any two speculative numbers by any arithmetic
operation will always yield a real number. The more decimal places
the better.
...
Virtual Reality is probably not going to cure this nonsense any more
than television, its one-way predecessor, has done. The global supply
of words, numbers, statistics, projections, analyses, and gossip...what I
call the DataCloud... expands with thermonuclear vigor and all the
Virtual Reality we can manufacture isn't going to stop that.
But it may go a long way toward giving us means to communicate
which are based on shared experience rather than what we can
squeeze through this semi-permeable alphanumeric membrane. If it
won't contain the DataCloud, it might at least provide some
navigational aids through it.
|
| 155.26 | virtual ideas... | SMURF::PETERT | | Tue Jan 26 1993 15:47 | 131 |
| Well this seems like a good topic to add the following to. Debess had asked
me to add this some time ago, but I defferred on the basis of it being
somewhat dated. So, take into account that this was written in the fall
of 1990 or so.
The Real Phil Story
As most know and some have been complaining about, the rumor has been
floating around for a while that this is Phil's last year with the band, and
afterwards he wants to spend time with his family. The band of course has
denied this, as may be noted by Mickey Hart's reaction on a Hartford radio
interview, to say nothing of Phil's reaction at Cal Expo, "it's all bullshit
lies!". Still, rumors can contain a seed of truth. The statments that
Phil is leaving the band, and Phil is staying with the band are in fact, both
true!
Having just turned 50 this year, Phil is at once the oldest band member with
some of the youngest children. Scheduling a large number of Bay Area
concerts makes it possible for him to work at night and be at home during the
day with his two sons. Yet extended tours through other parts of the country,
and possible future trips overseas can put a strain on his family, no matter
whether his wife and sons travel with him or stay at home. "Phil's Dilemma",
as other band members jokingly referred to it, was how to continue playing
great music with the Dead, while at the same time nuturing his sons as a
devoted house husband. A possible solution presented itself during a
recording session for 'Built to Last' at George Lucas's Skywalker Ranch when
John Barlow happened to sit in.
As some of you may be aware, Dead lyricist John Barlow is also involved with
an area of computer programming known as virtual reality. In this, a user
dons special equipment, usually one or a pair of gloves, and a headset that
covers both eyes and ears. All of this equipment is hooked up to a computer.
The headset contains a combination of binaural speakers and steroscopic tv
screens that allows one to enter into a world that is created by the
computer. The gloves allow one to interact with this world, by picking up
and manipulating things that are not really there. A visible offshoot of
this work is the Power Glove that has now entered the games market. Another
aspect of this technology is to allow one to 'enter' a real place that
is remotely sited. This technique has been used to control robots, just as
the ones that were used to clean up the radioactive debris in the failed
3-Mile Island reactor. With Phil, Barlow, and Lucas all brainstorming, they
decided to see if they could take this a step further, and create the Virtual
Phil.
The concept is simply this. Phil, in a special studio at home, dons his
equipment, plugs in his bass, and enters the concert world. Meanwhile, at
the concert site, the 'Phil' duplicate comes to life as the systems are
hooked together. With sight and sound being fed back to Phil from the
microphones and cameras in the dummy's head, Phil is able to interact
directly with the rest of the band even though they may be hundreds of miles
apart. "About the only thing I can't do," chuckled Phil one day after a
trial run, "is steal somebodies beer!" A waterproof lining and a liquid
holding tank were quickly added to the dummies mouth and torso after this
comment. One thing that the 'stage' Phil does not really do is play the
bass, or to be more precise, the music that comes through the speakers at the
concert is from Phil's bass in his home studio. It was decided that though
the 'Phil' construct mimics Phils moves closely, the fine motor control
needed in the fingers was not precise enough to duplicate the sound that Phil
pulls out of his bass.
Most of the work on this is now nearing completion and the testing/debugging
stage is about to get under way. Barlow is in charge of the computing work
that ties all the systems together. It was realized early on that concert
goers would not be satisfied with a stiff, awkward Phil substitute, so Jim
Henson's Muppet crew was called in to help construct the life-size, fully
articulated simulcrum. Unfortunately, Henson himself will not be able to see
the final product, especially since he had said that Phil was his favorite
band member and was once heard to remark "I'd give anything to hear a live
'Unbroken Chain'". The rest of the work being done is handled by Lucas's ILM
(Industrial Light and Magic) studio that has handled the special effects for
all the Star Wars films.
It was decided that the facial features would be the hardest to deal with in
a realistic manner. The ILM crew came up with a suggestion that won approval
and have thrown themselves into the task. Rather than sculpting a detailed
Phil mask, the constructs head is mostly featureless, except for a few
topographical features, such as the nose, ears, 'camera' eyes, and hair (some
wags from the Muppet crew nicknamed the construct 'Philbert', explaining, 'He
kind of looks a bit like Bert when all the power's off.') The 'bass' that
Philbert will play contains a powerful holographic projector that casts an
image of Phil's face in realtime onto the specially prepared surface (patent
pending) of Philbert. Though Phil is wearing the headset at the time, sensor
readings inside the set are linked with a digitized camera shot of Phil's
face and are mixed through computer control so that the headset disappears on
the projected image. The results are uncannily lifelike. At one test, using
a pre-recorded sequence, viewers were unable to tell Phil apart from
Philbert!
One nagging problem that remains is how to deal with slight delays in signal
times that are introduced as the distance between the concert site and
Phil's house increases. The amount of data that travels back and forth is
rather large and requires a huge bandwidth and ultra-fast data transfer in
order for Phil to react in realtime. Some of Phil's friends at NASA have
been brought into the loop and have come up with viable suggestions. It
is felt that a network of LEO (low earth orbiting) satellites would offer
the best performance, as geosynchronus satellites would introduce too much of
a delay. But that adds the complexity of capturing and tracking a number of
satellites that may be over a particular horizon for only a few minutes. Of
course, when told that the real delay time might be a half second to a
second, Jerry quipped "Hey, we're lucky if we can stay that close on the
same stage!" Phil threw in, "Yeah, we've all had enough experience with
our own alternate realities that this shouldn't be a big problem."
With any luck, Philbert's first show should come sometime in early '91. A few
Bay Area shows will serve as the 'acid tests', and a spring tour through the
East will give things a rigourous shakedown. At that time the 'Virtual' Phil
Zone will stretch from coast to coast. Other members of the band are taking
a great interest in this, as Bob remarked, "We're none of us getting any
younger, you know!" In fact, with the bands popularity increasing, and with
more and more venues banning the band from returning, virtual reality might
offer the solution the band has been looking for. Barlow explains, "Why not?
Why not a whole virtual concert? Once the technology spreads wide enough, we
could have the band each playing from their homes, and the crowd plugging in
at THEIR homes, or maybe some local virtual reality arena. The synergy would
still be there. The band would look out into a massive sea of fans, and yet
everyone at home could have FRONT ROW SEATS! Candace and Healy would still
be controlling their portions of the show, and people could still come up and
ask them things. Tapers of course, would just plug in and get soundboard
quality all the time! And there'll be no big impact on any one community.
The possiblities are endless! Why, we don't even have to use a concert hall
site! We could be playing in the Grand Canyon, or up among the redwoods, or
in outer space, any place that can be created in the computer." At this point
Garcia broke in and said, "Yeah, that's it! Hell, we'll bring back
'Mountains of the Moon' if we can play at their foothills!"
We've got our fingers crossed, hoping all the details can be worked out.
If so, there's still a lot of fun times ahead.
Later,
PeterT
|
| 155.27 | | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | under eternity | Tue Jan 26 1993 16:23 | 6 |
| RE: <<< Note 155.26 by SMURF::PETERT >>>
-< virtual ideas... >-
Ha! Who wrote that? Debess? Mind if I forward it to Barlow?
|
| 155.28 | | EBBCLU::SMITH | Think show | Tue Jan 26 1993 16:27 | 5 |
|
That article is excellent!
I believe I saw Philbert in Buffulo and in DC
last summer.
|
| 155.29 | I confess... | SMURF::PETERT | rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty | Tue Jan 26 1993 16:40 | 17 |
| > Ha! Who wrote that? Debess? Mind if I forward it to Barlow?
Twas me. I had originally posted it to rec.music.gdead back when I worked
for Prime. When I started here just under a year ago, Debess wondered if
I was the same PeterT that wrote the aforementioned. I assured her offline
that I was and she suggested I put it up here. I deferred as it was a bit
dated and I wanted to work on it before putting it up. Well, I still
haven't gotten around to updating it, but this Barlow article seemed like
a good opportunity to introduce it.
Feel free to forward to JB. There is an offside chance that Phil has
actually seen it. I got some favorable mail when I originally posted it
in '90, and one of them was a guy who through some friend of a friend
or some such, had met Phil and wanted a copy to show him. Sent it
off, but never heard an update, so don't know where it went.
PeterT
|
| 155.30 | | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | under eternity | Tue Jan 26 1993 16:45 | 4 |
|
Ah, I see. Why don't you forward it, I think he'll get a kick. Nice work.
Send it to barlow@eff.org
|
| 155.31 | | VERGA::STANLEY | what a long strange trip it's been | Wed Jan 27 1993 20:05 | 3 |
| I would love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love,
love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love,
LOVE to try that thing.. just hook me up and forget about me.. :-)
|
| 155.32 | You saw it here first... | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | under eternity | Tue Feb 02 1993 13:16 | 7 |
| RE: <<< Note 155.16 by CSCMA::M_PECKAR "Pray for snow" >>>
-< More cynicism from Barlow... >-
This piece appeared in its entirety on the OpEd page of the Wed, Jan 27 1993
New York Times
|
| 155.33 | Barlow essay | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | Two pints make one cavort | Mon Jul 12 1993 18:47 | 447 |
| Read "to be at Liberty" below...
From: SPICE::DECWRL::"ssteele@eff.org" "Shari Steele 09-Jul-1993 1532" 9-JUL-1993 15:35:53.68
To: eff-news@eff.org (eff-news mailing list)
CC:
Subj: EFFector Online 5.12
******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 12 7/9/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
EFF Has Moved
Online Congressional Hearing
To Be at Liberty, by John Perry Barlow
Announcement of Group Meeting
Request for Help from Canadian Readers
Job Openings at EFF
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
*************
EFF Has Moved
*************
On July 2, EFF moved. Please note our new address and telephone numbers:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001
202/347-5400 voice
202/393-5509 fax
Our e-mail address is the same, eff@eff.org.
****************************
Online Congressional Hearing
****************************
On July 26 at 9:30AM EDT, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and Finance of the U.S. House of Representatives will hold the first
Congressional Hearing ever held over a computer network. The oversight
hearing on "The Role of Government in Cyberspace" will take place in
the Grand Ballroom of the National Press Club at 14th and F Streets,
N.W., Washington, D.C. The hearing is open to the public. An open
house will be held from 3-5PM on the same day in the same location and
is also open to the public.
Chairman Markey has asked that this historic occasion demonstrate
the potential and diversity of the global Internet. Thirty Sparcstations
will be in the hearing room, allowing members of Congress, staff, and
their guests to read e-mail, use Gopher menus, read testimony in WAIS
databases, browse the World Wide Web, and otherwise use the resources
of the global Internet as part of the hearing.
Some witnesses for the hearing will testify remotely, sending audio
and video over the Internet. Audio and video of the hearing will also
be multicast over the Multicast Backbone (MBONE). We are hoping that
C-SPAN and other traditional media will also carry the event. *MORE
DETAILS ON MBONE AND OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE HEARINGS REMOTELY WILL BE
FORTHCOMING SHORTLY.*
One of the primary points that we are hoping to demonstrate is
the diversity and size of the Internet. We have therefore established
an electronic mail address by which people on the Internet can communicate
with the Subcommittee before and during the hearing:
congress@town.hall.org
We encourage you to send your comments on what the role of government
should be in the information age to this address. Your comments to this
address will be made part of the public record of the hearing. Feel free
to carry on a dialogue with others on a mailing list, cc'ing the e-mail
address.
Your cards and letters to congress@town.hall.org will help
demonstrate that there are people who use the Internet as part of their
personal and professional lives. We encourage you to send comments on
the role of government in cyberspace, on what role cyberspace should play
in government (e.g., whether government data be made available on the
Internet), on how the Internet should be built and financed, on how you
use the Internet, and on any other topic you feel is appropriate. This
is your chance to show the U.S. Congress that there is a constituency
that cares about this global infrastructure.
If you would like to communicate with a human being about the
hearing, you may send your comments and questions to:
hearing-info@town.hall.org
Support for the Internet Town Hall is provided by Sun Microsystems
and O'Reilly & Associates. Additional support for the July 26 on-line
congressional hearing is being provided by ARPA, BBN Communications,
the National Press Club, Xerox PARC, and many other organizations.
Network connectivity for the Internet Town Hall is provided by
UUNET Technologies.
****************
To Be at Liberty
****************
John Perry Barlow wrote this essay for an upcoming PBS special on liberty.
This is the text of what will be a quarter of the show. The other three
essayists include Salman Rushdie.
To Be At Liberty
An Essay for Public Television
Text by John Perry Barlow
Video production by Todd Rundgren
Let me tell you where I'm coming from. I grew up on a ranch near Pinedale,
Wyoming, a very free town not far from the middle of nowhere.
It was the kind of place where a state legislator could actually say, "If
the English language was good enough for our Lord Jesus Christ, it's good
enough for our school children."
Though surely a hick town, it was also a real community. There was a lot
of trust. Neither the locks nor the lawyers got used much. People knew
each other and tried to let one another be. After all, they'd come to that
wild and remote place to be free. Liberty was a fierce practice among
them. That it might also be a legal guarantee seemed irrelevant.
It seems to me that elsewhere in America, liberty is far more a matter of
law than practice. The Bill of Rights is still on the books, and they'd
have a hell of a time putting you in jail for just saying something, but
how free are we?
Whatever the guarantees, I believe liberty resides in its exercise. Liberty
is really about the ability to feel free and behave accordingly. You are
only as free as you act.
Free people must be willing to speak up...and listen. They can't merely
consume the fruits of freedom, they have to produce them.
This exercise of liberty requires that people trust one another and the
institutions they make together. They have to feel at home in their
society.
Well, Americans don't appear to trust each other much these days. Why else
would we employ three times more lawyers per capita than we did in 1970?
Why else would our universities be so determined to impose tolerance that
they'll expel you for saying what you think and never notice the irony?
Why else would we teach our kids to fear all strangers? Why else have we
become so afraid to look one another in the eye?
We have come to regard trust as foolishness and fear as necessary. We live
in terror that the people around us might figure out what we're actually
thinking.
Frankly, this America doesn't feel very free to me at all. What has
happened to our liberty?
I think much of the answer lies in the critical difference between
information and experience.
These days we view most of our world through a television screen. Most of
our knowledge comes from information about things, not experience with
them.
Let me return to Pinedale for an example. Those folks killed each other
pretty regularly, but there wasn't much fear. They knew each other, and if
somebody got shot, it wasn't too hard to figure out why.
Homicide was not abstract. It was a familiar threat, like wild horses or winter.
And you also knew that today's opponent might be the only person along to
pull you out of a snowdrift tomorrow. So tolerance and trust were
practical necessities. Living more or less safely in a world we
understood, we found liberty an easy thing to keep.
But elsewhere, as I say, the average American's sense of the world has
likely been derived by staring at it through the one-way tunnel of
information.
What the media's taught my fellow citizens is that all the world is
dangerous in some irrational, non-specific way. Terrorists are everywhere.
Nature is in open rebellion. Making love can kill you. Your fellow humans
are liars in suits, thugs, zealots, psychopaths, and, mostly, victims who
look a lot like you.
Television amplifies the world's mayhem and gives you no way to talk back.
No way to ask, "Is this the way the world is?" Just as right now it's
giving you no way to argue with me.
Why does television prefer terrifying images? Because it lives on your
attention. That's what television is really selling. And scaring the hell
out of you is, like sex, one of those really efficient ways to get your
undivided focus. To gain it, they flood your living room with images
designed to hit your fear glands like electricity.
So we have erected a glowing altar in the center of our lives that feeds on
our terror, and Fear has become our national religion.
We ask the government to defend us against the virtual goblins that stream
from the tube, and the government has obliged us.
For example, in 1992, a total of two Americans died in terrorist attacks.
Not what I'd call a major threat. But our fear of them is so real that we
spend tens of billions a year to protect ourselves from terrorism. For many
Americans, making the car payments depends on keeping this fear alive.
But you cannot build a society of general trust in an atmosphere of general
fear. The fearful are never free.
If we are to fight back - if we are to regain the courage necessary to the
practice of liberty - we are going to have to stage another kind of
revolution. We need to find a new means of understanding the world that
takes no profit from our fear.
We need a medium that, like life itself, allows us to probe it for the
truth. We need, in essence, to cut out the middlemen and speak directly to
one another. Indeed, we need a place where we can share information
unfiltered by the needs and desires of either Big Brother or the Marketing
Department down at Channel Six.
Such a medium may be spreading across the planet in a thickening web of
connected computers called the "Internet." Through the Internet I can
already get a personal connection with people all over the globe, learning
from those on the scene what's really going on. Through the Internet I can
publish my own understandings to whomever might be interested, in whatever
numbers.
During the War in the Persian Gulf, I was able to get minute by minute
reports from the laptop computers of soldiers in the field. The picture
they presented felt far more detailed, more troubling and ambiguous, than
the mass hallucination presented on CNN.
The Internet is also creating a new place...many call it Cyberspace...where
new communities like Pinedale can form. The big difference will be that
these Cyberspace communities will be possible among people whose bodies are
located in many different places in the world.
Direct communication should breed understanding and tolerance. Our fears
will be far easier to check out. We may begin to understand that these
distant and sometimes alien creatures are real people whose rights are
directly connected to our own.
I imagine the gathering places of Cyberspace, some as intimate as
Pinedale's Wrangler Cafe, some more vast than Tienanmen Square. I imagine
us meeting there in conditions of trust and liberty that no government will
be able to deny.
I imagine a world, quite soon to come, in which ideas can spread like fire,
as Jefferson said, "expansible over all space, without lessening their
density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe... incapable of
confinement or exclusive appropriation by anyone."
If ideas can spread like fire, then freedom, like water, will flow around
or over those that stand in its way. In Cyberspace, I hope that this truth
will be self-evident.
*****************************
Announcement of Group Meeting
*****************************
Hypereal Group Meeting: The Aesthetics of Presence -
towards an ethic of design
Sunday, July 11 within interactive technologies
7:00 pm
Sunken Room - Genesee Co-op
713 Monroe Ave Rochester, NY
Free and open to the public.
For more information, contact:
Haim Bodek
hb003b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
716-442-6231
Hypereal Group
P.O. Box 18572
Rochester, NY 14618
**************************************
Request for Help from Canadian Readers
**************************************
Peter Hum, a reporter with a major Canadian newspaper called the Ottawa
Citizen (circulation about 200,000 in an area of about 1 million) is
interested in learning about encryption issues in Canada. Anyone with
information can send e-mail to Peter at af391@freenet.carleton.ca, or call
him at (613) 596-3761.
*******************
Job Openings at EFF
*******************
SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
EFF is looking for a dependable, organized, hands-on SysAdmin with 2-3
years experience to manage a cluster of Sun Sparcstations serving as our
Internet host in our Washington, DC, office. The successful candidate must
know UNIX applications, including sendmail, ftp archive, Gopher, DNS &
WAIS. S/he must be able to customize, install & debug in C. Extensive Mac
(System 7, LocalTalk, Ethernet, MacTCP) experience is also required to
manage our Mac LAN & bus applications. This person will be responsible for
hardware & software acquisition & maintenance & our 50-port PBX telephone
system.
Our SysAdmin must enjoy a high energy, interrupt-driven environment. Good
communications skills (writing & speaking) & a user-friendly attitude are
required. A BS in CS, EE, MIS or a related field is helpful. Interest in
EFF's mission & an ability to advise EFF staff members on technical issues
related to public policy is preferred.
Salary negotiable with excellent benefits. Send resume, cover letter &
salary requirements by 7/20 to:
EFF SysAdmin
238 Main Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Attn: L. Breit
by e-mail (ASCII only, please): lbreit@eff.org
no phone calls
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECEPTIONIST
EFF and its upstairs neighbors are looking for a telephone receptionist.
Computer and phone experience preferred. Must be professional, personable,
courteous, extremely reliable and graceful under pressure. All applicants
should be content with a permanent position as a receptionist with our
organizations. Competitive salary with good benefits.
E-mail your resume (ASCII) to erickson@eff.org, or fax to (202) 393-5509.
You may also mail your resume to:
Receptionist Search
1001 G Street, NW
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001
Attn: K. Erickson
No phone calls, please. Resumes should be received by 7/20. EFF is an
equal opportunity employer.
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published biweekly by:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Phone: +1 202 347 5400 FAX: +1 202 393 5509
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Shari Steele,
Director of Legal Services & Community Outreach (ssteele@eff.org)
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed
articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF. To reproduce
signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express
permission.
*This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.*
=============================================================
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our efforts and
activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we need the
financial support of individuals and organizations.
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic newsletter,
EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that can be reached
through the Net), and special releases and other notices on our activities.
But because we believe that support should be freely given, you can
receive these things even if you do not elect to become a member.
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students and $40.00 per year for
regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish.
=============================================================
Mail to:
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, N.W.
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Membership rates:
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
E-mail address:
I enclose a check [ ].
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:
Expiration date:
Signature: ______________________________________________
Date:
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other nonprofit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate. Initials:______________________
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA04842; Fri, 9 Jul 93 12:32:07 -0700
% Received: by eff.org id AA02399 (5.65c/IDA-1.5/ident for eff-com-exploder); Fri, 9 Jul 1993 13:31:48 -040
% From: Shari Steele <ssteele@eff.org>
% Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 13:31:00 -0400
% Message-Id: <199307091731.AA02391@eff.org>
% Subject: EFFector Online 5.12
% To: eff-news@eff.org (eff-news mailing list)
|
| 155.34 | | STUDIO::IDE | Can't this wait 'til I'm old? | Wed Jul 14 1993 12:24 | 35 |
| re .33
Ah, the good old days before the rise of random violence and drive-by
shootings, when people shot each other for good reasons.
>These days we view most of our world through a television screen. Most of
>our knowledge comes from information about things, not experience with
>them.
This is the best description of "cyberspace" I've read.
>During the War in the Persian Gulf, I was able to get minute by minute
>reports from the laptop computers of soldiers in the field.
Is this an exaggeration or did I miss alt.foxhole.dispatches?
>*****************************
>Announcement of Group Meeting
>*****************************
>Hypereal Group Meeting: The Aesthetics of Presence -
> towards an ethic of design
>Sunday, July 11 within interactive technologies
>7:00 pm
>Sunken Room - Genesee Co-op
>713 Monroe Ave Rochester, NY
It's interesting that this group would meet face-to-face. Why not just
hold a virtual meeting?
I didn't mean this to come off so cynical, just my nature I guess. I
agree with him, mostly, although it's admittedly a very personal view
of freedom he has. For instance, a black businessperson from Missouri
probably wouldn't be longing for the freedom of yesteryear.
Jamie
|
| 155.35 | | CXDOCS::BARNES | | Wed Jul 14 1993 14:16 | 7 |
| As much as I respect Barlow for his convictions, and not being AFRAID
to speak them...I think he's eaten one too many Wyoming fungis....
What makes him think his cyberspace netwerk isn't ALREADY infiltrated
by an "enemy", ie: CIA, FEDS, FBI, DEA, whatever...course the same
could be said about decnotes. %^)
rfb
|
| 155.36 | | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | Two pints make one cavort | Wed Jul 14 1993 14:20 | 8 |
|
True, but most cultures have their own Old West of sorts.
Personally, I long for the freedom to be whipped to death by Egyptian
task-masters while I enjoy the trusting enviroment of my fellow jews
as we toil in the desert to move 200 ton blocks of stone into their
place on the ancient pyramids by hand. :-)
|
| 155.37 | | CXDOCS::BARNES | | Wed Jul 14 1993 14:22 | 3 |
| hey Fog, I have some work that needs done at Tumbledown....%^)
rfb (walking like an egyptian, whip of wet noodles)
|
| 155.38 | | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | Short arms, and deep pockets... | Wed Jul 14 1993 15:15 | 8 |
| You guys crack me up.
Fog, I'm painting the old homestead this weekend. Feel free to come
by and lend a hand! Sorry, but I'm fresh out of 200 ton limestone...
:-)
tim
|
| 155.39 | | ISLNDS::CONNORS_M | | Wed Jul 14 1993 15:37 | 9 |
|
and thanks to yous guys I've got "Walk Like an Egyptian"
playing in my head........
AUGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
|
| 155.40 | Its an uphill climb | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | Two pints make one cavort | Wed Jul 14 1993 17:44 | 9 |
|
> and thanks to yous guys I've got "Walk Like an Egyptian"
Could be worse, MJ: Rache got her cast off this morning, and since the
procedure is a "castaway", I've been singing the theme song to Gilligan's
Island all morning.
:-/
|
| 155.41 | :-) | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | Short arms, and deep pockets... | Wed Jul 14 1993 17:49 | 10 |
| Actually, I went right into Steve Martin's "King Tut", which is
significantly less painfull than "Walk Like An Egyptian".
"Gotta condo made-a stone-a."
(or something like that...how DOES that song go?)
Hope this helps...:-)
tim
|
| 155.42 | | SLOHAN::FIELDS | and we'd go Running On Faith | Wed Jul 14 1993 17:54 | 3 |
| thats not bad, last night I saw an old SNL with Buckwheat Sings ! not
only can't I get 3 Times a Lady outta my head I can't understand a word
I'm singing ! "once twiss twee time a mayde...."
|
| 155.43 | Motivation comes in many forms... | CARROL::YOUNG | where is this place in space??? | Wed Jul 14 1993 21:14 | 4 |
| pass on some of that New Mex fungi and i'll build pyrmids, paint
houses, or do trail repair till i laugh myself into 'cyberspace'...*
|
| 155.44 | | CSCMA::M_PECKAR | life is a carnival | Tue Jul 27 1993 14:22 | 245 |
| I thought about posting the second speech to the Digital notesfile, but I
can clearly see that convincing "stockholders" that giving away something
for free in order to make the company more profitable in the long term is
about as silly a proposition as I can imagine...
++++++++++ Forwarded message ++++++++++
Date--Tue, 11 May 1993 18:52:59 -0700
From--Bruce Sterling <bruces@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject--You Asked For It, You Got It
Bruce Sterling
bruces@well.sf.ca.us
Literary Freeware -- Not for Commercial Use
Speeches by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling
National Academy of Sciences
Convocation on Technology and Education
Washington D. C., May 10, 1993
BRUCE STERLING:
Hello ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for having the two of
us here and giving us a license to dream in public.
The future is unwritten. There are best-case scenarios. There are
worst-case scenarios. Both of them are great fun to write about if
you're a science fiction novelist, but neither of them ever happen in
the real world. What happens in the real world is always a
sideways-case scenario.
World-changing marvels to us, are only wallpaper to our
children.
Cyberspace is the funhouse mirror of our own society.
Cyberspace reflects our values and our faults, sometimes in terrifying
exaggeration. Cyberspace is a mirror you can edit. It's a mirror you
can fold into packets and send across continents at the speed of
light. It's a mirror you can share with other people, a place where
you can discover community. But it's also a mirror in the classic
sense of smoke-and-mirrors, a place where you might be robbed or
cheated or deceived, a place where you can be promised a rainbow but
given a mouthful of ashes.
I know something important about cyberspace. It doesn't
matter who you are today -- if you don't show up in that mirror in the
next century, you're just not going to matter very much. Our kids
matter. They matter a lot. Our kids have to show up in the mirror.
Today, we have certain primitive media for kids. Movies,
television, videos. In terms of their sensory intensity, these are
like roller-coaster rides. Kids love roller coasters, for natural
reasons. But roller coasters only go around and around in circles.
Kids need media that they can go places with. They need the virtual
equivalent of a kid's bicycle. Training wheels for cyberspace.
Simple, easy machines. Self-propelled. And free. Kids need places
where they can talk to each other, talk back and forth naturally.
They need media that they can fingerpaint with, where they can jump up
and down and breathe hard, where they don't have to worry about Mr.
Science showing up in his mandarin white labcoat to scold them for
doing things not in the rule book. Kids need a medium of their own.
A medium that does not involve a determined attempt by cynical adult
merchandisers to wrench the last nickel and quarter from their small
vulnerable hands.
That would be a lovely scenario. I don't really expect that, though.
On the contrary, in the future I expect the commercial sector to target
little children with their full enormous range of on-line demographic
databases and privacy-shattering customer-service profiles. These
people will be armed and ready and lavishly financed and there every
day, peering at our children through a cyberspace one-way mirror. Am I
naive to expect better from the networks in our schools? I hope not. I
trust not. Because schools are supposed to be educating our children,
civilizing our children, not auctioning them off to the highest bidder.
We need to make some conscious decisions to reinvent our
information technology as if the future mattered. As if our children
were human beings, human citizens, not raw blobs of potential
revenue-generating machinery. We have an opportunity to create media
that would match the splendid ambitions of Franklin with his public
libraries and his mail system, and Jefferson and Madison with their
determination to arm democracy with the power knowledge gives. We
could offer children, yes even poor children in poor districts, a real
opportunity to control the screen, for once.
You don't have to worry much about the hardware. The hardware
is ephemeral. The glass boxes should no longer impress you. We've
shipped our images inside glass boxes for fifty years, but that's a
historical accident, a relic. The glass boxes that we recognize as
computers won't last much longer. Already the boxes are becoming flat
screens. In the future, computers will mutate beyond recognition.
Computers won't be intimidating, wire-festooned, high-rise
bit-factories swallowing your entire desk. They will tuck under your
arm, into your valise, into your kid's backpack. After that, they'll
fit onto your face, plug into your ear. And after that --they'll
simply melt. They'll become fabric. What does a computer really
need? Not glass boxes -- it needs thread -- power wiring, glass
fiber-optic, cellular antennas, microcircuitry. These are woven
things. Fabric and air and electrons and light. Magic
handkerchiefs with instant global access. You'll wear them around
your neck. You'll make tents from them if you want. They will be
everywhere, throwaway. Like denim. Like paper. Like a child's kite.
This is coming a lot faster than anyone realizes. There's a
revolution in global telephony coming that will have such brutal,
industry-crushing speed and power that it will make even the computer
industry blanch. Analog is dying everywhere. Everyone with wire and
antenna is going into the business of moving bits.
You are the schools. You too need to move bits, but you need
to move them to your own purposes. You need to look deep into the
mirror of cyberspace, and you need to recognize your own face there.
Not the face you're told that you need. Your own face. Your
undistorted face. You can't out-tech the techies. You can't
out-glamorize Hollywood. That's not your life, that's not your values,
that's not your purpose. You're not supposed to pump colored images
against the eyeballs of our children, or download data into their
skulls. You are supposed to pass the torch of culture to the coming
generation. If you don't do that, who will? If you don't prevail
for the sake of our children, who will?
It can be done! It can be done if you keep your wits about
you and you're not hypnotized by smoke and mirrors. The computer
revolution, the media revolution, is not going to stop during the
lifetime of anyone in this room. There are innovations coming, and
coming *fast,* that will make the hottest tech exposition you see here
seem as quaint as gaslamps and Victorian magic-lanterns. Every
machine you see here will be trucked out and buried in a landfill, and
never spoken of again, within a dozen years. That so-called
cutting-edge hardware here will crumble just the way old fax-paper
crumbles. The values are what matters. The values are the only
things that last, the only things that *can* last. Hack the hardware,
not the Constitution. Hold on tight to what matters, and just hack the
rest.
I used to think that cyberspace was fifty years away. What I
thought was fifty years away, was only ten years away. And what I
thought was ten years away -- it was already here. I just wasn't
aware of it yet.
Let me give you a truly lovely, joyful example of the
sideways-case scenario.
The Internet. The Internet we make so much of today -- the
global Internet which has helped scholars so much, where free speech
is flourishing as never before in history -- the Internet was a Cold
War military project. It was designed for purposes of military
communication in a United States devastated by a Soviet nuclear
strike. Originally, the Internet was a post-apocalypse command grid.
And look at it now. No one really planned it this way. Its users
made the Internet that way, because they had the courage to use the
network to support their own values, to bend the technology to their
own purposes. To serve their own liberty. Their own convenience,
their own amusement, even their own idle pleasure. When I look at the
Internet--that paragon of cyberspace today --I see something
astounding and delightful. It's as if some grim fallout shelter had
burst open and a full-scale Mardi Gras parade had come out. Ladies
and gentlemen, I take such enormous pleasure in this that it's hard to
remain properly skeptical. I hope that in some small way I can help
you to share my deep joy and pleasure in the potential of networks, my
joy and pleasure in the fact that the future is unwritten.
WILLIAM GIBSON:
Mr. Sterling and I have been invited here to dream in public.
Dreaming in public is an important part of our job description, as
science writers, but there are bad dreams as well as good dreams.
We're dreamers, you see, but we're also realists, of a sort.
Realistically speaking, I look at the proposals being made here and
I marvel. A system that in some cases isn't able to teach basic
evolution, a system bedeviled by the religious agendas of textbook
censors, now proposes to throw itself open to a barrage of
ultrahighbandwidth information from a world of Serbian race-hatred,
Moslem fundamentalism, and Chinese Mao Zedong thought. A system that
has managed to remain largely unchanged since the 19th Century now
proposes to jack in, bravely bringing itself on-line in an attempt to
meet the challenges of the 21st. I applaud your courage in this. I
see green shoots attempting to break through the sterilized earth.
I believe that the national adventure you now propose is of
quite extraordinary importance. Historians of the future -- provided
good dreams prevail--will view this as having been far more crucial to
the survival of democracy in the United States than rural
electrification or the space program.
But many of America's bad dreams, our sorriest future
scenarios, stem from a single and terrible fact: there currently
exists in this nation a vast and disenfranchised underclass, drawn,
most shamefully, along racial lines, and whose plight we are
dangerously close to accepting as a simple fact of life, a permanent
feature of the American landscape.
What you propose here, ladies and gentlemen, may well represent
nothing less than this nation's last and best hope of providing
something like a level socio-economic playing field for a true
majority of its citizens.
In that light, let me make three modest proposals.
In my own best-case scenario, every elementary and high school
teacher in the United States of America will have unlimited and
absolutely cost-free professional access to long-distance telephone
service. The provision of this service could be made, by law, a basic
operation requirement for all telephone companies. Of course, this
would also apply to cable television.
By the same token, every teacher in every American public
school will be provided, by the manufacturer, on demand, and at no
cost, with copies of any piece of software whatever -- assuming that
said software's manufacturer would wish their product to be
commercially available in the United States.
What would this really cost us, as a society? Nothing. It
would only mean a so-called loss of potential revenue for some of the
planet's fattest and best- fed corporations. In bringing computer and
network literacy to the teachers of our children, it would pay for
itself in wonderful and wonderfully unimaginable ways. Where is the
R&D support for teaching? Where is the tech support for our
children's teachers? Why shouldn't we give out teachers a license to
obtain software, all software, any software, for nothing?
Does anyone demand a licensing fee, each time a child is
taught the alphabet?
Any corporation that genuinely wishes to invest in this
country's future should step forward now and offer services and
software. Having thrived under democracy, in a free market, the time
has come for these corporations to demonstrate an enlightened
self-interest, by acting to assure the survival of democracy and the
free market -- and incidentally, by assuring that virtually the entire
populace of the United States will become computer-literate potential
consumers within a single generation.
Stop devouring your children's future in order to meet your
next quarterly report.
My third and final proposal has to do more directly with the
levelling of that playing field. I propose that neither of my two
previous proposals should apply in any way to private education.
Thank you.
|
| 155.45 | | TOOK::PECKAR | sleep tight | Mon Feb 14 1994 13:21 | 88 |
| From:IN%"Al.Whaley@snyside.sun
nyside.com" 31-JAN-1994 17:45:23.30
To:IN%"cpsr-announce@cpsr.org"
"Multiple recipients of list"
CC:
Subj:Clipper Petition
...
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 14:28:14 -0800
From: Al Whaley <Al.Whaley@snyside.sunnyside.com>
Subject: Clipper Petition
Sender: cpsr-announce@cpsr.org
...
Sender: Dave Banisar
<banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Subject: Clipper Petition
Clipper Petition
Electronic Petition to Oppose Clipper
Please Distribute Widely
On January 24, many of the nation's leading experts in cryptography and
computer security wrote President Clinton and asked him to withdraw the Clipper
proposal.
The public response to the letter has been extremely favorable, including
coverage in the New York Times and numerous computer and security trade
magazines.
Many people have expressed interest in adding their names to the letter. In
response to these requests, CPSR is organizing an Internet petition drive to
oppose the Clipper proposal. We will deliver the signed petition to the White
House, complete with the names of all the people who oppose Clipper.
To sign on to the letter, send a message to:
Clipper.petition@cpsr.org
with the message "I oppose Clipper" (no quotes)
You will receive a return message confirming your vote.
Please distribute this announcement so that others may also express their
opposition to the Clipper proposal.
CPSR is a membership-based public interest organization. For membership
information, please email cpsr@cpsr.org. For more information about Clipper,
please consult the CPSR Internet Library - FTP/WAIS/Gopher CPSR.ORG
/cpsr/privacy/crypto/clipper
=====================================================================
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to you regarding the "Clipper" escrowed encryption proposal now
under consideration by the White House. We wish to express our concern about
this plan and similar technical standards that may be proposed for the nation's
communications infrastructure.
The current proposal was developed in secret by federal agencies primarily
concerned about electronic surveillance, not privacy protection. Critical
aspects of the plan remain classified and thus beyond public review.
The private sector and the public have expressed nearly unanimous opposition
to Clipper. In the formal request for comments conducted by the Department of
Commerce last year, less than a handful of respondents supported the plan.
Several hundred opposed it.
If the plan goes forward, commercial firms that hope to develop new products
will face extensive government obstacles. Cryptographers who wish to develop
new privacy enhancing technologies will be discouraged. Citizens who
anticipate that the progress of technology will enhance personal privacy will
find their expectations unfulfilled.
Some have proposed that Clipper be adopted on a voluntary basis and suggest
that other technical approaches will remain viable. The government, however,
exerts enormous influence in the marketpla would be truly voluntary.
The Clipper proposal should not be adopted. We believe that if this proposal
and the associated would be truly voluntary.
The Clipper proposal should not be adopted. We believe that if this proposal
and the associatednt accountability will be lessened, and the openness
necessary to ensure the successful development of the nation's communicnt
accountability will be lessened, and the openness necessary to ensure the
successful development of the nation's communic
|
| 155.46 | Read before you leap! | SUBPAC::MAGGARD | Ya don't hafta spell'em ta eat'em! | Mon Feb 14 1994 14:13 | 9 |
| re: .45
> The Clipper proposal should not be adopted. We believe that if this proposal
> and the associated would be truly voluntary.
Huh???
- jeff_thinkin_tharz_sumthin_missin
|
| 155.47 | sorry | TOOK::PECKAR | sleep tight | Mon Feb 14 1994 14:55 | 83 |
| Here is the Petition directly from the horses mouth, i.e.,
/cpsr/privacy/crypto/clipper/cpsr_electronic_petition.txt @ cpsr.org.
Electronic Petition to Oppose Clipper
Please Distribute Widely
On January 24, many of the nation's leading experts in cryptography
and computer security wrote President Clinton and asked him to
withdraw the Clipper proposal.
The public response to the letter has been extremely favorable,
including coverage in the New York Times and numerous computer and
security trade magazines.
Many people have expressed interest in adding their names to the
letter. In response to these requests, CPSR is organizing an
Internet petition drive to oppose the Clipper proposal. We will
deliver the signed petition to the White House, complete with the
names of all the people who oppose Clipper.
To sign on to the letter, send a message to:
Clipper.petition@cpsr.org
with the message "I oppose Clipper" (no quotes)
You will receive a return message confirming your vote.
Please distribute this announcement so that others may also express
their opposition to the Clipper proposal.
CPSR is a membership-based public interest organization. For
membership information, please email cpsr@cpsr.org. For more
information about Clipper, please consult the CPSR Internet Library -
FTP/WAIS/Gopher CPSR.ORG /cpsr/privacy/crypto/clipper
=====================================================================
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to you regarding the "Clipper" escrowed encryption
proposal now under consideration by the White House. We wish to
express our concern about this plan and similar technical standards
that may be proposed for the nation's communications infrastructure.
The current proposal was developed in secret by federal agencies
primarily concerned about electronic surveillance, not privacy
protection. Critical aspects of the plan remain classified and thus
beyond public review.
The private sector and the public have expressed nearly unanimous
opposition to Clipper. In the formal request for comments conducted
by the Department of Commerce last year, less than a handful of
respondents supported the plan. Several hundred opposed it.
If the plan goes forward, commercial firms that hope to develop
new products will face extensive government obstacles. Cryptographers
who wish to develop new privacy enhancing technologies will be
discouraged. Citizens who anticipate that the progress of technology
will enhance personal privacy will find their expectations
unfulfilled.
Some have proposed that Clipper be adopted on a voluntary basis
and suggest that other technical approaches will remain viable. The
government, however, exerts enormous influence in the marketplace, and
the likelihood that competing standards would survive is small. Few
in the user community believe that the proposal would be truly
voluntary.
The Clipper proposal should not be adopted. We believe that if
this proposal and the associated standards go forward, even on a
voluntary basis, privacy protection will be diminished, innovation
will be slowed, government accountability will be lessened, and the
openness necessary to ensure the successful development of the
nation's communications infrastructure will be threatened.
We respectfully ask the White House to withdraw the Clipper
proposal.
|
| 155.48 | SS Pays damages to Steve Jackson Games | SALES::GKELLER | Access for all | Thu Jul 21 1994 20:06 | 107 |
| <<< SOFBAS::NDISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]INTERNET_TOOLS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Internet Tools >-
================================================================================
Note 596.0 SECRET SERVICE PAYS DAMAGES TO STEVE JACKSON GAMES 9 replies
SOFBAS::MAYER "Internet: The Buck Starts Here!" 101 lines 10-MAY-1994 08:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't sure where else to post it, so I'll post it here.
Danny
From: RANGER::J_EASTLAKE "Jill, PATHWORKS Engineering 226-6465 09-May-1994
1314 -0400" 9-MAY-1994 13:14:21.50
To: john
CC:
Subj: FWD: SECRET SERVICE PAYS DAMAGES TO STEVE JACKSON GAMES [Illuminati
Online]
[forwarding removed]
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 23:51:20 -0400
From: beast@world.std.com (Donald E Eastlake III)
Message-Id: <199405070351.AA26686@world.std.com>
>From: sj@indial1.io.com (Steve Jackson)
>Newsgroups: io.general,rec.games.frp.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
>Subject: Secret Service Finally Pays SJ Games!
>Date: 5 May 1994 17:53:49 -0500
>Organization: Illuminati Online
>Message-ID: <2qbtdt$730@indial1.io.com>
>Summary: Only four years after the raid :-)
>Keywords: cheap, blundering so-and-sos
PRESS RELEASE May 5, 1994 - For Immediate Release
SECRET SERVICE PAYS DAMAGES TO STEVE JACKSON GAMES
On March 1, 1990, agents of the US Secret Service invaded the offices
of Steve Jackson Games, in Austin, Texas, in what became a landmark case
for the rights of computer users. The agents seized several computers,
including the company's BBS, and hundreds of computer disks. Among the
files taken were several uncompleted books, including one that was about
to go to the printer!
The raid was carried out under a sealed warrant. It was eventually
revealed that the Secret Service was investigating an imaginary
"conspiracy" based on false information, and knew it had no grounds to
suspect SJ Games of any crime, but had never even considered asking the
company for its cooperation while planning the raid!
On March 12, 1993, a federal judge ruled for Steve Jackson Games and
its co-plaintiffs - Steve Jackson himself and three users of the
Illuminati Bulletin Board - on two separate counts.
Judge Sam Sparks ruled for SJ Games on the PPA (Privacy
Protection Act), saying that the publisher's work product was unlawfully
seized and held. Under the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act),
he ruled that the Secret Service had unlawfully read, disclosed and erased
the computer messages on the BBS - despite their repeated denials that
they had done any such thing. On a separate ECPA count, he ruled for the
defendants, saying that taking the computer out the door was not an
"interception" of the messages on it within the meaning of the law. That
decision is now being appealed.
Judge Sparks' opinion was harshly critical of the Secret Service's
behavior before, during and after their raid, calling the affidavit and
warrant preparation "simply sloppy and not carefully done."
Now, more than a year later, the Secret Service has finally paid the
judgment. The checks received today included $1,000 per plaintiff under
the ECPA, plus about 3% interest since the judgment. Under the PPA, SJ
Games received $52,431.50 for lost profits and direct costs of the raid.
The government agreed to pay additional costs of the suit, originally
borne by the EFF and the attorneys, adding another $252,405.54.
Commented Jackson: "The heroes in this case are the people at the EFF
and the attorneys who put it together - especially Sharon Beckman at
Silverglate & Good, and Pete Kennedy at George, Donaldson and Ford.
Without them, we never would have had our day in court. They made a big
investment in justice.
"As for us, we'll use our share to pay off old debts and buy
new computers."
Since the raid, Jackson's bulletin board service has grown hugely.
Originally a one-line forum for game fans, it is now a full-scale Internet
access service, specializing in helping newcomers learn their way around
the Net. Doing business as "Illuminati Online," Jackson now serves over a
thousand paying customers, with more signing up every day. "If not for the
raid, I wouldn't have done it," he says. "It brought home to me how
important the Internet is becoming. And even if we protect our legal right
to be on the info highway, somebody has to teach people how to use it!"
For more information, contact Steve Jackson at 512-447-7866.
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from qsland.lkg.dec.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id
AA20815; Sat, 7 May 94 22:00:02 -040
% Received: by qsland (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08040; Sat, 7 May 1994
21:59:58 -040
% Received: by skidrow.lkg.dec.com (5.65/MS-081993); id AA17533; Sat, 7 May
1994 22:01:53 -040
% Message-Id: <9405080201.AA17533@skidrow.lkg.dec.com>
% To: interest@i.i
% Subject: FWD: SECRET SERVICE PAYS DAMAGES TO STEVE JACKSON GAMES
% Date: Sat, 07 May 94 22:01:53 -0400
% From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Beast)" <dee@skidrow.lkg.dec.com>
% X-Mts: smtp
|
| 155.49 | Communications Decency (i.e. Censorship) Act | ROCK::FROMM | This space intentionally left blank. | Tue Jun 20 1995 00:41 | 386 |
| thought some people here might be interested in this:
<forwards removed...>
Please, take the time to inform yourselves of the impact this act could make
should it be passed. The following is a message recently received off the
Internet as to the status of this act. Please keep in mind, any comments about
this should be directed towards the address listed in the message.
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/GORTON COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
(SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END)
Update: -The Latest News: The Senate voted to attach the
Communications Decency Act to the Telecom Reform bill.
Leahy's alternative was not attached to the Telecom
Reform bill.
-What You Can Do Now
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
June 14, 1995
PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL June 25, 1995
REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS
Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org)
________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Background
The Latest News
What You Can Do Now
For More Information
List Of Participating Organizations
________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The Communications Decency Act (sponsored by Sen. Exon and Gorton) would
criminalize many forms of expression on online systems. Many believe
it to be unconstitutional, and a fight to oppose it has been waged
since its introduction. It was recently attached to the fast-tracked
Telecommunications Deregulation bill, which is moving quickly through
Congress.
________________________________________________________________________
THE LATEST NEWS
Right up until the last minute, callers reported weary Senatorial
staffers continued to report a deluge of incoming calls, almost all
against the Exon/Coats bill and supporting the Leahy alternative. The
Senate debated the Exon/Coats/Gorton Communications Decency Act and the
Leahy alternative today (June 14, 1995) starting at about 3:30pm EST
for 90 minutes.
The debate was opened by Senator Exon who read a prayer to protect
against computer pornography. Senators Exon (D-NE) and Coats (R-IN)
spoke in favor of their position. Senator Gorton (R-WA) was
mysteriously absent from the debate.
Exon referred those that signed the petition to prevent his censorship
bill as "selfish". Exon presented letters from many groups in support
of his bill, including the Christian Coalition, the Family Research
Council, the National Law Center for Families. He also stated that
75% of computer owners have refused the join the Internet because the
obscene material they feared on the Internet.
Senators Byrd (D-WV) and Heflin (D-AL) cosponsored the Exon bill at
the last minute.
Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Feingold (D-WI) spoke passionately about the
First Amendment and the Internet. Feingold warned against the dangers
of chilling free speech. Leahy brought out the monster petition in
support of his alternative (it looks pretty impressive on television)
and proceeded to try to debunk the myths Exon promulgated about the
Internet. He also trumpeted the success of the Internet, and pointed
out it wouldn't have been nearly as successful if the US government had
tried to micro-manage it.
Both Exon and Leahy then gave back extra debating time and went to a vote
on the bill. The Exon bill was successfully attached to the Telecomm
Reform bill (84-16). The Leahy alternative was not attached to the
Telecom Reform bill.
Questions and answers:
Q: What does this mean?
A: It means we lost this round. The unconstitutional Exon Communications
Decency Act was attached to the Telecomm Reform bill.
Q: What's the next step?
A: Next, we need to ensure that a House equivalent to the Exon
Communications Decency Act is not attached to the House Telecomm Reform
bill.
Q: Where can I find more information about the bill?
A: Check below.
________________________________________________________________________
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW -- U.S. and non-U.S. citizens
1. Familiarize yourself with the version of the bill that passed,
and the transcript of the Senate debate. (directions to obtain
these are below)
2. Check the voting list below. It wouldn't hurt to send a nice
letter, email, or fax to the Senators that voted to defeat the
Communications Decency Act. Hateful mail to Senators who did
not vote your way is not only *bad form*, but likely to become illegal
soon anyway, under the Communications Decency Act.
In other words, take some time to cool off.
3. If you don't receive Coalition alerts reliably through mail or news,
join the mailing list by sending mail to listproc@vtw.org with
"subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname". We'll have to fight
this battle in the House soon and you should be informed.
4. Relax, it's not the end of the world. We still have this battle to
fight in the House of Representatives and then in the conference
committee. This is a setback, but we haven't lost yet.
________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS OF THE SENATE VOTE
Senators who voted to defeat the Communications Decency Act
(A polite letter to congratulate them for defending your free speech
rights would be appropriate.)
D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax
= == ================== ============== ==============
D CT Lieberman, Joseph I. 1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750
D DE Biden Jr., Joseph R. 1-202-224-5042 1-202-224-0139
D IL Simon, Paul 1-202-224-2152 1-202-224-0868
senator@simon.senate.gov
D IL Moseley-Braun, Carol 1-202-224-2854 1-202-224-2626
D MA Kennedy, Edward M. 1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417
senator@kennedy.senate.gov
D MI Levin, Carl 1-202-224-6221 na
D MN Wellstone, Paul 1-202-224-5641 1-202-224-8438
D NM Bingaman, Jeff 1-202-224-5521 na
Senator_Bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
D NY Moynihan, Daniel P. 1-202-224-4451 na
D OH Glenn, John 1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983
R RI Chafee, John H. 1-202-224-2921 na
D VA Robb, Charles S. 1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689
Senator_Robb@robb.senate.gov
vascr@CapAccess.org
D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
R VT Jeffords, James M. 1-202-224-5141 na
D WA Murray, Patty 1-202-224-2621 1-202-224-0238
D WI Feingold, Russell 1-202-224-5323 na
russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Senators who voted to support the (CDA) Communications Decency Act
(They voted for the CDA and to curtail your free speech rights.
Writing them an impolite and nasty letter would be a bad idea, and
may soon be illegal under the CDA anyway. Take some time to cool down.)
D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax
= == ================== ============== ==============
R AK Murkowski, Frank H. 1-202-224-6665 1-202-224-5301
R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
D AL Heflin, Howell T. 1-202-224-4124 1-202-224-3149
R AL Shelby, Richard C. 1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
D AR Bumpers, Dale 1-202-224-4843 1-202-224-6435
D AR Pryor, David 1-202-224-2353 1-202-224-8261
R AZ Kyl, Jon 1-202-224-4521 1-202-228-1239
R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-602-952-8702
D CA Boxer, Barbara 1-202-224-3553 na
D CA Feinstein, Dianne 1-202-224-3841 1-202-228-3954
R CO Campbell, Ben N. 1-202-224-5852 1-202-225-0228
R CO Brown, Henry 1-202-224-5941 1-202-224-6471
D CT Dodd, Christopher J. 1-202-224-2823 na
R DE Roth Jr. William V. 1-202-224-2441 1-202-224-2805
D FL Graham, Robert 1-202-224-3041 1-202-224-2237
R FL Mack, Connie 1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022
D GA Nunn, Samuel 1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072
R GA Coverdell, Paul 1-202-224-3643 1-202-228-3783
D HI Akaka, Daniel K. 1-202-224-6361 1-202-224-2126
D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
D IA Harkin, Thomas 1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431
R IA Grassley, Charles E. 1-202-224-3744 1-202-224-6020
R ID Craig, Larry E. 1-202-224-2752 1-202-224-2573
R ID Kempthorne, Dirk 1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893
R IN Coats, Daniel R. 1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964
R IN Lugar, Richard G. 1-202-224-4814 1-202-224-7877
R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952
R KS Kassebaum, Nancy L. 1-202-224-4774 1-202-224-3514
D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046
R KY McConnell, Mitch 1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
D LA Breaux, John B. 1-202-224-4623 na
D LA Johnston, J. Bennett 1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
D MA Kerry, John F. 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525
D MD Mikulski, Barbara A. 1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858
D MD Sarbanes, Paul S. 1-202-224-4524 1-202-224-1651
R ME Snowe, Olympia 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-6853
R ME Cohen, William S. 1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693
R MI Abraham, Spencer 1-202-224-4822 1-202-224-8834
R MN Grams, Rod 1-202-224-3244 na
R MO Bond, Christopher S. 1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
R MO Ashcroft, John 1-202-224-6154 na
R MS Cochran, Thad 1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576
R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
D MT Baucus, Max 1-202-224-2651 na
R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594
R NC Faircloth, D. M. 1-202-224-3154 1-202-224-7406
R NC Helms, Jesse 1-202-224-6342 1-202-224-7588
D ND Conrad, Kent 1-202-224-2043 1-202-224-7776
D ND Dorgan, Byron L. 1-202-224-2551 1-202-224-1193
D NE Kerrey, Bob 1-202-224-6551 1-202-224-7645
D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213
R NH Gregg, Judd 1-202-224-3324 1-202-224-4952
R NH Smith, Robert 1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353
D NJ Bradley, William 1-202-224-3224 1-202-224-8567
D NJ Lautenberg, Frank R. 1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
R NM Domenici, Pete V. 1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
D NV Bryan, Richard H. 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867
D NV Reid, Harry 1-202-224-3542 1-202-224-7327
R NY D'Amato, Alu
<the rest appears to be cut off...>
|
| 155.50 | | DELNI::DSMITH | We've got mountains to climb | Tue Jun 20 1995 14:30 | 4 |
|
I like the "Take some time to cool off's" in that memo. ;-)
Yup, I'd say this is one worthy of getting a little T'd off about.
|
| 155.51 | | CXDOCS::BARNES | | Tue Jun 20 1995 15:24 | 4 |
| ya but unfortunately, i DID NOT LIKE the "it may be illigal in the
future" b*llsh*t! what a bunch of crap!
rfb
|
| 155.52 | | ROCK::FROMM | This space intentionally left blank. | Tue Jun 20 1995 15:42 | 7 |
| >i DID NOT LIKE the "it may be illigal in the
> future" b*llsh*t!
i think that was the point. a little sarcasm intended to get you riled up and
do something about it.
- rich
|
| 155.53 | | CXDOCS::BARNES | | Tue Jun 20 1995 15:53 | 3 |
| Dooohhh!
rfb_who sometimes takes thaings to literally
|