From: m...@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
Subject: EFFector Online 07.08 - Clipper, Digital Telephony, nat'l. ID cards
Date: 6 May 1994 20:23:14 -0400
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Summary: Clipper/DigTel hearings, nat'l ID, Clipper FOIA, New EFFers,
IRS monitoring bank accounts
________________ _______________ _______________
/_______________/\ /_______________\ /\______________\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ ||||||||||||||||| / ////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||||||||||||||| / ////////////////
\\\\\\_______/\ ||||||_______\ / //////_____\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ |||||||||||||| / /////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\/____ |||||||||||||| / /////////////
\\\\\___________/\ ||||| / ////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ ||||| / ////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/ ||||| \////
EFFector Online Volume 07 No. 08 May 6, 1994 edit...@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
In This Issue:
EFF Summary of May 3 1994 Senate Clipper Hearing
EFF Summary of May 3 1994 House Clipper & Digital Telephony Hearing
USPS & IRS Mull National Identity Cards, Clinton to Sign Orders
DOJ Clipper Documents Scheduled for Summer Release Under FOIA
New Faces on EFF Board and Staff
Note About EFFector - Are You Moving?
What YOU Can Do
Subject: EFF Summary of May 3 1994 Senate Clipper Hearing
May 4, 1994
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law held a
hearing on Tuesday (5/3) to examine the Administration's "Clipper Chip"
Key Escrow Encryption proposal. Witnesses included Asst. Atty. Gen. Jo
Ann Harris (Criminal Justice Division), NIST Deputy Director Raymond
Kammer, Whitfield Diffie (of Sun Microsystems), Stephen Walker
(President, Trusted Information Systems), and NSA director Vice Adm. J.
The discussion touched on a number of key issues, including the
necessity of the Clipper proposal for law enforcement; the privacy
interests of network users; the costs associated with implementing the
Clipper scheme; export controls; and whether those intending to use
communications networks to break the law would actually use Clipper as
opposed to other encryption schemes. Although a variety of views were
offered, few new developments emerged in this controversial debate.
Assistant Attorney General Harris and NIST's Ray Kammer both stated that
the Clipper Scheme and Key Escrow system would not provide law
enforcement with any new surveillance abilities. Rather, Harris argued,
Clipper is analogous to a translator. Harris stated, "All Clipper does
is, after a court has authorized interceptions of communications, is
that we get the ability to understand the content of legitimately
intercepted communications". The Administration continues to maintain
that the market would accept the Clipper standard based on the
assumption that it is the strongest encryption scheme, regardless of who
holds the keys. When pressed by Sen. Leahy on this issue, as well as on
the question of whether criminals or terrorist organizations would be
willing to use the Clipper standards, neither witness offered any
assurances, and admitted that this is still an open question. Senator
Leahy expressed skepticism: "I have serious questions about whether any
sophisticated criminal or terrorist organization is going to use the one
code endorsed by the U.S. Government and for which U.S. Government
agents hold the decoding keys. There are a multitude of alternative
encryption methods commercially available. If Clipper Chip does become
the standard encryption method used by Americans, criminals may be
forced to use Clipper to communicate with legitimate outsiders. But
this is a big 'IF' ".
In what may prove to be a significant development, NIST's Kammer
conceded that additional fiscal authorization may be needed to fund the
implementation of the Clipper proposal. If this is the case, Congress
would be required to consider legislation to authorize funding, and at
this point passage of such legislation is at best uncertain. EFF will
continue to closely monitor this development, and will pass along
information as it develops.
Sun Microsystems Diffie urged a slow and careful approach to the Clipper
issue, cautioning that a rush to implement Clipper may create a
bureaucracy that would be difficult to dislodge at a later time. Diffie
stressed the need for international for information security, and
cautioned against attempts to use the power of technology to increase
the power of government. Diffie added, "Integrity of political speech
is the root of legitimate laws in a democratic society. We are in a
position where if we do not make it a national priority to make privacy
available", this integrity may be compromised.
Steve Walker, of Trusted Information Systems, stressed the need for the
removal of export control restrictions. He also countered the
Administration's contention that very few foreign encryption
alternatives exist; noting that his company had found over 340. Walker
displayed several of these applications, and noted that because of
export controls U.S. manufactures of encryption technology face a
significant disadvantage on the world market.
Although the Senate Hearing did not produce many new developments, it is
significant to note that no members of the Subcommittee expressed
outright support for the Clipper Chip proposal. Chairman Leahy, the
most vocal panel member at Tuesday's hearing, was also the most
skeptical, and as such the fate Clipper proposal is still very much in
Subject: EFF Summary of May 3 1994 House Clipper & Digital Telephony Hearing
Tuesday proved to be a busy day for Clipper on the Hill, as the House
Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Technology, Environment
and Aviation also considered the Clipper and Digital Telephony
proposals. Witnesses on the panel included James Kallstrom of the FBI,
NSA's Clinton Brooks, NIST Deputy Director Ray Kammer, Dr. Dorothy
Denning, Dr. David Faber, EFF Executive Director Jerry Berman (on behalf
of DPSWG), and Chmn. Willis Ware of the Congress/NIST System Security
and Privacy Advisory Board. The discussion centered mainly on the
Unlike the Senate panel, there seemed to be some support for the Clipper
proposal on the House Subcommittee. Rep. Dan Glickman (D-KS),
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, declared his "cautious
support", for the proposal, and stressed law enforcement's need for
strong surveillance abilities. Subcommittee Chairman Valentine (D-NC),
as well as Reps. Morella (R-MD) and Rohrabacher (R-CA) all expressed
James Kallstrom urged full support of both the Clipper and Digital
Telephony proposals on behalf of all law enforcement, citing the need to
counter the increasing sophistication of digital communications
technologies. Kallstrom painted a picture of a network populated by
criminals, terrorists, and drug dealers which would pose a great danger
to public safety, unless law enforcement is given the ability to
intercept illegal communications. EFF's Jerry Berman countered this
assertion by arguing that Clipper would only solve law enforcement's
problems if criminals use it. The only way to do this, Berman added,
would be to mandate the Clipper standard, something which the
Administration does not claim to want to do. The only solution is for
Congress to deny appropriation for Clipper and send the Administration
back to the drawing board, Berman argued.
Dr. Farber, appearing as an expert witness, stated that solutions to
the Clipper issue will not come easily and will not come in one big
step. Rather, a carefully considered and open approach is required.
While stressing the need for encryption standards on communications
networks, Dr. Farber cautioned against "smoke-filled-room standards" of
encryption which are, in his view, likely to bead mistrust. Dr. Farber
also argued for the removal of export controls on encryption
NSA's Clinton Brooks expressed support for Congressional Consideration
of the Clipper issue. He argued that Clipper is a sound technological
solution to a legitimate law enforcement and National Security dilemma,
and that a public debate on its merits would eventually remove the
misinformation and mistrust of government, and would prove Clipper to be
in the public interest. Dr. Farber offered a strong caution to this,
expressing the concern that a future administration may find it
necessary to mandate the Clipper standard. Dr. Farber suggested that at
the very least Congress weld into law a guarantee that Clipper remain
voluntary, that the Judiciary be an escrow holder. He cautioned, in the
words of Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Written testimony & documents from the hearings are available as:
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Crypto/Clipper, [filename]
where [filename] is:
diffie_dpswg_sun_clipper.testimony - Senate testimony of W.Diffie (DPSWG/SUN)
berman_eff_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Jerry Berman (EFF)
brooks_nsa_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Clint Brooks (NSA)
denning_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Dorothy Denning
farber_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of David Farber
kallstrom_fbi_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of James Kallstrom (FBI)
kammer_nist_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Ray Kammer (NIST)
ware_csspab_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Willis Ware (CSSPAB)
clip-dt_hearings.docs - charter, witness list, diagrams.
* More Senate testimony and spoken testimony from both hearings will be
made available in the same directory when obtained.
This material is also available from the EFF BBS: +1 202 638 6120.
Subject: USPS & IRS Mull National Identity Cards, Clinton to Sign Orders
From: Mitch Ratcliffe <gods...@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 07:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Ever Feel Like You're Being Watched? You Will...
Digital Media has learned that the Clinton administration is debating
not if, but how, to create a card that every American will need in order
to interact with any federal government agency. Combined with two
potential executive orders and the Postal Service's designs on putting
its stamp on personal and business electronic transactions, the card could
open a window on every nuance of American personal and business
The wrangling among the administration, the U.S. Postal Service, the
Internal Revenue Service and Department of Defense, emerged into the
public eye at this April's CardTech/SecureTech Conference. The
gathering of security experts was convened to discuss applications for
smart card and PCMCIA memory card technologies in business and
government. The Postal Service, at the conference presented a proposal
for a "general purpose U.S. services smartcard," which individuals and
companies would use to authenticate their identities when sending and
receiving electronic mail, transferring funds and interacting with
government agencies, such as the I.R.S., Veterans Administration and
the Department of Health and Human Services.
President Clinton is also considering signing two executive orders that
would greatly expand the government's access to personal records,
including an order that would allow the I.R.S. to monitor individual
bank accounts and automatically collect taxes based on the results,
said sources close to the White House. The collection service will be
presented as a convenient way to avoid filling out a tax return. The
White House did not respond to requests for comments about this
The Post Office: We deliver for you. The Postal Service's U.S. Card
would be designed to use either smart cards (plastic cards with an
embedded microprocessor carrying a unique number that can be read
by a electromagnetic scanner and linked to computerized records
stored on a network) or PCMCIA cards, which can contain megabytes
of personal information. (You've probably seen this type card in AT&T's
"You Will" ad campaign, which shows a doctor inserting a woman's
card in a reader in order to access a recording of a sonogram). The
Postal Service said it is considering AT&T and other companies' smart
In a slide presentation at the conference, Postal representative Chuck
Chamberlain outlined how an individual's U.S. Card would be
automatically connected with the Department of Health and Human
Services, the U.S. Treasury, the I.R.S., the banking system, and a
central database of digital signatures for use in authenticating electronic
and transactions. The U.S. Card is only a proposal, Chamberlain insists.
Yet the Postal Service is prepared to put more than a hundred million of
the cards in citizens' pockets within months of administration approval,
"We've been trying to convince people [in the different agencies] to do
just one card, otherwise, we're going to end up with two or three
cards," said Chamberlain. He said in addition to the healthcare card
proposed by President Clinton last year, various government agencies
are forwarding plans for a personal records card and a transactions (or
"e-purse") card. Chamberlain said the I.R.S in particular is pursuing
plans for an identity card for taxpayers.
Don't leave home without it. Though he did not name the U.S. Card at
the time, Postmaster General Marvin Runyon suggested that the Postal
Service offer electronic mail certification services during testimony
before the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee in March. The
proposal is clearly intended as a way to sustain the Postal Service's
national role in the information age, since it would give the agency a
role in virtually every legally-binding electronic transaction made by
U.S. citizens. For instance:
* When sending or receiving electronic mail, U.S. Card users would be
able to check the authenticity of a digital signature to screen out
* Banking transactions (notably credit card purchases) that depend on
authentication of the participants identities and an audit trail, would
be registered in Postal Service systems.
* Veterans, or for that matter college students and welfare recipients,
could check their federal benefits using the identification data on their
* Visitors to an emergency room would have instant access to medical
records at other hospitals, as well as their health insurance information.
These examples may seem benign separately, but collectively they
paint a picture of a citizen's or business's existence that could be
meddlesome at best and downright totalitarian at worst. Will buying a
book at a gay bookstore with a credit card that authenticates the
transaction through the Postal Service open a Naval officer up to court
marshal? If you have lunch with a business associate on a Saturday at a
family restaurant, will the IRS rule the expense non-deductible before
you can even claim it?
"There won't be anything you do in business that won't be collected
and analyzed by the government," said William Murray, an information
system security consultant to Deloitte and Touche who saw
Chamberlain's presentation. "This [National Information Infrastructure]
is a better surveillance mechanism than Orwell or the government
could have imagined. This goddamned thing is so pervasive and the
propensity to connect to it is so great that it's unstoppable."
Deep Roots; Deep Pockets; Long History. Chamberlain said the Postal
Service has been working for "a couple years" on the information
system to back up the U.S. Card. He said the project was initiated by
the Department of Defense, which wanted a civilian agency to create a
national electronic communications certification authority that could
be connected to its Defense Messaging System. Chamberlain said the
Postal Service has also consulted with the National Security Agency,
proponents of the Clipper encryption chip which hides the contents of
messages from all but government agencies, like law enforcement. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ames Research Laboratories in
Mountain View, Calif. carried out the research and development work
"We're designing a national framework for supporting business-quality
authentication," said John Yin, the engineer heading up the U.S. Card-
related research for NASA Ames' advanced networking applications
group. "This is not specifically with just the Postal Service. We'll be
offering services to other agencies and to third-party commercial
companies that want to build other services on the card." For example,
VISA or American Express could link their credit services to the U.S. Card.
Yin, who works on Defense Messaging Systems applications, said his
group has collaborated with "elements of Department of Defense" for
the past year, but would not confirm the participation of the National
Security Agency, a Department of Defense agency. The NSA is
specifically prohibited from creating public encryption systems by the
Computer Security Act of 1987. Yin also would not comment on the
budget for the project, which other sources said was quite large and
has spanned more than two years.
A false sense of security? According to Yin, the cards would allow
individuals or businesses to choose any encryption technology. "It's not
our approach to say, 'Here's the standard, take it our leave it,'" he
"We're not trying to create a monopoly, rather it's an infrastructure for
interoperability on which a whole variety of services can be built." Yet,
NASA, which is a participant in the CommerceNet electric marketplace
consortium will "suggest" to its partners that
they adopt the U.S. Card certification infrastructure, he said.
The reality is that government agencies' buying power usually drives
the market to adopt a particular technology -- not unlike the way the
Texas Board of Education, the largest single purchaser of textbooks in
the U.S., sets the standard for the content of American classroom
curricula. Since, the administration has already mandated use of
Clipper and its data-oriented sibling, the Tesserae chip, in federal
systems it's fairly certain that the law enforcement-endorsed chips will
find their way into most, if not all, U.S. Cards. Even in the unlikely
event that one government agency should weather the pressure and
pass on the Clipper chip, it's still possible to trace the source,
destination, duration and time of transactions conducted between
Clippered and non-Clippered devices.
executive order at the initiative of bureaucracy, and without any
Congressional oversight or Congressional concurrence, " Murray said.
"They are not likely to fail. You know, Orwell said that bureaucrats,
simply doing what bureaucrats do, without motivation or intent, will
use technology to enslave the people."
EDITOR'S NOTE: Digital Media has filed a Freedom of Information Act
request for Clinton and Bush Administration, Postal Service, NSA,
Department of Defense, NASA, I.R.S. and other documents related to
the creation of the U.S. Card proposal.
-- Mitch Ratcliffe
Copyright 1994 by Mitch Ratcliffe and Seybold Publications.
Editor in Chief
Digital Media: A Seybold Report
444 De Haro St., Ste. 128
San Francisco, Calif. 94107
Subject: DOJ Clipper Documents Scheduled for Summer Release Under FOIA
From: Lee Tien <t...@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 08:00:28 -0700
As you know, there has been much debate about the Clipper Chip
initiative, but relatively little hard information. John Gilmore,
member of the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, filed FOIA requests to numerous government
agencies last April after the Clipper plan was announced. In
June 1993, he filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department
("DOJ") and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI").
Gilmore v. FBI, et al, C-93-2117, U.S. District Judge Charles
Legge, Northern District of California.
As a result of this lawsuit, the Justice Department has agreed to a
staggered release of some documents about Clipper and Digital
Telephony. The Justice Department and Gilmore signed a joint
stipulation and agreement on Friday, April 29, 1994, in which the
Justice Department and several other federal agencies agreed to
release documents over the next several months:
a) DOJ's Office of Information and Privacy ("OIP") will
transmit all documents recovered in its search for responsive
documents that it has identified as requiring referrals or
consultations to the appropriate agencies or DOJ components by
May 31, 1994. OIP will complete processing of all documents that
it has identified as not requiring referrals or consultations to
other agencies or DOJ components by June 20, 1994.
b) DOJ's Justice Management Division ("JMD") will
complete processing of all documents recovered in its search for
responsive documents, excluding documents which have been
referred for processing to other agencies, by July 30, 1994.
c) The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") will
respond to all DOJ consultation requests which OMB had received
as of April 20, 1994 by May 20, 1994.
d) The National Security Agency ("NSA") will respond to
all DOJ consultation requests which it had received as of April
20, 1994 by July 18, 1994. NSA will complete processing of all
documents which had been referred to it by DOJ as of April 20,
1994 for direct response to plaintiff by July 18, 1994.
e) The National Security Council ("NSC") will respond to
all DOJ consultation requests which NBC had received as of April
20, 1994 by July 29, 1994.
f) The Department of Commerce and National Institute of
Standards and Technology (collectively "Commerce") will respond
to all DOJ consultation requests which Commerce had received as
of April 20, 1994 by August 7, 1994. Commerce will complete
processing of all documents which had been referred to it by DOJ
as of April 20, 1994 for direct response to plaintiff by August
The documents being processed by the NSC include the Presidential Review
Directive and Presidential Decision Directive which started the Clipper
initiative. We have been informed that NSC is processing the two
final versions as well as 68 draft versions.
We have also been informed that documents produced in the course
of the OMB legislative clearance process for the Digital Telephony
Bill are being processed. This should provide insight into how the
government decided to proceed with this bill.
We have also been informed that there are approximately 25
documents produced in the course of the government's solicitation
of industry views on Clipper.
Obviously, we do not know how much useful information will be
released. It is probable that the documents will be heavily redacted.
Given the recent directives from the President and the Attorney General
that all possible discretionary disclosures of information should be made,
we hope, optimistically, that these disclosures will prove illuminating.
Unfortunately, the FBI is not a party to this agreement. We are in
the process of attempting to obtain the release of about 3000 pages
of FBI records. FBI has told the Court that it will be approximately
2 years and 8 months before it will even begin processing Gilmore's
request, and that actual processing will take about a year, if not more.
We believe that this delay is unlawful and cannot be countenanced.
The FBI offered to complete its processing a year from when we sign an
agreement; we believe they should process these documents in a maximum
of six months (which would be a year and a half from our original FOIA
request). Note that this processing time only includes their initial
response to us; they will undoubtedly withhold many documents and
parts of documents which we will contest the withholding of. This
will take additional time, probably years. Because we and the FBI
have been unable to agree, we have presented this controversy to the
Court, and Judge Legge will decide what deadlines to impose on the
The agreement mentioned above does not include NSA except to the
extent that NSA is reviewing documents submitted to it by the
Department of Justice. We also filed a FOIA request with NSA for all
of its documents on Clipper, and have received no response after a
year. We have an existing lawsuit against NSA's pattern and practice
of delay in responding to FOIA requests. Depending on how that suit
develops, we will take some kind of legal action to force them to
Lee Tien (Attorney for John Gilmore) and John Gilmore
PLEASE REDISTRIBUTE IF YOU LIKE.
UPDATE - Gilmore & Tien have appealed govt. lack of response.
From: g...@toad.com (John Gilmore)
Date: 6 May 94 00:23:21 GMT
Neither the Treasury Dept. nor the Commerce Dept. has responded
further to our FOIA requests regarding the Clipper key database. Both
agencies requested that we extend their time limits, and we did so;
neither has responded within the new deadline of their choice. We
have been in telephone contact with the agencies and just sent out
formal appeal letters this week.
Both agencies have gone way beyond the 10-day deadline (20 days if
consultation with other agencies is needed) written into the Freedom
of Information Act. As we all remember Tax Day, April 15th, let's
also remember how the IRS penalizes us when *we* don't meet *their*
deadlines -- and how much of a double standard the government holds
with regard to its own timeliness.
By law, these government agencies have 20 working days to process our
new appeal. Appeals are sometimes handled by more competent people
than ordinary FOIA requests, but adherence to time limits is not
particularly common in appeals either.
The next step twenty days after the appeal is to sue the government in
Federal District Court for release of the records. As you might
expect, this is also a lengthy process. In the two FOIA suits I now
have in progress (against NSA and DoJ/FBI), the government has used
every procedural trick in the book to delay the progress of the
lawsuits, so that they can defer becoming accountable to the public as
long as possible.
[Copies of our two appeal letters are available from EFF. See below for
There is a bill pending in Congress, S. 1782 by Sen. Leahy, Brown, and
Kerry, that would provide penalties of up to $75/day against agencies
that withhold information after the FOIA time limits, as well as
paying the requester's attorney's fees and reasonable costs. It also
provides that a requester will be given electronic records in their
choice of machine-readable format if the records in that format can be
made with "reasonable effort" (e.g. putting a tape in the tape drive).
It makes other small improvements in the FOIA. Please ask your
Senator or Representative to co-sponsor the "Electronic Freedom of
Information Improvement Act of 1993". You can see its summary and
current status by doing `telnet locis.loc.gov', then picking Federal
Legislation, Current Congress, "retrieve S. 1782", and "display item 1
Please disseminate this information to all interested parties.
Copies of the 2 appeal letters sent by Tien & Gilmore are available at:
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legal/Gilmore_v_NSA, clipper_foia_appeal.letters
and at the EFF BBS, Outpost - EFF Online, +1 202 638 6120
Subject: New Faces on EFF Board and Staff
Over the last few months, EFF has gained several new staffmembers, and 2
additional boardmembers. We're very glad to have them with us, and feel
the are the best and the brightest. We'd like to introduce them to you.
* Denise Caruso, EFF Boardmember <dcar...@well.sf.ca.us>
Editorial Director of Information Services
Technology & Media Group, Inc.
Denise Caruso is one of the leading analysts and observers of the emerging
industry of digital convergence. She is the editorial director of the
Technology & Media Group, Inc. Technology and Media is a subsidiary of Friday
Holdings, L.P., a new venture founded in May 1993 to create, acquire and invest
in media properties. Friday Holdings was founded by Norman Pearlstine, former
executive editor of the Wall Street Journal along with limited partners
Paramount Communications, Inc., QVC Holdings, Inc., and Rainwater Media
Partners. As editorial director, Caruso is developing a variety of information
products, both print and electronic, that focus on the convergence of digital
technology with traditional forms of communication, information and
Before joining Technology & Media, Caruso was the founding editor of Digital
Media, a widely acclaimed newsletter published by Seybold Publications, a
division of Ziff-Davis. Prior to her work at Digital Media, Caruso was a
weekly technology columnist for the San Francisco Examiner and a contributor to
the San Jose Mercury News on a wide range of technology subjects. In addition,
Caruso has held editorial positions at a variety of trade publications,
including the West Coast bureau of Electronics and Infoworld magazines.
Caruso serves on the board of directors of the electronic Frontier Foundation.
Caruso holds a BA in English from California Polytechnic State University in
San Luis Obispo, Calif.
* Jane Metcalfe, EFF Boardmember <j...@wired.com>
President and Co-founder, WIRED Magazine
Ms. Metcalfe and her partner, Louis Rossetto, began planning for WIRED in
January 1991 and eventually moved from Amsterdam to San Francisco to launch
the title. The first issue was released at Macworld and the Consumer
Electronics Show in January 1993.
Prior to forming WIRED, Metcalfe worked at Electric Word magazine, an
Amsterdam-based cult magazine covering such leading edge technologies as
machine translation, optical character recognition and speech recognition. She
started there as Director of Advertising Sales, moved to Director of Marketing
when circulation campaigns began, and eventually became Associate Publisher.
In 1987, Metcalfe was Director of Export Sales at the Paris-based fashion house
Valentine Palomba, where she was responsible for the marketing and sales of
women's apparel, footware and perfume to non-French markets. She introduced
computers to her firm for accounting and catalog production.
At her first job out of college, she was charged with co-developing a
multi-currency accounting system for a Wang mini-computer, and was
instrumental in setting up an asynchronous telecommunications link between
Paris, Geneva and Washington, D.C. in 1984.
Metcalfe graduated with honors from the University of Colorado with a degree in
International Affairs. She was elected to the Board of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation in January, 1994.
* Mary Beth Arnett, EFF Staff Counsel <m...@eff.org>
As Staff Counsel, Mary Beth Arnett analyzes legislative proposals and
regulatory proceedings on telecommunications infrastructure modernization.
Before joining the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Ms. Arnett was an
attorney for four years at a national law and policy research institute,
where she published an extensive critique of two federal information
disclosure programs involving community and workplace right-to-know laws.
She evaluated how market forces, enforcement practices, and constitutional
and statutory doctrines affect the Jeffersonian ideal of empowering
citizens through information provision. Ms. Arnett served for six years as
a public member of a state licensing and regulatory board, where she
chaired an administrative rulemaking committee and testified before
Ms. Arnett received her B.A. and J.D. from the University of Wisconsin.
During law school, she served as Senior Managing Editor of the Wisconsin
Law Review and was a judicial intern in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
* Janlori Goldman, EFF/ACLU Privacy & Technology Project Dir. <j...@eff.org>
Ms. Goldman will be coordinating EFF's Privacy & Technology Project, a way
for EFF to develop it's own advocacy positions while also exploring
information privacy isses with industry and other public interest
organizations. Goldman will lead an effort to develop technolgical and
legal means to increase individual control over personal information held
by commerical and governmental parties, and will focus on a wide range of
increasingly important topics, such as national federal ID card schemes,
and the privacy of health care records.
Goldman directed a previous Project on Privacy & Technology for the
American Civil Liberties Union, which tackled caller ID, access to credit
records, the FBI's National Crime Information Center, genetic
fingerprinting and other modern privacy issues. She began her work for
ACLU in 1984 at the Minneapolis chapter as a trial attorney, but relocated
to Washington to work on privacy concerns, attending conferences, giving
Congressional testimony, and analyzing legislation, as ACLU's only
full-time privacy attorney. Prior to ACLU, Goldman was employed as a
social worker helping Russian immigrants, and later as an attorney
representing Vietnam veterans in Agent Orange cases.
Goldman graduated in 1979 from Macalester College in St. Paul, and then
attended Hofstra University Law School, graduating in 1984, an appropriate
year for one of the best known privacy attorneys in America.
* Jonah Seiger, EFF Project Coordinator <jsei...@eff.org>
Mr. Seiger will be responsible for coordinating EFF's policy working groups
and for providing research and administrative support to our policy staff.
He will also serve as an information collection and dissemination point for
all of EFF's public policy activities.
A native of Palo Alto California, Jonah graduated cum laude last May from
the University of Michigan with a degree in Psychology and Studies in
Religion. He joins EFF after serving as a legislative intern for the
House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, chaired by Rep.
Edward Markey (D-MA).
In addition to his interest in communications policy, Jonah enjoys
cooking, reading, and music (he is an avid guitar player). Please feel
free to call on Jonah with questions regarding EFF's public policy working
[The complete EFF Board/Staff/Volunteer List is available as ftp.eff.org,
Subject: Note About EFFector - Are You Moving?
Since a change of season is upon us, many people will be moving, going on
vacation, dismantling their machines for that spring upgrade, and so forth.
If you'll be off the net for a while or moving, or your mail will otherwise
be bouncing, please unsubscribe yourself from the EFFector mailing list if
you receive EFFector by email. You can do this by sending a message to
lists...@eff.org, with a body of
Subject line is ignored. To subscribe or re-subscribe to the
list, send a similar message but containing
You do not need to put your name or email address in these commands.
You can find about how our listserver works and get descriptions of our
mailing lists by sending the following message to lists...@eff.org:
Thank you, and have a great spring and summer, where ever you'll be!
Subject: What YOU Can Do
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when
the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally
alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The
greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal,
well-meaning but without understanding."
- Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, _Olmstead_v._United States_,
277 U.S. 479 (1928)
You've been following the newspapers and reading EFFector Online.
You know that today there are several battles being fought over the future
of personal privacy. The Clipper chip, export restrictions, the Digital
Telephony proposal - the arguments are numerous and complex, but the
principles are clear. Who will decide how much privacy is "enough"?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation believes that individuals should be
able to ensure the privacy of their personal communications through any
technological means they choose. However, the government's current
restrictions on the export of encrytion software have stifled the
development and commercial availability of strong encryption in the U.S.
Rep. Maria Cantwell has introduced a bill (H.R. 3627) in the House that
would liberalize export controls on software that contains encryption, but
needs vocal support if the bill is to make it out of the committee stage.
The decisions that are made today will affect our futures indefinitely.
EFF is a respected voice for the rights of users of online technologies
and EFF members receive regular online updates on the issues that affect
our online communications and particpate in shaping the future.
Now, more than ever, EFF is working to make sure that you are the one that
makes these decisions for yourself. Our members are making themselves heard
on the whole range of issues. To date, EFF has collected over 4800 letters
of support for Rep. Cantwell's bill to liberalize restrictions on
cryptography. We also have over 1400 letters supporting Sen. Leahy's
open hearings on the proposed Clipper encryption scheme, scheduled for
April 27, 1994.
If you'd like to add your voice in support of the Cantwell bill, send
email to cantw...@eff.org, Subject: I support HR 3627
Your letters will be printed out and hand delivered to Rep. Cantwell by EFF.
You KNOW privacy is important. You have probably participated in our online
campaigns. Have you become a member of EFF yet? The best way to protect
your online rights is to be fully informed and to make your opinions heard.
EFF members are informed and are making a difference. Join EFF today!
Why You Should Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Every day decisions are being made that will affect your life online.
Decisions about what sorts of technology you can use to protect the privacy
of your communications. Decisions about what services you will be able to
get over the emerging national information infrastructure. Decisions that
are made before you even know that there are choices.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been working since July 1990 to
ensure that the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights are applied to new communications technologies. Our members join
EFF to make sure that they are informed about the issues and debates that
will shape the future of electronic communications. EFF members enjoy the
* subscription to our quarterly hard copy newsletter Networks & Policy;
* subscription to our biweekly electronic newsletter EFFector Online;
* online bulletins that will keep you informed about the key legal,
legislative and policy developments affecting your online communications;
* an online response mechanism to make themselves heard on key issues.
EFF is a respected voice for the rights of users of online technologies.
We feel that the best way to protect your online rights is to be fully
informed and to make your opinions heard. EFF members are informed, and
are making a difference. Join EFF today!
-------- 8< ------- cut here ------- 8< --------
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
Print out in monospaced (non-proportional) font and mail or fax to:
Membership Coordinator - members...@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, NW, Suite 950 East, Washington, DC 20001
+1 202 347 5400 (voice) +1 202 393 5509 (fax) +1 202 638 6120 (BBS)
Internet fax gate: remote-printer....@18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.0.2.1.tpc.int
Or upload to the BBS, or our Internet ftp site: ftp.eff.org, /incoming
SIGN ME UP!
I wish to become a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I enclose:
___ Regular membership -- $40
___ Student membership -- $20
___ SysOp membership -- $10*
* SysOp members are required to bring in 10 new members to renew at the
SysOp membership rate (otherwise normal rates apply). Send queries to
members...@eff.org for more info.
I wish to make an additional tax-deductible donation in the amount of
$__________ to further support the activities of EFF and to broaden
participation in the organization.
___ Enclosed is a check or money order payable to
the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
___ Please charge my:
___ MasterCard ___ Visa ___ American Express
Card Number: _____________________________________________
Expiration Date: _________________________________________
NOTE: We do not recommend sending credit card information
via electronic mail, unless it is encrypted! See end for
EFF's PGP encryption public key.
YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION:
E-mail addresses: ______________________________________________
Phone: _____________________ FAX: ___________________________
**** SYSOP MEMBERSHIP SECTION ***********************************
* Ph.: ____________________ Modem Type: ___________________ *
* ____________________ _______________________________ *
* ____________________ _______________________________ *
* BBS Info: BBS Name: ________________________________________ *
* SysOps:___________________________________________ *
* Voice/Support Phone: _____________________________ *
* Network Addresses: _______________________________ *
* _______________________________ *
* BBS Notes: (OS, modem types/speeds, Internet connectivity, *
* access requirements, hours, fees, software, focus *
* or special interests, unique features, etc.) *
* ___________________________________________________ *
* ___________________________________________________ *
* ___________________________________________________ *
* EFF will maintain a publicly available list of BBSs and *
* similar services that support the efforts of the Electronic *
* Frontier Foundation. Members with BBSs who support EFF at *
* the Regular or Student rates can be listed as well. *
* Include my BBS in the EFF Member BBS Directory _______ *
___ Electronic: Please contact me via the Internet address listed above.
I would like to receive the following at that address:
___ EFFector Online - EFF's biweekly electronic newsletter
(back issues available from ftp.eff.org,
___ Online Bulletins - bulletins on key developments
affecting online communications.
NOTE: Traffic may be high. You may wish to browse these
publications in the Usenet newsgroup comp.org.eff.news (also
available in FidoNet, as EFF-NEWS).
___ Paper: Please contact EFF through the US Mail at the street
address listed above.
NOTE: Paper documents available upon request.
"Networks & Policy" Newsletter automatically sent via US Mail.
EFF occasionally shares our mailing list with other organizations promoting
similar goals. However, we respect an individual's right to privacy and
will not distribute your name without explicit permission.
___ I grant permission for the EFF to distribute my name and contact
information to organizations sharing similar goals.
[This form came from EFFector Online - please leave this line on the form!
If you found it elsewhere, please tell us where so we see how far it goes.]
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization
supported by contributions from individual members, corporations and
private foundations. Donations are tax-deductible.
-------- 8< ------- cut here ------- 8< --------
EFF PGP Public Key for Encryption
This is the ASCII-armored PGP 2.4 public key for the Electronic Frontier
Note that mail sent with this key will be considered addressed to EFF in
general, not to a specific person, unless otherwise noted. To send
personal information to someone at EFF, for whatever reason, please use
that person's own key, or arrange some other method of communication.
This key is provided principally for the sending of sensitive legal
information, and the transmission of credit card numbers over the net
securely when becoming a member of EFF. It takes us time and effort to
decrypt, so please don't use this key trivially. Thank you.
To add this key to your public key ring, do:
pgp -ka pgpkey.eff pubring.pgp
If your public key ring has another name, use that instead of pubring.pgp.
For MacPGP, click on Key | Add Key, select pgpkey.eff as file to get key from,
and pubring.pgp (or whatever your pubring is) for file to add key to.
To encrypt a message, please see the PGP documentation, and remember that you
will almost certainly need to generate the result as an ASCII-armored file,
so you can email it (non-ASCII-armored PGP ciphertexts are binary, and will
get mangled if you try to email them.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
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
BBS: +1 202 638 6120 (300-14400bps V.32bis, 24hr.)
Internet Address: e...@eff.org or a...@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by:
Stanton McCandlish, Online Activist/SysOp/Archivist <m...@eff.org>
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed
articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce
signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express
To subscribe to EFFector via email, send message body of "subscribe
effector-online" (no quotes) to listse...@eff.org, which will add you a
subscription to the EFFector mailing list.
Internet Contact Addresses
Membership & donations: members...@eff.org
Legal services: sste...@eff.org
Hardcopy publications: p...@eff.org
Technical questions/problems, access to mailing lists: e...@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: a...@eff.org
End of EFFector Online v07 #08
Stanton McCandlish * m...@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
F O R M O R E I N F O, E - M A I L T O: I N F O @ E F F . O R G
O P E N P L A T F O R M O N L I N E R I G H T S
V I R T U A L C U L T U R E C R Y P T O
USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.
SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM
March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference,
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services
business. See SCO vs IBM.
The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
Electronic mail: WorldWideWeb: