From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.41 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:01:50 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 41


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.41

Topics:

   1-4    discuss the prohibition of the alt.sex.binaries newsgroup at Simon
               Fraser University
   5-6    consider various issues related to alt.binaries.pictures and
               whether passing "illegal materials" through it is good reason
               for shutting the newsgroup down
   7      replies to a statement alleging "computer porn" at the University
               of British Columbia
   8      reviews an Electronic Frontier Foundation forum regarding the
               future of NSFNet, the Internet's backbone


Abstract:

[Week ending August 23, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================

  [We desperately need new guest (or regular) editors, for information
   send email to kadie@eff.org.  - Carl]

Notes 1-4 discuss the prohibition of the alt.sex.binaries newsgroup
at Simon Fraser University.

1.  Simon Fraser's director of academic computer services is quoted
as saying, "It's the same as if somebody wants Playboy or
Penthouse.  We don't have them in the university library." When a
student notes that _Playboy_ *is* in the SFU library, another
poster replies: "The material that caused the problems in a.s.b are
hardly things that would be found in either magazine."
	<3726@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>

2.  Even so, "Students at state schools in the U.S. cannot legally
be punished for publishing material that is merely potentially
harmful."
	<1992Aug19.200347.7215@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

3.  A recitation from the Canadian constitution (where Simon Fraser
is located): "Everyone has the following freedoms:" which includes
"freedom of thought,belief,opinion and expression,including
freedom of the press and other media of communication".
	<pockling.714250039@sfu.ca>

4.  To the rebuttal that Canada's legislature regularly bans
materials anyway, this reply: "The final arbiter is *still* the
Supreme Court of Canada - the constitution and charter of rights is
still the law of the land.[...] If a legislature passes such laws,
they are still subject to the Supreme Court striking down such laws
if they're too broad, or completely unreasonable. The situation is
no different than the US."
	<3742@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>

Notes 5-6 consider various issues related to alt.binaries.pictures and
whether passing "illegal materials" through it is good reason for 
shutting the newsgroup down.

5.  "And to answer the question, alt.binaries.pictures.* accounts
for around 10% of of my total incoming news (in size, not in number
of articles, obviously). It takes up about 5% of my newsspool since
I expire it faster than everything else."
	<Bt88r4.Kx4@mtholyoke.edu>

6.  "The person who used to keep the FAQ on alt.sex.pictures (I think his name
was Brian Reid) said that he once sent letters to Playboy, Penthouse and
Hustler asking them about thier feelings and intentions about things like
a.s.p. [...] The response, as far as I understand it was that if he became
moderator, they might consider sueing to stop a.s.p."
	<1992Aug19.123528.10045@nntp.nta.no>

Note 7 replies to a statement alleging "computer porn" at the University
of British Columbia.

7.  "I read recently in UBC Reports that the UBC President has 'asked all UBC 
units to ensure that university property is not being used to gain access to,
create, or store (such) pornographic material on university computing 
equipment'. I am disturbed by the possibilities in this. [...] Given operator
privileges, it would be easy to write programs that  would scan users files
and mailboxes for keywords, according to some  particular scheme of sexual or
political censorship."
	<21AUG199215492898@reg.triumf.ca>

Note 8 reviews an Electronic Frontier Foundation forum regarding the
future of NSFNet, the Internet's backbone.

8.  "Two major themes emerged from the nearly six hours of discussion
[...]  First, there has been substantial lack of shared understanding
about some of the draft's key elements," namely many unexplained
technical terms and concepts of the new NSFNet.  Second, regarding the
bidding process to determine the vendor that will support NSFNet for
the next few years, "the draft has no guidelines to suggest how bids
will be evaluated," nor is there one word about NSFNet's relationship
to the next-generation federal National Research and Education
Network, which is eventually expected to displace it.  "The draft also
fails to illuminate how the NSF determines when a technology is no
longer 'experimental' and can be provided commercially without further
government funding."
	<1992Aug19.150341.18832@eff.org>

- Aaron Barnhart]


Contents:

Chris Lewis      23  >"Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Carl M. Kadie    36  >
r pocklington    38  >
Chris Lewis      46  >
Jurgen Botz      17  >Groups used to distribute illegal material
                 69  >copyright == illegal ????
A.Daviel         43  Searching for computer porn at UBC
Rita M Rouvalis 250  EFFector Online 3.2 -- Future of NSFNet


Computers and Academic Freedom News:

Managing Editor:  Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Administration:   William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu)
Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu)
Associate Editor: Mark C. Sheehan (sheehan@unixpop.ucs.indiana.edu)
Associate Editor: John F. Nixon (fnixon@sol.utc.edu)
Associate Editor: Aaron Barnhart (barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com)
Archivist:        J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org)

To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.

Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org. The
directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom README

Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.

The addresses for the list are:
	comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org     - for contributions to the list
		or	caf-talk@eff.org
	listserv@eff.org    - for automated additions/deletions
                (send email with the line "help" for details.)
	caf-talk-request@eff.org    - for administrivia

        Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
        and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------            

------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Aug 17 03:04:56 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Article 1--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:12:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.152104.3300@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>What infuriates me is the double standard.

>For example, in the _Globe and Mail_ story, Lionel Tolan, Simon
>Fraser's director of academic computer services, said "It's the same
>as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse.  We don't have them in the
>university library." When in fact, _Playboy_ *is* in the SFU library.

I don't believe that there is a double standard.  The material at hand
isn't Playboy or Penthouse material.  The material that caused the problems
in a.s.b are hardly things that would be found in either magazine.

Furthermore, on a more general level, most universities have constitutions
or codes of ethics that require them to be more selective of material than
the law would necessarily require them to.  Even in the USA.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 19:06:27 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 2--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:03:47 GMT

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

[...]
>The codes of ethics of many Universities provide for disciplinary
>action against students [...] publish
>material that is potentially harmful.  (the language is often somewhat
>archaic, referring to things such as "bringing discredit to the University")

Students at state schools in the U.S. cannot legally be punished for
publishing material that is merely potentially harmful.

This university dropped it's unconstitutionally vague prohibitions
against "conduct deemed undesirable" around 1971 when the Chancellor
approved a Statement on Individual Rights.

>For example, a student can usually be expelled for such things as (after
>repeated warnings) posting signs saying "no means harder".  Over the last
>couple of months, several American examples of this sort of thing have been
>described (after the incident at Queens U).
[...]

Such actions (for example, at Syracuse University, a private
school) are the exception and not the rule.

- Carl

References

ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/regs2rights
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 19:08:53 1992
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Article 3--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:47:19 GMT


 	Just in case anyone forgot, you should remember what kind
of a "society" we live in.   The first sentence in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms says  
	"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize
	 the *supremacy of God* and the rule of law:"

How do you like them apples?

And to refresh your memories...

"33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare i an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 ..."

and section 2 says...

"2. Everyone has the following freedoms:

 (a)freedom of conscience and religion;
*(b)freedom of thought,belief,opinion and expression,includ-  
 ing freedom of the press and other media of communication;*
 (c)freedom of peaceful assembly;and
 (d)freedom of association"


Anyone want to move out?


	Richard Pocklington

				THERE ARE NO RULES IN UTOPIA

 POCKLING@SFU.CA

p.s. if I spelled something in a manner that displeases you
      TOO BAD  


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Aug 20 03:46:45 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Article 4--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:53:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.201819.20093@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A reply to an article in news.admin]

>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Canada has the very same types of laws, plus constitutional guarantees
>>of free speech too.  One difference being that the balancing act is
>>explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

>Agreed.

Then how could you say the below?

>>The other more critical difference is the level of harm necessary.
>>Canada chose the route of "reasonable person", juries, studies, and
>>simply watching the USA - a case study in almost unrestricted free
>>speech.

>Put another way, Canada inherented from Great Britain the idea that if
>a majority of the legislature says that some class of material is bad
>and should be banned, then they are assumed to be correct. 

>In other words, the legislature can ban anything.

False.  The final arbiter is *still* the Supreme Court of Canada -
the constitution and charter of rights is still the law of the land.
Legislatures can't make exceptions legal on their own.  If a
legislature passes such laws, they are still subject to the Supreme
Court striking down such laws if they're too broad, or completely
unreasonable.

The situation is no different than the US.  Where the Supreme Court
can and does permit exceptions to the constitution, even though there
are no explicit escape clauses.  One only need look at the exceptions
that have resulted in the suspensions of due process in property seizures
permitted under the anti-drug and anti-organized crime legislation,
or the violations of two contitutional clauses by the seizure
of Dr. Alvarez Machain.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:51:40 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Article 5--Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:49:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.213539.25629@utagraph.uta.edu> john@utafll.uta.edu (John Baima) writes:
>Just curious, how much disk space/band width are we talking about for
>alt.sex* as far as absolute amount and percent of the total?

alt.sex.* is not the issue here... alt.binaries.pictures.* is.  And to
answer the question, alt.binaries.pictures.* accounts for around 10% of
of my total incoming news (in size, not in number of articles, obviously).
It takes up about 5% of my newsspool since I expire it faster than everything
else.
--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 10:50:01 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Article 6--Re: copyright == illegal ????
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:35:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.220105.8510@news.columbia.edu>, Daniel Zabetakis writes:
>
> 1) the binary picture groups do not harm any publishers to any significant
> degree, and the publishers know this.

Before you can make the "no harm" statement you should be quite sure that
the "publishers know this" statement is correct. We sometimes forget the
fact that not all people have the same knowlegde about, or access to, new
technology.

>    The argument for point 1 is simple. Nobody could really support the
> position that a.b.p.e is taking away any of the income of Playboy. Even
> if Playboy won a civil suit, they would certainly not be awarded any
> damages. And this is my point, they are not being hurt.

I wouldn't know Playboy's official view or policy. However, I seriously doubt
that Playboy is the only source of copyrighted material finding its way into
the news.

You should also remember that the news network (whatever *that* is) is an
international entity. It includes commercial sites. You should observe
international copyright law as well as domestic. Someone noted that the US
was pretty late in signing the Bern Convention, but remember that prior to
signing the Bern Convention the US signed the Universal Copyright Convention
(Geneva 1955 ?).

The question we should discuss is: What is infringement of copyright on the
network? (If anything is...) I guess the main problem in interpreting the
law is technology (in other words: define the "medium"). Another problem is
determining what is "fair use". In some countries we'll have to wait for
someone to bring the problem to court before we know the answers, in other
countries the law must be ammended.

> 2) you shouldn't take something as 'wrong' (morally or legally) simply
> because someone _could_ sue you.

I agree. My question, however, is whether it is ok to do something illegal
just because it's very difficult to *prove* it was you who did it. It's
not legal to rob a bank just because you found a really smart way of doing
it, is it?

> Who knows why Playboy doesn't sue or take some action?

I don't, but a previous poster have stated that they would if they could
identify some person. (For example a newsgroup moderator.)

> I understand that if you are
> a writer, and use the word 'xerox' to mean 'photocopy' you will get a letter
> from Xerox asking you not to do that.

There's no such warning in my Oxford Dictionary, but I guess the proper
American word would be `xerograph'.  :-)

>  Maybe
> Playboy encourages distribution of porn (it's pictures included) as long
> as it doesn't get abusive. Why should you decide for them what they will
> allow?

Nice argument, but I'm not interested in Playboy or what they'll allow.
They may be large, but they cannot dictate the interpretation of inter-
national law.  :-)  However, a single photographer/writer/artist would
probably not have the resources to protect their copyrighted material.

---
Haakon Styri				*** std disclaimer applies	***
Norwegian Telecom Research


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Aug 21 19:19:04 1992
From: advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel)
Subject: Article 7--Searching for computer porn at UBC
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:49:00 GMT

I read recently in UBC Reports that the UBC President has "asked all UBC 
units to ensure that university property is not being used to gain access to, 
create, or store (such) pornographic material on university computing 
equipment".

I am disturbed by the possibilities in this. Not so much that I think it is 
OK to store 10Gbytes of sexually explicit GIF files on univerity disks (or 
10Gb of pictures of sports cars, for that matter), but that such a thing 
(ensuring ...) may be possible, at least for ASCII files.

Computer users on a big system (VMS, Unix, etc.) are prevented from reading 
each others mail by default, and may optionally protect any other files 
against unauthorised access. But they enjoy no such protection from 
privileged users, such as system managers. We rely on the personal integrity 
of privileged users, and hope that they are far too busy to have time to 
ferret around in users files.

Users could encrypt data, but I do not believe this is common practice.
Systems such as Sun that come with DES software in the USA are prevented from
doing so outside the US. 

Given operator privileges, it would be easy to write programs that 
would scan users files and mailboxes for keywords, according to some 
particular scheme of sexual or political censorship. Admittedly machine
inspection of picture and sound files would not currently be possible, if the
files were hidden in 'innocent' directories with innocuous filenames, though 
a program could produce a list of all picture files for subsequent visual
inspection. 

Regardless of the legal and technical facts (for instance, that bitnet 
mail may be logged, that store-and-forward mail may be backed up on tape, 
etc.), users have come to believe that electronic mail has the same 
confidentiality as letter mail or telephone converstions.

I believe that the possibilities for abuse of privacy are numerous, if system 
operators are effectively directed to search their systems for 'offensive 
material'.


A.Daviel, Vancouver BC


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Aug 19 12:09:55 1992
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Article 8--EFFector Online 3.2 -- Future of NSFNet
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:03:41 GMT


########## ########## ########## |    
########## ########## ########## |   
####       ####       ####       |                                   
########   ########   ########   |       THE FUTURE OF NSFNET
########   ########   ########   |    
####       ####       ####       |                   
########## ####       ####       |                                   
########## ####       ####       |                   
=====================================================================
EFFector Online             August 19, 1992                Issue  3.2
         A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation         
                           ISSN 1062-9424                            
=====================================================================


               GETTING A HANDLE ON THE FUTURE OF NSFNET
                    by Andrew Blau (blau@eff.org)

                  A Report on the July 23 Meeting 
                 of the Communications Policy Forum 
                          in Washington, D.C.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is responsible for the NSFNet. 
Originally a network created to link a handful of supercomputing 
centers serving the U.S. research and education community, NSFNet 
became the backbone of the Internet in this country, now serving 
millions of people and thousands of organizations.  Since 1987, the 
NSF has contracted with a partnership of Merit Network, Inc., IBM 
and MCI to provide and manage these "backbone network services.  
That contract will expire in November of this year.

In order to award a contract for the next phase of the NSFNet's 
growth and management, NSF staff is preparing a solicitation that 
will describe the network that the NSF wants and invite interested 
organizations to bid to become the provider of those services.  
However, before releasing the final solicitation that will be bid 
on, the NSF released a draft and asked for public comment on it. 
Comments were to be filed by August 3rd of this year.

In response to this, EFF, which administers the Communications 
Policy Forum in Washington, DC convened a roundtable on July 23 to 
bring together a wide cross-section of groups that would either be 
bidding on the new contract or would be affected by its outcome. 
Also attending the meeting were members of the NSF staff. The 
meeting itself, in order to stimulate an open exchange of views, was 
"off-the-record" in that while notes on the sense of the speakers 
were maintained, no speaker was directly quoted.

                 The Proposed New Shape of NSFNet

The Draft Solicitation describes a new architecture for the NSFNet. 
It specifies certain requirements for those who are interested in 
providing these services.  

Until now, the "backbone network services" that lie at the heart of 
the NSFNet worked as a single package. This package was a trunk for 
connecting regional or "mid-level" networks across the country. It 
was provided by an organization that also controlled access to the 
backbone and directed traffic on it.  In recent years, this 
arrangement created a sense of unfairness among competitors in the 
independent commercial sector who are eager to provide network 
services and Internet connections. 

In order to address these and other concerns, the Draft Solicitation 
proposes that the next generation will split this package into two 
distinct units. The first unit would be a "very high speed backbone" 
or "vBNS". The second unit would provide a number of "network access 
points" or "NAPs."  The entity responsible for providing the NAPs 
will also be the Routing Authority that oversees network traffic.

The draft also specifies some requirements for the new architecture. 
First the vBNS must operate at 155 mbps or higher. Second, it must 
connect to all NAPs. Third, it must provide high speed interregional 
connectivity. Fourth it must be restricted to research and education 
traffic only. Fifth, the NAPs must operate at speeds of at least 100 
mbps, may connect any number of networks to each other or the vBNS, 
and are open to any kind of traffic.  Finally, the vBNS provider and 
the NAP manager must be two different entities.

                        Reactions at the CPF

Two major themes emerged from the nearly six hours of discussion at 
the July 23rd CPF meeting.  

First, there has been substantial lack of shared understanding about 
some of the draft's key elements.  Among items mentioned were such 
basic questions as what is a NAP, what is the vBNS, how will they 
relate, are there ways of connecting to the vBNS without going 
through a NAP, how many NAPs will there be and where will they be 
located, what will it cost to connect to a NAP and how will charges 
be set?

Second, it became clear that there were many important issues about 
which the NSF remained "intentionally silent."  Most obviously, the 
draft has no guidelines to suggest how bids will be evaluated.  In 
addition, the draft is silent about how this generation of the 
NSFNet intersects with the development of the NREN. It does not 
suggest how prices for NAP attachment will be set, and when. The 
draft fails to address the procedure for starting a non-NSF 
sponsored NAP and connecting to the vBNS. The draft also fails to 
illuminate how the NSF determines when a technology is no longer 
"experimental" and can be provided commercially without further 
government funding.

Additional issues came from the various constituencies around the 
table who brought with them very different concerns.  For example, 
the research and education community appreciated that the draft 
seemed to make it easier to access commercial services through the 
Internet, yet expressed concern that the new architecture would 
disrupt the regional arrangements that allow costs to be shared.  
These cost sharing arrangements, they argue, foster more widespread 
connectivity, and disrupting them could reduce rather than increase 
the number of networked institutions.

Commercial network service providers expressed a range of opinions.  
Some supported the basic architecture, although suggested certain 
modifications, such as that the Routing Authority be separate from 
the entity that manages the NAPs.  Others argued that the draft 
continues to unfairly distort the marketplace for network services 
by subsidizing standard connections such as e-mail.

Local telephone companies, who have not previously been involved in 
the development of the NSFNet, pointed out that the NSF was 
proposing a new commercial network without taking into account the 
infrastructure and regulatory boundaries of the nation's local 
exchange telephone companies.  Since the breakup of the Bell System, 
for example, the Baby Bells cannot transport traffic across certain 
regional boundaries.  If the NSF's architecture does not put a NAP 
in every one of these regions, then these network providers are 
automatically excluded from full participation.

Following the meeting, the EFF staff prepared a summary of the major 
issues that arose during the course of the discussion and circulated 
it to all those in attendance. The EFF also submitted it to the NSF as 
a record of important concerns that the EFF believes should be 
considered in preparing the final solicitation.  In addition, the EFF 
asked the NSF to resubmit a draft solicitation for public comment 
before issuing a final version.
                       *      *      *      *      *

Want more information?

For more information about the NSFNet draft solicitation and bidding
process, contact our Washington office at eff.org.  DC staff members 
Danny Weitzner(djw@eff.org) and Andrew Blau (blau@eff.org), as well as 
Jerry Berman (jberman@eff.org), the Director of the Washington office, 
have all been working on this issue.

About the Communications Policy Forum

The Communications Policy Forum, a project administered by the EFF, 
provides consumer and public interest groups, telecommunications 
companies, computer industry groups and policy makers a common forum 
in which to discuss telecommunications issues and exchange views in 
a non-partisan setting.  The CPF also undertakes non-partisan 
research.  It is co-sponsored with the Consumer Federation of 
America and the ACLU.

                        -==--==--==-<-==--==--==-

             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 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.

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. #32
         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
             To reproduce signed articles individually,
      please contact the authors for their express permission.
=====================================================================
       This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.




-- 
Rita Marie Rouvalis              rita@eff.org 
Electronic Frontier Foundation   | 
155 Second Street                | "Stop me before I post again."
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | 




------------------------------

End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest)
************************************
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news