From: rarachel@photon.poly.edu (Arsen Ray Arachelian)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 12:10:59 PST
To: anavarro@pipeline.com
Subject: Censorship In Cyberspace 6/6
Message-ID: <9411302013.AA01065@photon.poly.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text




          MODERATOR:  I think first I'm going to give the membeQ
of the panel the opportunity to ask any questions that they want of
each other.  Does anybody have a question for another panelist? 
Okay.  Well, then, the floor is open for questions.  Yes.
          Q:   Miss Lafontaine, your student editor, Kristin, why
didn't she tell the teacher in Palestine to (inaudible)?  I mean
the children were the ones that submitted the material.  Their free
expressions had already gone out.  What did she care what they
said?
          LAFONTAINE:  Because it took her about a year to be able
to get a contact in the Palestinian schools.  See, that's one thing
that we don't understand.  In a school to get even a modem in and
then to get a network and to get $100 maybe a year to do this is
miraculous, and then to find the contacts for partner schools is
even more miraculous.  And this school has been working on this for
five years.
          Q:   Didn't they cut their nose off to spite their face? 
Cut themselves off from (inaudible)?
          LAFONTAINE:  Yeah, I think that this particular person,
the teacher in the Palestinian occupied territories, would have
said, "That's it.  We're not communicating anymore."  And, you
know, it was really her vision to get some communication.
          MODERATOR:  Yes.
          Q:   Mr. Corn-Revere, with respect to the problems that
Mr. Zimmermann was raising just now with respect to the Clipper
Chip, I wonder if there isn't some way to find this legislation
unconstitutional, as burdening the rights to interstate commerce or
the right to travel?
          CORN-REVERE:  Not really, because it's an extension of a
legal structure that's existed for some time.  It's quite right in
talking about the problem of wiretapping being one as old as tele-
phones, and the Supreme Court really first addressed it in 1928 and
at the time the only Justice who really understood what was going
on was Louis Brandeis, who basically said it's not going to stop
with wiretapping.  Some day the government may develop even more
advanced technological means of rifling through drawers, obtaining
access to peoples' papers without having to go inside their homes,
which is exactly what we're talking about.  
          But in terms of the Constitutionality, at the time the
Court said that wiretapping isn't a search in violation of the
Fourth Amendment because there's no physical intrusion.  They
reversed themselves in 1967, but as with all or most Constitutional
rights, or particularly Fourth Amendment rights, because it says
you can't do an unreasonable search without getting a warrant, you
really just need a legal structure that defines when you need to
get a warrant.  The latest Wiretap Bill extends that into newer
technologies, but again it does require the cooperation of the
phone companies.  It requires them to be wiretap ready.  The condi-
tions for getting a warrant, which is what the Constitution speaks
to, are the same.
          Q:   But what I'm wondering is if requiring that techno-
logy, that the actual product be structured in a certain way or
include a certain feature, I wonder if that wouldn't even infringe
individuals' right to contract, to have a certain kind of, to not
be able to buy a certain kind of product.  I don't want this
product in my phone.  It seems like the government is entering into
some kind of monopoly with the phone company.  So I'm wondering if
it's possible --
          CORN-REVERE:  They've been doing that for some time.
          Q:   -- to come at this from something other than just a
Fourth Amendment and First Amendment perspective.
          CORN-REVERE:  Yeah.  I understand the point.  I don't
know that there's a Constitutional right to buy a particular kind
of product.  But a good first step would be for people to under-
stand exactly what's going on with this legislation.  I think, you
know, what Phil Zimmermann was talking about is the best first
step, for people to really understand the implications of this,
because I think they're truly frightening.
          Q:   I agree with the distaste for the Information
Superhighway metaphor.  I was wondering if any of you had ideas
about a better metaphor, because --
          VAN DER LEUN:  I'd like to just kill all these metaphors
now.  The whole medium is in the throes of these metaphors, and
then people take them generally in a much more concrete way and we
have just endless tedious discussions talking about what the
metaphors mean, what they don't mean.  
          I was thinking about this this morning.  There's a
problem -- occasionally The Well, my own system, has these global
problems that all the users get involved in, and one is currently
going on, and I'm just watching everybody stumble over all the
metaphors that we've sort of pulled up over the years to discuss
what we do there, and I felt myself yearning for people just to
sweep these metaphors away and just actually look at the actual
medium, which is sort of characters on a blue screen, almost down
on that level, to try and become fresh again.  I know, as you say,
the dissatisfaction, especially for the Information Superhighway,
is basically because this is the year in which every mind open to
the media is going to be paved over by this concept.  And it's just
tedious.  It's like blather and spew.  
          CORN-REVERE:  But I'm not talking about just words in a
literary vein.  Lawyers deal in concepts, usually not very well,
but also in terms of very broad concepts, in broad generalities,
and metaphors are important in abstract reasoning process.  And so
when you're describing what is possible under the law the metaphors
you use are very important, which is what happened in broadcasting.
          VAN DER LEUN:  Legal fictions.
          CORN-REVERE:  Yeah, legal fictions.  They deal with legal
fictions all the time and give them definitions, and to the extent
that it gets pigeonholed, whatever "it" is, by these legal
constructs and descriptions and metaphors that it limits what's
possible legally to do then.  Now I agree that ultimately tech-
nology wins.  But government can slow it down.
          Q:  The problem is that that metaphor has inhabited the
space of the discussion, so that, you know, Al Gore or whoever, you
know, appeals to it and it catches in peoples' minds until you
displace it with another and better metaphor, which would be a very
creative thing to describe.  I was wondering if in the history of
this kind of technology whether you could look at how other meta-
phors have been used to describe printing or film --
          VAN DER LEUN:  I think it's very difficult right now
because at the same time we have this metaphor about the
Information Superhighway that is displayed around and everyone's
tired of you have to realize that that arises out of a sort of
shared mental substrate that we're all consciously or not in right
now, which has to do with the tendency to describe everything
that's going on in the world in sort of terms of the computer, much
in the way that the universe used to be discussed as a large clock. 
Now the universe is a large sort of computer with lots of disks,
and God has RAM as big as all outdoors.  So that metaphor exists
within this sort of larger substrate.  This is how -- it's the
dominant -- the computer itself is immensely sort of loaded with
metaphoric possibilities and possibilities for analogy, so I don't
see this being done away with any time soon because something else
will just --
          Q:   The thought just occurs to me hearing you speak,
something like Minsky's notion of society.  It would be much harder
for people to agree with the Al Gore (Inaudible; overlap)
          MODERATOR:  This is now becoming sort of a very interest-
ing conversation,ut perhaps a conversation that might be carried
on at the wine and cheese party.  Did you have a question?
          Q:   Yes.  I saw a conflict emerging between the optimism
of Mr. Van Der Leun's the technology is going to beat efforts to
suppress and Mr. Zimmermann's conversations about all the ways that
the government can suppress it by using technology to encrypt, to,
as you say, to put in our computers what's the equivalent of the
voltage system.  I was wondering if somehow you could discuss it or
resolve it or expand on this.  Between the two of you, which --
          ZIMMERMANN:  I'd like to say something about that.  I run
into people all the time who say that the war is over.  It's just
a matter of mopping up now.  I don't think it is.  The government
can pass laws against things and put people in jail, and Louis
Fried's comments indicate that if he tries to press for legislative
relief they could pass it, like they passed the FBI Wiretapping. 
What happened there, I mean a friend of mine who was active in the
Nuclear Freeze said, "You know, you guys are totally unorganized. 
How could you possibly let something as big as the FBI Wiretap Bill
just said right on past?  Where were all the letters to the
Congressmen?  Where were all the phone calls?  Congress didn't hear
a peep out of anybody about this.  How did this happen?"  
          If we're asleep at the switch while we all talk to each
other in our little tiny private news groups, you know, with our
little inbred little circles of friends, we're not going to affect
Congressional policy, Congressional laws, legislative activity. 
What happens the next time when they pass a law outlawing other
kinds of cryptography except for escrowed (ph) encryption systems? 
That could happen.  The ship of state has a very large turning
radius.  We're going to have to start trying to turn this super-
tanker right now.  It may take years before they pass legislation
outlawing other kinds of cryptography.  I don't know.  Certainly
it's going to be at least a year, but it could be five years.  But
we have to start now.  We have to really start pressing and not
just talk amongst ourselves in InterNet news groups.
          VAN DER LEUN:  Of course I was around with the EFF for a
lot of this thing, but I certainly disagree with the need for
constantly being citizen active.  Where was everyone?  Well, like
I said, I think the EFF became sort of a luncheon lobby.  It
basically lost the grassroots support when it made certain policy
turns a while back.  I mean I was sort of shocked to hear -- did
Barlow really tell you that he could have changed the vote of a
Senator but he didn't because that law was best they could get?  I
mean that can't --
          ZIMMERMANN:  No, he didn't tell me that.  Steve Levy told
me that.  I think he read it on the Net, so --
          VAN DER LEUN:  If that's true (Inaudible) -- you know, I
mean there was a -- not that EFF is particularly powerful about
this, but it was for a while until they started going in another
direction.  We certainly have to deal with this but I think, you
know, everybody talks from what I like to call the illusion of
central position and I think that obviously we're going to go
forward and do what we can to resist government moves on this point
but I don't think the rest of the Net is going to slow down.  I
mean without the Net would there be a Zimmermann?  Would there be
a Net in the future without a Zimmermann?  You know I think the two
are almost symbiotic, or probably will turn out to be in the
future.  Tools, not rules, and -- but that doesn't mean we quit
trying to shape the rules.  You know, I think the other thing is
it's just a big blip on most Americans' horizons.  
          CORN-REVERE:  That's the problem.
          VAN DER LEUN:  Well, but maybe that is not something
we're going to do by just waving our modem and saying it's
important.
          CORN-REVERE:  True, but that's what you have groups like
EFF for ideally.  Unfortunately, being based in Washington you tend
to get absorbed into the atmosphere, the environment of Washington. 
If you want to be a player you go for the best you can get, which
is what happens to lobbying groups all the time.  They figure if
they want anyone to listen to them they'll make the compromises
that they need to make.  
          The problem is politically that on the Hill who's going
to say no to the FBI?  People don't vote against FBI-backed
measures.  It's not just in the days of J. Edgar Hoover.  It
continues today.  It was true in the '80's when they rewrote the
Wiretapping Law for the first time then to include digital
communication.  It started out as a fairly decent bill, and then
the Justice Department and the FBI got hold of it and riddled it
with exceptions.  So now it's up again, and the next bill will be
the encryption bill.  And it's not that every citizen everywhere
has to constantly be marching in picket lines saying this is the
most important issue in the world.  It's just that when you have a
group that's supposed to pay attention to these things I think it
helps if they take a principled position and at least makes these
issues known to the extent that they can.  But if their mission is
to have lunch with lobbyists and get the best deal that they can,
then there's nobody watching the store.
          ZIMMERMANN:  The Electronic Privacy Information Center in
Washington, EPIC, is a real, committed, true blue, principled
organization dedicated to trying to hold the line on these issues. 
They used to be Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility,
but they had a Washington office which specialized in electronic
privacy and so they created this special group out there.  If you
want to support somebody who's really consistent on this, they're
a good one to support.
          Q:   The Electronic Privacy Information Center?
          ZIMMERMANN:  Yes.
          VAN DER LEUN:  They're much more principled about it than
EFF.  They're always quick.  They're always on a very strong and
positive side of the issues.  The tragedy is they're not as well
funded as the EFF group.
          MODERATOR:  I would like to suggest that not everybody
who really feels principally concerned about this issue is on-line,
and it's possible that if an effort was made to get in touch with
people like Feminists for Free Expression or the Civil Liberties
Union or something like that rather than relying on on-line
communication -- I didn't even know that the Bill was up until I
was at a meeting and somebody said, "The Senate is voting at seven
o'clock, right now.  And the House has passed it."  And it wasn't
in the paper.  I think that a lot of people who would have
protested it just didn't know.
          VAN DER LEUN:  I'm in the Net all the time and I didn't
know.  I didn't see it on the Net.  I don't snoop around in those
groups.
          Q:   On that same note people who haven't even been on
the InterNet or any sort of electronic medium are affected.  There
are instances that I've heard of, that I've read about, where the
federal and state governments are avoiding FOIA, Freedom of
Information Act requirements, and Sunshine Laws by holding elec-
tronic conferences.  I was wondering if Congress has addressed that
at all, if anyone can answer that question.
          [Inaudible - no response]
          MODERATOR:  The gentleman in the back?
          Q:   The problem with the philosophy (inaudible) to the
UseNet is that what it fails to do is it fails to teach us how to
form a consensus and how to form a coalition.  While the Net has
all these great individuals that might lead the fight, it doesn't
do a very good job on building networks, and that's really a
problem.  The problem is that we've lost sight that the idea of
free speech is not merely that you can be a talking head but that
speech is a tool for persuasion.  If we don't address this problem
of consensus, organizations like the FBI don't even care about
consensus will always (inaudible).
          ZIMMERMANN:  Yeah.  You become marginalized, where you
only talk to people that believe the same thing that you do.  In
fact these news groups are especially designed for that.  The
technology of the news groups is especially designed to isolate
people from each other.  People with the same interests are drawn
together in the news groups, but they're isolated movements in
society.
          MODERATOR:  Yes?  Oh, I'm being signalled from the back
and I believe that I'm being signalled because it is time for our
discussion to end.  Is that the case?  Yes.  The lady with laryn-
gitis is nodding her head.  One minute.  One more question.  Yes.
          Q:   I just wanted to ask, at the risk of sounding naive
I'm very alarmed by some of the things here that Mr. Zimmermann has
said and I'd like to know if you have any suggestions of what we
can.  Why didn't we know about this?  I didn't know that they can
now put something in our phones that allows them to easily wiretap. 
How do we get this out to the public?  Do any of you have any
suggestions about this?  I mean I don't want to leave here feeling
helpless.
          VAN DER LEUN:  It hasn't been an under reported item.  I
mean I don't want to give anyone the impression this is like some
secret document or technology handed out in a back room.  It has
been noted in the Wall Street Journal, in the New York Times, on
television.
          ZIMMERMANN:  Yeah, but what can you do is the question. 
I think that you should write letters to the editor, talk to your
Congressman, especially your Congressman, and to your Senator of
course, too.  You know, I've been so focussed on my specialty that
I thought everyone else was going to try to cover the Wiretap Bill. 
It's all I can do to juggle with all the set of chainsaws that I've
got in my hands right now.  My arms are getting tired.  So I just
assumed that somebody else would handle the FBI Wiretap Bill, and
in fact a lot of us have come to rely on the EFF to handle these
things.  So getting the watchdog to take a nap certainly was a
highly effective means of getting that one to sail right on
through.
          CORN-REVERE:  You mentioned your specialty.  And we all
come from different specialties.  I mean my background isn't
computers.  I've recently started getting into some on-line
services, but that isn't my background.  I started as a communi-
cations lawyer doing broadcast law and cable television law and
things like that.  My main interest is in making sure that tech-
nology doesn't determine what the legal structure is and it doesn't
determine what your Constitutional rights are, and so I'm moving
naturally towards these areas.  There is more than just a conver-
gence of technology going on and a convergence of media.  There's
a convergence of specialties.  It takes people from our respective
disciplines getting together to try and get at these issues.
          ZIMMERMANN:  You know I think we're in need of a real
political movement to get started on privacy.  You know, we've got
these very small lobbying organizations and 501(C)(3) educational
organizations like EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
and I think EPIC does a good job for what they do.  But what we
need is, drawing back to the experience of the Nuclear Freeze era
it's going to be hard to get that kind of groundswell.  You're not
going to get a million people marching in Central Park for elec-
tronic privacy.  But you can get a big grassroots thing going if
you really work at it.  You know, in the early days of the Nuclear
Freeze you'd have meetings that were very sparsely populated like
this one.  But as a few years went by and Reagan was rattling the
saber and talking Evil Empire and (inaudible) with enough shovels
and things like that the churches began to fill up.
          MODERATOR:  Well, that's a good note for us to offer,
since we are sparsely populated, a glass of wine.  Come and join us
for some wine and cheese.

                        [END OF MEETING]