From: Declan McCullagh <declan@vorlon.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 06:14:23 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: HISTORY - pre-CDA, "compromise", untrue civil-liberties groups (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970717175120.11493A-100000@vorlon.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:44:12 -0400
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@mit.edu>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Cc: jseiger@cdt.org, jberman@cdt.org
Subject: HISTORY - pre-CDA, "compromise", untrue civil-liberties groups

	I finally went back digging through my archives, to confirm my
memory that we had gone through almost exactly this sort of argument
in the run-up to the CDA. All the elements were there - the
"compromise" in terms of attempts to use labeling, the defensiveness
from EFF, CDT, compared to opposition from the ACLU, and so on. Not a
whole lot has changed. Mike Godwin was just as snide and snotty then
as he is now :-).
	The idea then was the infamous White proposal, lower the
standard a little, have "good faith" defenses (what evolved into
censorware and ratings). Basically, have businesses running the
system, don't let the Religious-Right go wild. Well, that lost out
narrowly, and so we fought the CDA battle. But after that was won,
those interested in content regulation didn't just pack up and go
away. They went back to the earlier proposals. Which is an excellent
argument that nothing will be gained by any sort of "compromise" here.

================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu



Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 21:11:50 -0500
Message-Id: <951202211149_42309455@emout05.mail.aol.com>
To: declan+@cmu.edu, fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise

Let me make it clear that the ACLU does not support this compromise and that
no true civil liberties organization, which represents the interests of
internet users and content providers does.

Barry Steinhardt
ACLU


Message-Id: <QkkAOHO00WCQNEcLgN@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat,  2 Dec 1995 16:35:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
To: Fight Censorship Mailing List <fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise

	 NEW YORK (Reuter) - A group of commercial online services 
and civil liberties groups have agreed to accept restrictions on 
sexual material being sent on the Internet, the New York Times 
reported in Saturday editions.  
	 The compromise, drafted by Washington state Republican Rick 
White, would create provisions for a Senate bill that would 
impose fines and prison sentences on people who transmit 
pornography, the newspaper said.  
	 It said the compromise, circulating as a draft on Capitol 
Hill, made no distinction between commercial and nonprofit 
service providers. It said the restrictions would presumably 
apply to all, including Internet access nodes run by academic 
institutions.  
	 The Times said the agreement was being made known days 
before a joint Senate-House committee is expected to debate a 
measure that would impose fines of up to $100,000 and jail terms 
on people who knowingly transmit pornography or material 
deemed ``filthy'', ``lewd'' or ``indecent''.  
	 The compromise would weaken the Senate bill's prohibitions 
against making indecent material available to children by 
changing the prohibition to material that is considered 
''harmful to children'', the Times reported.  
	 The compromise would also offer added protection to online 
services or information providers who make a good faith effort 
to keep sex material away from children, the newspaper said.  

---

	NEW YORK (AP) -- There reportedly is agreement on legislation 
limiting pornography on the Internet.  
	The New York Times reported Saturday that a coalition of 
commercial on-line providers and some civil liberties groups have 
reversed course and signed on to a compromise drafted by Rep. Rick 
White, R-Wash.  
	The move comes just a few days before a House-Senate conference 
committee takes up a measure that would impose prison sentences and 
fines on people who knowingly transmit pornography or material 
deemed ``filthy'' or ``lewd.''  
	But White's proposal would offer added protection to on-line 
services that make good-faith efforts to keep pornography away from 
children.  
	The Times report says the coalition has agreed to the compromise 
as the lesser evil of other more restrictive proposals.  





From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@well.com>
Message-Id: <199512030242.SAA13684@well.com>
Subject: Re: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise
To: BSACLU@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 18:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Cc: declan+@cmu.edu, fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <951202211149_42309455@emout05.mail.aol.com> from "BSACLU@aol.com" at Dec 2, 95 09:11:50 pm


 
Barry Steinhardt writes:

> Let me make it clear that the ACLU does not support this compromise and that
> no true civil liberties organization, which represents the interests of
> internet users and content providers does.
>
> Barry Steinhardt
> ACLU

I don't think Barry Steinhardt is in the position of defining, in this
rather authoritarian manner, who qualifies as "true civil liberties
organization, which represents the interests of internet users and content
providers."

EFF takes the position that no content-control legislation should be
passed. At the same time, we acknowledge the value of efforts, such as
that of Congressman White, to steer the Telecom Bill toward language that
is congruent with the long-established Constitutional framework that
limits what the government can do with regard to expression. (We do so
even though we do not endorse any of the proposals that have been
floated in the conference committee.)

If this counts as "support" for this compromise -- that is, if Barry
Steinhardt takes the position that "no true civil liberties organization"
could conceivably take a principled position that does not parrot 
Steinhardt's own -- then perhaps he should say so now, since EFF had
planned to work with ACLU on litigation challenging whatever content-
control language emerges in the telecom bill.

I had not thought, before now, that the only "true" civil liberties
position is one that precisely parrots that of Steinhardt and the ACLU.
Perhaps the DOJ's antitrust division should investigate the ACLU's 
monopoly on principled civil-liberties stances.

It is a sad historical fact that, all too often, certain civil
libertarians feel compelled to spend their energy in quarrelling
with allies over relatively minor differences on strategic and tactical
issues while the pro-censorship forces close ranks and present a united
front. You'd have think we'd all have learned by now.

I should hope, by the way, that my own credentials as a "true" civil
libertarian are not in question. I'm willing to compare my track record 
on "cyber liberties" with anyone else's.

Perhaps Barry could identify with some specificity those whom he, from his
lofty perch, believes to be other than "true" civil libertarians.
Alternatively, he may have some suggestions as to how we can all continue
to work together without wasting any time pissing on each other.


Yours for freedom of speech on the Net,

--Mike Godwin
  Staff Counsel
  EFF




To: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: kip@world.std.com (Bob Chatelle)
Subject: Re: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 22:30:05 EST
Message-Id: <kip.1598.0013DAEC@world.std.com>

In article  Mike Godwin <mnemonic@well.com> writes:
> 
>Barry Steinhardt writes:

>> Let me make it clear that the ACLU does not support this compromise and that
>> no true civil liberties organization, which represents the interests of
>> internet users and content providers does.
>>
>> Barry Steinhardt
>> ACLU

>I don't think Barry Steinhardt is in the position of defining, in this
>rather authoritarian manner, who qualifies as "true civil liberties
>organization, which represents the interests of internet users and content
>providers."

>EFF takes the position that no content-control legislation should be
>passed. At the same time, we acknowledge the value of efforts, such as
>that of Congressman White, to steer the Telecom Bill toward language that
>is congruent with the long-established Constitutional framework that
>limits what the government can do with regard to expression. (We do so
>even though we do not endorse any of the proposals that have been
>floated in the conference committee.)

I do not believe that Barry was criticizing EFF or any other civil-liberties 
group that has been opposing content-restrictive legislation.  Barry was 
rightly taking issue with the NYT for claiming that civil-liberties groups 
were willing to accept compromise on restricting content.  I think his 
statement, that no true civil-liberties group would support such a compromise 
is valid.  Mike, in the above paragraph, explicitly states that EFF does not 
support such compromises.  But we all knew that.

I think this was a simple case of someone taking offense where no offense was 
meant.  I do that myself more often than I care to admit.  To get pissed off 
is human.  Let's all keep working together.

Cheers,
Bob

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Chatelle                   kip@world.std.com          National Writers Union
Cambridge, Massachusetts                                 UAW Local 1981, AFL-CIO
                   Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression
Home Page: http://world.std.com/~kip/     PGP Public Key Available on Request
   "The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom."
                                  --Justice William O. Douglas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Message-Id: <wkkwz4W00YUt9Vcidz@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon,  4 Dec 1995 23:51:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
To: Fight Censorship Mailing List <fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: CDT Funding and Cyberporn "Compromise"
Cc: berman@cdt.org
References: <199511230338.TAA00816@igc3.igc.apc.org>

When I was in Boston over the weekend, I had brunch at a wonderful
Harvard Square patisserie with Harvey Silverglate, Seth Finkelstein, and
Bob Chatelle. Over coffee and baguettes we talked about the "cybersmut
compromise" on the front page of the NYT that morning. The NYT was
reporting that "some civil liberties groups" -- in particular the Center
for Democracy and Technology -- had agreed to the "compromise:"

 "While it does embody much of the original Exon proposal, it does so in 
 a way that tries to embody a constitutionally recognized standard." 
    --Jerry Berman, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology

We were confused. This is the same "compromise" that Barry Steinhardt
from the ACLU said that "no true civil liberties organization" would
support. (I recall that Barry is the associate executive director and
the head of the ACLU's Civil Liberties in Cyberspace task force.)

Today I ran across this message about the CDT. I'm copying this to Jerry
Berman in case he'd like to respond.

-Declan


---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:38:12 GMT
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: Corporate Crime and CDT Funding on behalf of so-called medical privacy


There is a very interesting discussion on the Federal Medical Information
bill on the med-privacy list, Curt

----------------------------Original message----------------------------

     The following article appeared in the current issue of
Corporate Crime Reporter (Volume 9, Number 44, November 20, 1995,
page one).  It is redisseminated on the Internet with the
permission of CCR.

SELF-PROCLAIMED "PUBLIC INTEREST" GROUP  HEAVILY FUNDED BY
COMPUTER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, DATABANK CORPORATIONS THAT WOULD
BENEFIT FROM "MEDICAL PRIVACY" LEGISLATION GROUP SUPPORTS --
EQUIFAX, TRW, DUNN & BRADSTREET IN THE MIX

     The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a self-
proclaimed "public interest organization," is in fact heavily
funded by large private computer, telecommunications, and
databank corporations.
     Funders of CDT, a two-year old Washington, D.C.-based
advocacy organization, include Dunn & Bradstreet Corp., Equifax
Inc., and TRW Information Services, three large databank
corporations that stand to benefit from federal legislation CDT
actively helped shaped and is shepherding through Congress.
     This year, CDT has received $699,643 from more than 30 large
corporations, including $100,000 from Microsoft, $75,000 from
AT&T, $60,000 from Bell Atlantic, $50,000 from Apple Computer,
$25,000 from IBM, $10,000 from TRW Information Services, $10,000
from Dunn & Bradstreet, $5,000 from Direct Marketing Association,
and $5,000 from Equifax Inc. (For a complete list of CDT's
funders, see At A Glance, page 16)
     At a hearing before the Senate Labor and Human Resources
Committee last week, CDT deputy director Janlori Goldman said
that CDT "strongly supports" legislation, S. 1360, sponsored by
Senators Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont),
because it represents "the most comprehensive and strong privacy
bill the Congress has yet considered in this area."
     But opponents of the bill argue that the legislation is not
a privacy statute at all, but instead is a vehicle that would
legitimize the creation of large computerized databanks of
personal medical information, thus benefitting those companies
like TRW and Equifax that give financial support to CDT. The
legislation would allow for broad, unauthorized searches of those
databanks, opponents claim.
     In an interview, Goldman told Corporate Crime Reporter that
all of CDT's corporate funding is earmarked for other projects
and that none of the corporate funding is supporting her work on
the medical privacy bill.
     "The corporate funding is not related at all, in any way
shape or form to my work on this bill," Goldman said. "The reason
we are doing this bill is that I've worked on privacy issues for
a decade. The most important privacy issue to work on is the
passage of the medical records privacy legislation. That is a
very sincere issue for me."
     "None of the corporate support that CDT gets is related to
my work on this bill," Goldman emphasized. "None. Zippo."
     CDT's executive director, Jerry Berman agreed. "We have no
funding for the medical privacy project -- zero," Berman said.
     But critics of the CDT's position on the legislation were
skeptical.
     "During the Senate hearing this week, Senator Bennett was
angered at the suggestion that S. 1360 was an industry bill,"
said Jamie Love of Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive
Law. "He claimed that he had widely consulted with privacy groups
and patient advocates. CDT's Janlori Goldman was the key person
who decided who was in the loop, and who was not in the loop on
this issue. Groups that were not receptive to the idea of massive
database systems of personal medical records were excluded from
deliberations."
     "To find out that CDT has been funded by companies such as
Equifax, TRW, Dunn & Bradstreet, IBM and the telephone companies
is remarkable, because these are among the groups who have the
most at stake in legitimizing and preserving the current system
of maintaining and managing medical records," Love said. "I think
that Janlori Goldman should have mentioned in her Senate
testimony that CDT was funded by corporations who have an
interest in this issue."
     "If CDT were doing its job, TRW and Equifax wouldn't want to
give it money," Love added.
     Harold Eist, president-elect of the American Psychiatric
Association, said that "any datagathering and large computer
company would clearly benefit from legislation that drives large
amounts of individually identified data about American citizens
into data banks without the knowledge and permission of those
American citizens."
     "Selling that information would represent a gold mine for
those companies," Eist said.
     "It is not surprising that an organization with a
disingenuous name -- Center for Democracy & Technology -- would
be supporting a bill with a disingenuous name -- The Medical
Records Confidentiality Act," Eist said. "In fact, this bill
represents an effort to give away the privacy of American
citizens without their knowledge."
     "My understanding is that Janlori Goldman was involved in
writing the bill," Eist said. "It seems to me that as a former
civil libertarian, she should know very well that there are
loopholes in that bill regarding protections to privacy that you
could drive a Mack truck through."
     "Unless people can be assured that their privacy will be
protected, there is little or no chance that they will reveal the
kind of tormented and dark secrets that they have to reveal to
recover from their illnesses," Eist said. "Confidentially is the
sine qua non of medical treatment, and especially if it is
psychiatric medical treatment."
     A driving force behind the effort to derail the
Bennett/Leahy bill is Denise Nagel, a Boston physician who
organized the Coalition for Patient Rights of New England "to
restore confidentiality to the doctor-patient relationship."
     Nagel refused to comment on CDT's funding.
     At the Senate hearing last week, Nagel told the committee "I
have no industry ties."
     Nagel charged that S. 1360 was written "to advance the
interests of certain segments of the computer,
telecommunications, data processing and health-care industries."
     "With this bill they would be able to careen full speed
ahead to develop data networks that will give innumerable people
access to our medical records legally and without our knowledge,"
Nagel said.
     "I am convinced that S. 1360 is not at all primarily
concerned with the confidentiality of medical records," Nagel
told the committee. "It is just the opposite. It talks about
informed consent, but then authorizes the creation of databases
without patient knowledge or consent. It talks about individual
rights, and then allows police broad authority to search
databases directly instead of obtaining a specific record from
the patient's doctor. It talks about civil and criminal
sanctions, and then pre-empts all common law and most existing
and future state statutes. It talks about ensuring personal
privacy with respect to medical records, and then sets a ceiling
rather than a floor on medical confidentiality."

AT A GLANCE: CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING, 1994-
1995

American Advertising Federation         500.00
America Online, Inc.                 25,000.00
Apple Computer Inc.                  50,000.00
AT&T                                 75,000.00
Bell Atlantic                        60,000.00
Business Software Alliance            6,000.00
Cellular Tellecomm Indust Assn       10,000.00
CompuServ                            30,000.00
Delphi Internet Services Corp        10,000.00
Direct Marketing Association          5,000.00
Dunn & Bradstreet Corp               10,000.00
EMA                                   5,000.00
Equifax Inc.                          5,000.00
John Gilmore                          2,500.00
Hartford Foundation                 153,000.00
IBM                                  25,000.00
Information Technology Industry       5,000.00
Interactive Digital Software          5,000.00
Lotus                                 6,250.00
MARC                                 80,000.00
MCI Telecommunications               15,000.00
Microsoft                           100,000.00
National Cable Television Assn       15,000.00
Netscape Communications Corp          5,000.00
Newspaper Association of Am           5,000.00
Nynex Government Affairs             25,000.00
Pacific Telesis                      25,000.00
Prodigy Service Company              10,000.00
Software Publishers Assn             10,000.00
Time Warner Inc                       5,000.00
TRW Information Svcs                 10,000.00
US Telephone Association             10,000.00
US West Inc                          10,000.00

Total Funding                        814,020.00

Received 1994                        114,377.00
Received 1995                        699,643.00

Total Funding                        814,020.00


Russell Mokhiber
russell@essential.org
voice: 202/429-6928