Subject: (Fwd) GILC on racism, Asian events, copyright, etc. (472 l (fwd)
From: Fyodor <[email-masked]>
To: "D. J. Vanecek" <[email-masked]>, Carl Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 21:27:19 +0600 (GMT+0500)

another thing..
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:21:07 -0800
From: David McNickle <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: (Fwd) GILC on racism, Asian events, copyright, etc. (472 l

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome to the Global Internet Liberty Campaign Newsletter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Welcome to  GILC Alert, the newsletter of the Global Internet
Liberty Campaign. We are an international organization of groups
working for cyber-liberties, who are determined to preserve civil
liberties and human rights on the internet.

We hope you find this newsletter interesting, and we very much hope
that you will avail yourselves of the action items in future issues.

If you are a part of an organization that would be interested in
joining GILC, please contact us at [email-masked]. If you are aware of
threats to cyber liberties that we may not know about, please contact
the GILC members in your country, or contact GILC as a whole.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++ [A]  FOREMOST NEWS
        [A1] GILC Goes to Geneva
++ [B]  ROUNDUP OF GLOBAL INTERNET ISSUES
        [B1] Asia/Oceania
          [B1.1] Malaysia: Web Watcher
          [B1.2] Internet Censorship Protest
          [B1.3] Burma and Human Rights
        [B2] Europe
          [B2.1] XS4ALL Asks for Legal Analysis
          [B3.2] Dutch Ask for Clearer French Crypto Concessions
        [B3] North America
          [B3.1] US Federal Court Holds Service Provider Non-Liable
          [B3.2] U.S. Congress Moves to Protect ISPs and Intellectual
          Property [B3.3] CDA's Younger Big Brother
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[A]     FOREMOST NEWS
  [A1]  GILC Goes to Geneva

On November 14th, the United Nations Office of the High Commission for
Human Rights completed a five-day seminar on "The Role of the Internet
With Regard to the Provisions of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICEAFRD)."  It
sought to bring together experts on the subject matter, governmental
representatives, Internet Service Providers, and representatives from
non-governmental organizations and find ways to ensure "responsible
use of the Internet."  The seminar was the second on the Internet and
the ICEAFRD.

Working under the ICEAFRD's Article IV, which seeks to limit racist
speech and disband organizations, which "promote and incite racial
discrimination," the seminar rarely came to a consenus on any
conclusions or recommendations.  No consensus was reached with regards
to the proposal establishing an intergovernmental working group.  No
consenus was reached about formulating a "code of conduct for Internet
users and service providers."  No consensus was reached about
mandating "all Internet communications indicate their source so that
users could not anonymously distribute racist propaganda."  No
consensus was reached on the role of existing national criminal laws
against hate speech.  The seminar, however, unequivocally agreed that:
"ways of increasing access to the Internet for under-resourced areas
should be promoted"; the internet  should be used to educate against
"racist propaganda, prevent racist doctrines and practices and to
promote mutual understanding"; and UN Web sites should be
strengthened.

Members of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign attended the
seminar.  According to Margarita Lacabe, of Derechos Human Rights, a
GILC member, "Most came to the conclusion that Internet regulation
would not work."  There, GILC issued this statement:

        (1) GILC members deplore racist and hateful speech;
but when encountering racist or hateful speech, the best remedy
to be applied is generally more speech, not enforced silence.

        (2) Liberty's fundamental principle is that governments
should be prohibited from prohibiting the expression of an idea
simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable.

        (3) While the application of existing law to the Internet is
still in its infancy, the well-established free speech principles
should apply with even greater force to networked speech. The Internet
gives it users easy access to public discourse. It affords human
rights activists and other opponents of racism  with an inexpensive
and effective method for responding to racist speech.

UN documents about this seminar:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/10/c/racism/semIRD.htm
To read the seminar's conclusions:
http://www.unog.ch/news/newsen/11184872.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[B1] Asia/Oceania
   [B1.1] Malaysia: Web Watcher

"There was information on the Internet which claimed I fainted and
that I was unable to chair the Wednesday cabinet meeting," complained
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to the Agence France Presse.
 He further believes that such information is aimed at "destroying
Malaysia," which recently saw its stock markets crash.  To aid
Malaysia's critical economic health, the government will now punish
all "rumor-mongers" under laws against "economic sabotage."

The Star Newspaper quoted deputy Home Minister, Ong Ka Ting,
promising to "investigate whether the person [starting the rumor] is a
foreigner or local who is used by certain parties to spread rumors to
erode the people's confidence."

Moreover, the Malaysian government has established a committee to
screen all foreign reports about the country on the Internet. Hello,
Malaysia, GILC sends you its best.  This committee, after reading all
articles on the country, would make weekly reports to the prime
minister.  The Star quoted Culture, Arts and Tourism Ministry deputy
secretary-general Tenku Alaudin Tengku Abdul Majid as saying they
would then "decide on the appropriate action to correct any wrong
perceptions in the reports."

The government, however, wants to make clear they are not in the
censorship business.  In June, Malaysia's top telecommunications
official addressed a conference in Kuala Lumpur to repeat his
government's commitment to keeping Malaysia free from content
regulations.  "There is no way that we can block the content that goes
through the Internet," said Datuk Leo Moggie, the head of the Ministry
of Energy, Telecommunications and Posts. "Instead of blocking [the
Internet], we have to adjust how to react to it over time."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  [B1.2] Internet Censorship Protest

According to an "Action Alert" issued by the International Freedom of
Expression Exchange Clearing House, twelve world-wide human rights
organization have challenged Internet censorship in many member
nations of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).  In a jointly
signed letter (http://www.ifex.org/alert/00002561.html), the human
rights organizations criticized China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan,
Australia, Singapore, the United States, Philippines, and Thailand for
attempting "to control the free flow of information and free
expression on the Internet in their respective countries."

Reasoning from a "slippy-slope" framework, the organizations
reminded the APEC forum "time and time again we have seen
governments use the existence of one restriction to justify the
addition of further restrictions.  To think that any government can
issue one content directive, about pornography for example, and stop
there is folly."  The letter further discusses the contradiction
between censorship and the international human rights documents, while
pointing out Internet regulation is "ultimately unworkable."

This letter, however, was part of a larger voice of dissent.  The
Jakarta Post reported that an international symposium of 100
journalists and academics, titled "Open Media, Open Market," argued
that improved trade relations within the APEC forum would be
impossible without a free media.  In a statement, they called for APEC
to "commission an independent study . . . on the relationship between
the free flow of information and trade liberalization." Furthermore,
APEC leaders should "recognize that freedom of expression and
association are conditions for the expansion of trade."  Moreover,
2,000 people joined to add their voices to the protest.  Holding their
own "People's Summit," protesters marched to denounce governmental
stances on varied issues: Tibet independence, women's rights, labor
rights, and aboriginal land claims.  Reuters quoted John Argue, a
summit coordinator, saying, "APEC does not deal with real issues.  It
is entirely focused on helping business to increase its own resources
and trade, and not with any social concerns."  The 2,000 protesters
were within earshot of the 18 leaders who met to discuss various
economic issues.

When money calls, however, other voices are drowned out.  The
Australian reported that John Howard, Australia's Prime Minister,
reiterated that APEC's agenda should not be broadened to include human
rights.  Since its first meeting in Seattle, USA in 1992, APEC has
resisted demands to discuss human rights.  Following tradition and
after completing two days of talks in Vancouver, Canada, APEC only
called for freer trade, affirmed the region's economic foundations
were strong and announced three new members would join next year.

Reuters reported that police used pepper spray and dogs to push
back protesters who rushed barricades.

To read more about APEC go to their homepage at:
http://www.apecsec.org.sg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  [B1.3] Burma and Human Rights

Dissidents need strong encryption and anonymity is vital.  At least
that's the lesson gleaned from Newsday's story of repression in Burma.
 The newspaper recounts the tight grip the Burmese government has on
the flow of information.  Because, the goverment does not let
reporters into the country, reporters have to enter Burma disguised as
tourists.  International phone calls are bugged. The simple ownership
of a simple fax machine is dangerous and liable to cost the faxer a
term in prison.  A few years ago, one of Burma's largest pro-democracy
supporters languished and later died in jail because he was faxing
without a license.

Needless to say, Internet access is just as illegal and just as
hazardous to one's liberty.  Newsday goes on to report that
diplomats and foreign embassies (with illegal Internet access)
constantly have their E-mail intercepted and read by Burmese
officials.  Moreover, the military government has set up a system of
informers that tigthen its technological grip on the masses.

In rejecting international human rights documents, Foreign Minister
Ohn Gyaw, has been quoted as saying: "There are no compulsions or
obligation for any country to sign the U.N Convention on Human Rights.
Like some other countries in Asia, we have to take into consideration
our culture, ethos and the standards of development before accepting
these declarations."

Visit the FreeBurma homepage: http://sunsite.unc.edu/freeburma Or
E-mail them: [email-masked]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 [B2] Europe
   [B2.1] XS4ALL Asks for Legal Analysis

GILC member, XS4ALL (pronounced "access for all") has defied a
government order requesting that it turn over a subscriber's online
activities.  The Dutch Ministry of Justice not only wants the
subscriber's surfing habits, but it also wants XS4ALL to tap and
reveal all E-mail, newsgroup and chat room communications. In a press
release, issued last week (http://www.xs4all.n1), XS4ALL has stated it
will protect its users and their privacy, from this unprecedented act.

WiredNews reports that XS4ALL has previously submitted to police
demands for information. This time, however, the organization
believes the Dutch authorities have overstepped their legal bounds.
While warranted wiretapping is legal in the Netherlands, Cnet reports
that Maurice Wessling (of XS4ALL) argued that: "Reading E-mail or
doing a complete Internet tap is not part of the law." Wessling,
however believes that it is only a matter of time before it is.

The organization's refusal might be a crime; but XS4ALL is hoping for
a trial in the Dutch courts to determine if the country's 1993
Computer Crime Act (giving judges confiscatorial power over computer
data for court cases) applies to the Internet.

(http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/8584.html)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   [B3.2] Dutch Ask for Clearer French Crypto Concessions

CommunicationsWeek International reports the Dutch are not satisfied
with French cryptography policy and think the European Commission
should not have been so quick to consider approving French Proposals,
which would have liberalized France's strict laws governing
encryption.

The Netherlands has taken advantage of a European Commission technical
procedural rule, to hold off the French legislation.  This equivalent
of American filibustering, is expected to delay the decrees by at
least three months.  In the meanwhile, the Dutch want to push France
into a further easing of their policy.

EC officials, however, believe they have already garnered significant
compromises from the French.  For instance, France has agreed that
foreign entities may majority own trusted-third- parties. Furthermore,
cryptographic products no longer have to endure a two-month waiting
eriod for approval.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[B3] North America
   [B3.1] United States FederalCourt Holds Service Provider Non-Liable

On April 25, 1995, six days after 168 people are killed in the
Alfred P. Murrah federal building bombing in Oklahoma City, someone
gets on America On-Line, and posts an advertisement for "Naughty
Oklahoma" T-shirts and bumper stickers, and keychains.  All of these
items contain offensive slogans and cast aspersions on the victims and
their families.  The ads asked interested parties to contact "Ken" and
gave Kenneth Zeran's telephone number in Seattle, Washington. 
Immediately, Zeran was deluged with angry calls after an Oklahoma City
radio station urged listeners to call.  The death threats started
coming and soon the FBI and police manned his house. Zeran was
receiving abusive calls every two minutes.  As any good story would
have it, Zeran, of course, was not the author of the ad.  Later that
day, AOL was informed and repeatedly removed the ad from their
service.  New ads, though, kept reappearing. After an Oklahoma City
newspaper revealed it was a hoax and after the radio station made an
apology, the calls ended.  Zeran later sued AOL, arguing that the
company unreasonably delayed in removing the defamatory messages and
failing to screen for similar postings thereafter.  A district court
found that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred
Zeran's suit.

Last week, a unanimous three-judge federal appeals court panel
affirmed the lower court's ruling.  The court noted that the bill's
plain language "creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that
would make service providers liable for information originating with a
third-party user . . . . Thus, lawsuits seeking to hold a service
provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional
editorial functions -- such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw,
postpone, or alter content -- are barred."  The court further stated
that tort-based lawsuits would have an "obvious chilling effect."

Civil libertarians, however, offer one point of contention.  While,
the court explained that "it would be impossible for service providers
to screen each of their millions of postings," it also claimed one of
Section 230's purposes was to encourage service providers to regulate
"offensive" materials.  Chris Hansen, of the American Civil Liberties
Union, a GILC founding member, has stated: "The decision frees service
providers to engage in censorship." Hansen, contends that ISPs should
be given even more immunity: "No one would suggest that a phone
company be given to power to censor libelous statements someone might
make to someone else over the phone.  There are laws that prohibit
phone companies from taking such actions."

Another free-speech advocate, Stanton McCandlish, from the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, a GILC member, doesn't quite see it
that way: "I'm skeptical of the fear that this decision will chill
free speech. It won't, standing alone, make ISP's more likely to
censor communications among their users.  It removes a disincentive to
monitor and restrict content, but provides no new incentive to
actually do so."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  [B3.2] U.S. Congress Moves to Protect ISPs and Intellectual Property

Late on Monday, November 17, 1997, the United States Senate joined the
House of Representatives in sending warnings to Internet pirates. 
Under the "No Electronic Theft (NET) Act," now sitting on President
Clinton's desk awaiting his signature, "non-profit" pirates would be
guilty of a federal crime, if they -- in any way -- exchange
unathorized copies of music, software, or literature over the
Internet.  Parties guilty of a felony (material valued at $2,500),
face five-year prison penalties and $250,000 fines if they "willfully"
make or possess at least ten digital copies of a computer program, for
instance.

Fear among service providers has presumably subsided, since a
late-minute amendment seems to have released ISPs from liability if
they do not "willfuly" engage in copyright infringements.  New.com has
quoted the Association of Online Professionals as saying: "The
language of the final bill makes it clear that ISPs and online service
providers (like AOL or Microsoft) will not be held as 'willfuly
infringing' just by doing their job, which is routing data across
their servers."

Late last month, a coalition of European groups voiced its concerns
with the European Commission's copyright protection initiatives.
TechWeb reported that the "Ad Hoc Alliance for a Digital Future," a
group of leading telecommunications operators, and ISPs, issued
explicit charges with Mario Monti, European Commissioner for internal
markets.  The Alliance is angry at what they see as attempts by the
European Commission to make ISP's liable for copyright infringements
by end users. TechWeb quoted Claudio Carrelli of the European Public
Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO): "The Post
Office does not open all the letters it delivers, and we should not
expect network operators and ISPs to behave differently."

The Alliance also attacked the European Commission's refusal to
harmonize member states' law on "fair use" exemptions to copyright
law, which lets material be used without permission for uses such as
quotation and criticism.

President Clinton is expected to sign the U.S. bill before the end of
the year.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  [B3.3] CDA's Younger Big Brother

Last week, in another attempt to clear the Internet of pornography,
United States Senator Dan Coats (Republican from Indiana, former aid
to Dan Quayle, and the originator of the failed CDA) introduced S.
1482, which seeks to prohibit commerical Internet sites from
distributing material considered "harmful to minors" under 17 years
old. Violators wil be imprisoned for six months with a $50,000 fine. 
Supporters of the bill say that it's newly focused, because it covers
only material that's "harmful to minors," and not material that's
"indenent."  Coats's concern is over the free "teasers" (images of
naked women and simulated sex acts) that most pornographic sites offer
viewers.

In a press release issued last week, Coats maintained that his new
legislation is constitutional and "narrowly tailored to meet the
concerns of the Court."  According to the statement, the legislation
would simply "require the commercial distributor to remove the free
images, or require a credit card or personal identification number in
order to view them."

The matter is not that simple to civil libertarians, who remind Mr.
Coats that he wrongly thought the original CDA constitutional.  Ann
Beeson, from the American Civil Liberties Union, a GILC founding
member and one of the original plaintiffs in the Reno v. ACLU case,
drew a parallel between Coats's suggestion and requiring people to pay
a fee for browsing through a bookstore or watching a movie trailer.  
Furthermore, opponents argue that the bill is laced with vague terms
and overbroad and underinclusive definitions: "harmful to minors" is
undefined, while "commercial distributor" would include a virtual
bookstore (amazon.com), American Online and Microsoft but overlook
sources of free pornography and ones international ones.  All of these
aspects -- the vagueness, overbroadness and underinclusiveness --
would render the bill unconstitutional.

Contact Senator Coats with your comments (he doesn't give out his
E-mail address): United States Senator Dan Coats, 404 Russell Senate
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-5623

GILC can make a difference at this stage.  Urge the Senate to halt
consideration of the CDA II when it reconvenes in January of 1998.
Contact Senator Patrick Leahy with your comments:
[email-masked]

Senator Leahy was one of 15 Senators who voted against the original
CDA.  He issued this statement after the Supreme Court case held parts
of the CDA unconstitutional:

"The Supreme Court has made clear that we do not forfeit our First
Amendment rights when we go on-line. [Its] decision is a landmark in
the history of the Internet and a firm foundation for its future
growth. Altering the protections of the First Amendment for on-line
communications would have crippled this new mode of communication.

"The Communications Decency Act was misguided and unworkable. It
reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the
Internet, and it would have unwisely offered the world a model of
online censorship instead of a model of online freedom.

"There is no lack of criminal laws on the books to protect children
on-line, including laws criminalizing the on-line distribution of
child pornography and obscene materials and prohibiting the on-line
harassment, luring and solicitation of children for illegal activity.
Protecting children, whether in cyberspace or physical space, depends
on aggressively enforcing these existing laws and supervising children
to ensure they do not venture where the environment is unsafe. This
will do more -- and more effectively -- than passing feel-good,
unconstitutional legislation. "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Raafat S. Toss
GILC Organizer Developer
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
[email-masked]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Links to all information in this alert can be found at
http://www.gilc.org/

You are welcome to pass the GILC ALERT to all who may be
interested. And you have permission to re-print GILC ALERT and
distribute it.

If you are not a subscriber but would like to be, please send an
email to [email-masked] with the following message in the
body:

  Subscribe gilc-announce

PUBLICATION OF THIS NEWSLETTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY A GRANT FROM THE
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE (OSI)

          ********** [email-masked] is David McNickle **********
                        http://www.smu.edu/~dmcnickl/
By creative thinking man acquires knowledge and wisdom and a sense of
unlimited strength which unbinds him from the limitations of
convention and dogma.    --  Semjase