Computer underground Digest Sun 7 Feb, 1999 Volume 11 : Issue 08
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Poof Reader: Etaion Shrdlu, Jr.
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #11.08 (Sun, 7 Feb, 1999)
File 1--Netizens Safe from Prosecution Under Net Censorship Law
File 2--Philadelphia Court Blocks Enforcement of COPA
File 3--Text of Child Online Protection Act
File 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Jan, 1999)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:53:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Computer underground Digest
Subject: File 1--Netizens Safe from Prosecution Under Net Censorship Law
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
[Join EFF] [Act Now] [Sign Up] [About EFF]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
6:00 PM, Monday, February 1, 1999
NETIZENS SAFE FROM PROSECUTION UNDER NET CENSORSHIP LAW
PHILADELPHIA JUDGE BARS ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT
SAN FRANCISCO, CA - In a case brought by civil liberties groups to
overturn the government's new law aimed at censoring content on the
Internet, District Court Judge Lowell Reed issued a preliminary
injunction protecting Internet speakers from prosecution and fines. In
addition, Judge Reed denied the government's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint. The case was filed by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union, and the
Electronic Privacy Information Center.
"The content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought," wrote
Judge Reed in his decision this afternoon. "[P]erhaps we do the minors
of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will
with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their
protection."
"In granting our preliminary injunction, Judge Reed has found that
plaintiffs are likely to win this case on its merits, that Internet
users would suffer irreparable harm if the statute were enforced, and
that our First Amendment rights to communicate would be stifled,"
explained EFF staff attorney Shari Steele. "The judge clearly
understood the importance of his ruling here, and we're obviously
pleased with the results."
Enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton last
December, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) makes it a federal
crime to "knowingly" communicate "for commercial purposes" material
considered "harmful to minors." Penalties include fines of up to
$50,000 for each day of violation, and up to six months in prison if
convicted of a crime. The government may also bring a civil suit with
penalties of $50,000 for each violation in addition to criminal
penalties.
The court's ruling today denied the government's motion to dismiss
while granting EFF and the other plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction. The government had claimed that the plaintiffs did not
have standing because they were not commercial pornographers. The
court held that the law, which imposed liability on any speaker for
making any communication for commercial purposes that was "harmful to
minors," was not limited to pornographers and was a violation of the
free speech rights of adults." In addition, the court found that there
was nothing in the text of the law that would be applicable to only
pornographers, and that COPA could apply to any Web site that contains
only some material considered "harmful to minors."
"The court has protected Internet speakers from prosecution for
engaging in constitutionally protected speech," said Steele.
"Plaintiffs in this case are not pornographers; they offer resources
on obstetrics, gynecology, sexual health, visual art, poetry, gay and
lesbian issues, books, photographs and online magazines." She added,
"Judge Reed has recognized what the Supreme Court has said time and
time again - the free speech rights of adults may not be reduced to
allow them to read only what is acceptable for children."
EFF joined the case on behalf of its members who fear prosecution or
other enforcement under the statute for communicating, sending, or
displaying material "harmful to minors" in a manner available to
persons under age 18 for commercial purposes. None of EFF's members
can prevent their communications from reaching minors without also
preventing adults from accessing their speech.
"COPA is a vague, overbroad, and largely ineffective law, using our
children as hostages," said Jon Noring, publisher of OmniMedia Digital
Publishing and an EFF member named in the case. "From a business
perspective, it would gravely impact the emerging electronic book
industry, effectively closing down certain business models among U.S.
electronic book companies, and leaving them to foreign competitors who
will not be so constrained." He concluded that "COPA is just a bad law
that benefits nobody."
Rufus Griscom, another EFF member named in the case and editor of the
award-winning online magazine, Nerve: Literate Smut, said "We're
delighted this nation is not being marched into nursery school, as
threatened."
"My biggest concern is that COPA threatens the free flow of
non-pornographic information that is nevertheless valuable to adults
and older minors," said EFF member Bill Boushka, the publisher of High
Productivity Publishing who submitted an affidavit in the case. "While
I could conceivably afford some kind of age verification system for my
site, the mechanics of the process would destroy the effectiveness of
my site in providing openly available material for researchers, law
students, political activists, and even legislators."
Complete case materials and the judge's decision are available on the
EFF Web site. See http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/COPA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:16:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Ari Schwartz
Subject: File 2--Philadelphia Court Blocks Enforcement of COPA
** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact **
Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of
__________________________________________________________________
(1) Philadelphia Court Blocks Enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act
In a victory for free speech online, Federal Judge Lowell Reed granted, on
February 1, a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Child
Online Protection Act (COPA). The injunction lasts until a final decision
is rendered on COPA's constitutionality, after a full trial, which may be
held late this spring. Since an injunction like this one is granted only
when a challenged law is likely to be struck down, the Judge's ruling
suggests that the law will be permanently enjoined.
The ruling ensures that Web publishers and other Internet content providers
can continue to use their best editorial judgment when publishing online,
instead of being forced to choose between self-censorship and risk of
prosecution.
Despite his obvious sympathy with Congress' goal of protecting children from
sexually explicit material, , Judge Reed concluded that COPA exceeded the
limits of the First Amendment.
* Judge Reed's Decision -
http://www.cdt.org/speech/ACLUvsRENOdecision.shtml
* Policy Post 5.2 - Coalition of Industry and Civil Liberties Groups Challenge
Internet Censorship Legislation - http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_5.2.html
* The amicus brief filed by CDT and others in this case-
http://www.cdt.org/speech/amicus.html
________________________________________________________________
(2) WHY COPA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
For the purposes of the preliminary injunction, Judge Reed found that COPA
was unconstitutional because it burdens constitutionally protected speech,
is not likely to be effective and is not the least testrictive means of
protecting children. The First Amendment does not allow the free speech
rights of adults to be constrained in a way that would allow them to read
only what is acceptable for children. Judge Reed found that COPA would force
Web publishers to censor their own constitutionally protected speech in order
to avoid risking prosecution.
* COPA burdens protected speech.
Credit card or adult verification screens in front of material that is
harmful to minors would deter users from accessing such materials.
The loss of users of such material would affect the speakers' economic
ability to provide such communications. Further, there is no way to
restrict the access of minors to harmful materials in chat rooms and
discussion groups without screening users before accessing any content,
even that which is not harmful to minors. This has the effect of burdening
speech in areas not covered by the statute.
* COPA is not effective.
Children will still have access to sexually explicit, harmful material on
foreign web sites, non-commerical web sites, and via online protocols other
than the Web, such as chat, newsgroups, FTP, and Gopher.
* COPA is not the least restrictive means.
There are user empowerment tools available for parents, such as blocking and
filtering software, which might be just as effective in protecting children
from harmful material without restricting adult access to that material.
___________________________________________________________________
(3) NEXT STEPS IN THE COPA COURT CHALLENGE
The government has 60 days in which to file an appeal of this decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If the government does
not appeal the decision at this stage, there will probably be a full trial on
COPA's constitutionality later this spring.
Regardless of whether this decision is appealed, the challenge to COPA will
certainly wind its way through the Court of Appeals, and most likely, also to
the Supreme Court.
CDT will continue to play an active role as an amicus at every stage in the
proceedings.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 16:10:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Computer underground Digest
Subject: File 3--Text of Child Online Protection Act
((MODERATORS' NOTE: We ran parts of COPA previously, but have had
requests to run it in its entirety again. In the context of the
recent decision and above commentary, it might be a helpful
reference)).
Source: http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa
TITLE XIV--CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION
SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Child Online Protection
Act''.
SEC. 1402. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) while custody, care, and nurture of the child resides
first with the parent, the widespread availability of the
Internet presents opportunities for minors to access
materials through the World Wide Web in a manner that can
frustrate parental supervision or control;
(2) the protection of the physical and psychological well-
being of minors by shielding them from materials that are
harmful to them is a compelling governmental interest;
(3) to date, while the industry has developed innovative
ways to help parents and educators restrict material that is
harmful to minors through parental control protections and
self-regulation, such efforts have not provided a national
solution to the problem of minors accessing harmful material
on the World Wide Web;
(4) a prohibition on the distribution of material harmful
to minors, combined with legitimate defenses, is currently
the most effective and least restrictive means by which to
satisfy the compelling government interest; and
(5) notwithstanding the existence of protections that limit
the distribution over the World Wide Web of material that is
harmful to minors, parents, educators, and industry must
continue efforts to find ways to protect children from being
exposed to harmful material found on the Internet.
SEC. 1403. REQUIREMENT TO RESTRICT ACCESS BY MINORS TO
MATERIALS COMMERCIALLY DISTRIBUTED BY MEANS OF
THE WORLD WIDE WEB THAT ARE HARMFUL TO MINORS.
Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 231. RESTRICTION OF ACCESS BY MINORS TO MATERIALS
COMMERCIALLY DISTRIBUTED BY MEANS OF WORLD WIDE
WEB THAT ARE HARMFUL TO MINORS.
``(a) Requirement To Restrict Access.--
``(1) Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with
knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or
foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any
communication for commercial purposes that is available to
any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to
minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not
more than 6 months, or both.
``(2) Intentional violations.--In addition to the penalties
under paragraph (1), whoever intentionally violates such
paragraph shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000
for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day
of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
``(3) Civil penalty.--In addition to the penalties under
paragraphs (1) and (2), whoever violates paragraph (1) shall
be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for
each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of
violation shall constitute a separate violation.
``(b) Inapplicability of Carriers and Other Service
Providers.--For purposes of subsection (a), a person shall
not be considered to make any communication for commercial
purposes to the extent that such person is--
``(1) a telecommunications carrier engaged in the provision
of a telecommunications service;
``(2) a person engaged in the business of providing an
Internet access service;
``(3) a person engaged in the business of providing an
Internet information location tool; or
``(4) similarly engaged in the transmission, storage,
retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any
combination thereof) of a communication made by another
person, without selection or alteration of the content of the
communication, except that such person's deletion of a
particular communication or material made by another person
in a manner consistent with subsection (c) or section 230
shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the
content of the communication.
``(c) Affirmative Defense.--
``(1) Defense.--It is an affirmative defense to prosecution
under this section that the defendant, in good faith, has
restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to
minors--
``(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account,
adult access code, or adult personal identification number;
``(B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age;
or
``(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible
under available technology.
``(2) Protection for use of defenses.--No cause of action
may be brought in any court or administrative agency against
any person on account of any activity that is not in
violation of any law punishable by criminal or civil penalty,
and that the person has taken in good faith to implement a
defense authorized under this subsection or otherwise to
restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, a
communication specified in this section.
``(d) Privacy Protection Requirements.--
``(1) Disclosure of information limited.--A person making a
communication described in subsection (a)--
``(A) shall not disclose any information collected for the
purposes of restricting access to such communications to
individuals 17 years of age or older without the prior
written or electronic consent of--
``(i) the individual concerned, if the individual is an
adult; or
``(ii) the individual's parent or guardian, if the
individual is under 17 years of age; and
``(B) shall take such actions as are necessary to prevent
unauthorized access to such information by a person other
than the person making such communication and the recipient
of such communication.
``(2) Exceptions.--A person making a communication
described in subsection (a) may disclose such information if
the disclosure is--
``(A) necessary to make the communication or conduct a
legitimate business activity related to making the
communication; or
``(B) made pursuant to a court order authorizing such
disclosure.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(1) By means of the world wide web.--The term `by means
of the World Wide Web' means by placement of material in a
computer server-based file archive so that it is publicly
accessible, over the Internet, using hypertext transfer
protocol or any successor protocol.
``(2) Commercial purposes; engaged in the business.--
``(A) Commercial purposes.--A person shall be considered to
make a communication for commercial purposes only if such
person is engaged in the business of making such
communications.
``(B) Engaged in the business.--The term `engaged in the
business' means that the person who makes a communication, or
offers to make a communication, by means of the World Wide
Web, that includes any material that is harmful to minors,
devotes time, attention, or labor to such activities, as a
regular course of such person's trade or business, with the
objective of earning a profit as a result of such activities
(although it is not necessary that the person make a profit
or that the making or offering to make such communications be
the person's sole or principal business or source of income).
A person may be considered to be engaged in the business of
making, by means of the World Wide
Web, communications for commercial purposes that include
material that is harmful to minors, only if the person
knowingly causes the material that is harmful to minors to be
posted on the World Wide Web or knowingly solicits such
material to be posted on the World Wide Web.
``(3) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the combination
of computer facilities and electromagnetic transmission
media, and related equipment and software, comprising the
interconnected worldwide network of computer networks that
employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol or
any successor protocol to transmit information.
``(4) Internet access service.--The term `Internet access
service' means a service that enables users to access
content, information, electronic mail, or other services
offered over the Internet, and may also include access to
proprietary content, information, and other services as part
of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term does
not include telecommunications services.
``(5) Internet information location tool.--The term
`Internet information location tool' means a service that
refers or links users to an online location on the World Wide
Web. Such term includes directories, indices, references,
pointers, and hypertext links.
``(6) Material that is harmful to minors.--The term
`material that is harmful to minors' means any communication,
picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording,
writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or
that--
``(A) the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and
with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is
designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
``(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner
patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or
simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or
simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd
exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast;
and
``(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value for minors.
``(7) Minor.--The term `minor' means any person under 17
years of age.''.
SEC. 1404. NOTICE REQUIREMENT.
(a) Notice.--Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 230) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``or 231'' after
``section 223'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d) Obligations of Interactive Computer Service.--A
provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time
of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of
interactive computer service and in a manner deemed
appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that
parental control protections (such as computer hardware,
software, or filtering services) are commercially available
that may assist the customer in limiting access to material
that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or
provide the customer with access to information identifying,
current providers of such protections.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 223(h)(2) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(2)) is amended
by striking ``230(e)(2)'' and inserting ``230(f)(2)''.
SEC. 1405. STUDY BY COMMISSION ON ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a temporary
Commission to be known as the Commission on Online Child
Protection (in this section referred to as the
``Commission'') for the purpose of conducting a study under
this section regarding methods to help reduce access by
minors to material that is harmful to minors on the Internet.
(b) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 19
members, as follows:
(1) Industry members.--The Commission shall include--
(A) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
Internet filtering or blocking services or software;
(B) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
Internet access services;
(C) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
labeling or ratings services;
(D) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
Internet portal or search services;
(E) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
domain name registration services;
(F) 2 members who are academic experts in the field of
technology; and
(G) 4 members who are engaged in the business of making
content available over the Internet.
Of the members of the Commission by reason of each
subparagraph of this paragraph, an equal number shall be
appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
by the Majority Leader of the Senate.
(2) Ex officio members.--The Commission shall include the
following officials:
(A) The Assistant Secretary (or the Assistant Secretary's
designee).
(B) The Attorney General (or the Attorney General's
designee).
(C) The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (or the
Chairman's designee).
(c) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study to
identify technological or other methods that--
(A) will help reduce access by minors to material that is
harmful to minors on the Internet; and
(B) may meet the requirements for use as affirmative
defenses for purposes of section 231(c) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (as added by this title).
Any methods so identified shall be used as the basis for
making legislative recommendations to the Congress under
subsection (d)(3).
(2) Specific methods.--In carrying out the study, the
Commission shall identify and analyze various technological
tools and methods for protecting minors from material that is
harmful to minors, which shall include (without limitation)--
(A) a common resource for parents to use to help protect
minors (such as a ``one-click-away'' resource);
(B) filtering or blocking software or services;
(C) labeling or rating systems;
(D) age verification systems;
(E) the establishment of a domain name for posting of any
material that is harmful to minors; and
(F) any other existing or proposed technologies or methods
for reducing access by minors to such material.
(3) Analysis.--In analyzing technologies and other methods
identified pursuant to paragraph (2), the Commission shall
examine--
(A) the cost of such technologies and methods;
(B) the effects of such technologies and methods on law
enforcement entities;
(C) the effects of such technologies and methods on
privacy;
(D) the extent to which material that is harmful to minors
is globally distributed and the effect of such technologies
and methods on such distribution;
(E) the accessibility of such technologies and methods to
parents; and
(F) such other factors and issues as the Commission
considers relevant and appropriate.
(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the enactment of
this Act, the Commission shall submit a report to the
Congress containing the results of the study under this
section, which shall include--
(1) a description of the technologies and methods
identified by the study and the results of the analysis of
each such technology and method;
(2) the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission
regarding each such technology or method;
(3) recommendations for legislative or administrative
actions to implement the conclusions of the committee; and
(4) a description of the technologies or methods identified
by the study that may meet the requirements for use as
affirmative defenses for purposes of section 231(c) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (as added by this title).
(e) Staff and Resources.--The Assistant Secretary for
Communication and Information of the Department of Commerce
shall provide to the Commission such staff and resources as
the Assistant Secretary determines necessary for the
Commission to perform its duty efficiently and in accordance
with this section.
(f) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 30 days
after the submission of the report under subsection (d).
(g) Inapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the Commission.
SEC. 1406. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators
Subject: File 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Jan, 1999)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
CuD is readily accessible from the Net:
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #11.08
************************************
<--">Return to the Cu Digest homepage
Page maintained by: Jim Thomas - cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu