The "Repeal the CDA item"-- Spring '96 version

Mar 24 03:26 UTC 1996

  This is the item for continued discussion and news posts about an
issue of great importance to every user on grex, The communications
decency act.  Currently in federal court in Philadelphia, PA, the
CDA, which was signed into law earlier this year, is being challenged
by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a coalition of big-name
'net providers and users groups, most notably the Microsoft Corporation.
This also includes 34,000 individual 'net users who have signed on
as plaintiffs, including some people here on Grex.
  So far in the trial, several of the new "screening" software packages,
that allow parents to block indecent 'net screens from their kids,
have been displayed in court.  The good news is that the Judge seemed
impressed with what he saw.  The bad news is that the court's computer
system crashed when the first proposed software was loaded.  So it goes.
  Anyway, the argument being made by the ACLU is that congress had a
responsibility to find the means to their ends that is LEAST intrusive
to citizens' first amendment rights.  That is the law, not an ideal, and
its a persuasive argument, in my view anyway, that in an overzealousness
to pass judgement on the cyberporn problem, lawmakers didnt look for
the best alternatives.
   In any case I strongly encourage everyone to follow this trial.  There
are several websites with complete coverage and when I have a complete
list I will post it.

response 2 of 43:

Mar 24 16:54 UTC 1996

Why not here? Boycotting unbloated agoras, steve?

response 4 of 43:

Mar 27 00:37 UTC 1996

 re #1...srw, cyberpunk is a topical conf and few people are going to
be reading winter agora as it has expired.  This is appropriate,
unless you wanted to link the old agora item.

response 6 of 43:

Mar 27 01:20 UTC 1996

Incidentally, you too can join this lawsuit.  The CIEC is still asking
people to put their name on the plaintiff list.  Just fill out the
information screen on the CIEC page (www.cdt.org) with your personal
info.  I personally was proud to attach my name to this.  As of 
today, there are 26,750 or so individual members of the coalition.

response 8 of 43:

Mar 28 08:08 UTC 1996

I will post the next CIEC mailing I get wherever you like, actually.
I just wanted to post them in only one place. I figured the old item was 
best, as there already were the earlier ones in there. I also figured it 
would get linked to agora.  I don't really care, though.

So far no new meddages have come in from CIEC. I'm a little surprised.
I wonder what's going on in the trial.

response 10 of 43:

Mar 28 09:31 UTC 1996

(Isn't the trial in recess now, until April Fool's Day?)

response 12 of 43:

Mar 28 15:57 UTC 1996

I tried to join the CIEC coalition via the web, but got an error message
(not the "busy" one), so I sent e-mail, and got an automated reply that
they were momentarily too busy to read their mail. I can believe it.

response 14 of 43:

Apr 2 06:59 UTC 1996

but i didin't get on the emailing list to reduce TinyLink traffic, so
would someone keep posting the email here? tnx in advance.

response 16 of 43:

Apr 2 23:41 UTC 1996

sounds like anothere April fool item!

response 18 of 43:

Apr 3 12:40 UTC 1996

sorry  guys!  ... seriously! .... it doesnot seem fool proof though!

response 20 of 43:

Apr 12 14:46 UTC 1996

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
       _______   _       _    ____        _ _      _   _
      |__   __| (_)     | |  |  _ \      | | |    | | (_)
         | |_ __ _  __ _| |  | |_) |_   _| | | ___| |_ _ _ __
         | | '__| |/ _` | |  |  _ <| | | | | |/ _ \ __| | '_ \
         | | |  | | (_| | |  | |_) | |_| | | |  __/ |_| | | | |
         |_|_|  |_|\__,_|_|  |____/ \__,_|_|_|\___|\__|_|_| |_|

    Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Trial Update No. 8
              Pre-Trial Update -  April 11, 1996 12:00 noon ET
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
                     http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
                        ciec-info@cdt.org
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
   CIEC UPDATES intended for members of the Citizens Internet
   Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the
   Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This
   document may be reposted as long as it remains in total.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------

          ** 40,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. **
                 * The Fight To Save Free Speech Online *
  Contents:

  o Pre-Trial Update - Government To Present Its Defense of CDA
    Beginning Friday April 12
      * List of Government Witnesses Expected to Testify
      * Schedule for Remainder of Trial
  o Transcripts of the Frist Two Days of Testimony Now Online!
  o Subscription Information
  o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and Technology

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

(1) GOVERNMENT TO BEGIN ITS DEFENSE OF CDA BEGINNING FRIDAY 4/12

The fight to overturn the Communications Decency Act will enter its second
phase on Friday April 12 with testimony from witnesses called by the
Government in defense of the CDA.  The government is expected to call
several witnesses (listed below) who will argue that the Communications
Decency Act is necessary and is the "least restrictive means" of protecting
children from "indecent" and "patently offensive" material on the Internet.


Although the government has given some indication of its strategy for
defending the CDA during the first three days of testimony (see CIEC Trial
Bulletin No.7, 4/1/96), over the next two days we will learn a great deal
more about the government's position.  The government is also expected to
conduct its own Internet demonstration, and is likely to try and show the
court examples of sexually explicit material available on the Internet.

Witnesses scheduled to testify on Friday April 12 and Monday April 15:

* Howard Schmidt, Supervisory Special Agent, Director of Air Force
  Office of Special Investigation, Computer Crime Investigations
  (Government Witness)

* Dan Olsen, Professor of Computer Science, Brigham Young University
  (Government Witness)

* Albert Vezza (Associate Director, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science and
  Chairman of the World Wide Web  Consortium), on behalf of the Citizens
  Internet Empowermnet Coalition. Vezza was unable to testify at the April
  1 hearing due to scheduling conflicts.

Government witnesses will be cross examined by CIEC and ACLU lawyers. CIEC
and ACLU lawyers will also have an opportunity to present rebuttal
testimony during a hearing scheduled for April 26, and again in closing
arguments scheduled for June 3.

OVERVIEW OF EXPECTED TESTIMONY FOR APRIL 12 AND 15

Albert Vezza, the last witness to be called on behalf of the plaintiffs,
will explain to the court how PICS works and why it offers parents the
ability to protect children from unwanted material in a less restrictive
means than the CDA.

Howard Schmidt is expected to conduct a live Internet Demonstration in
which he will show the court some of the 'good' material on the Internet,
as well as some of the sexually-explicit material available to minors.

Dan Olsen is expected to testify that the PICS standards (which enable
multiple, third party labeling and content selection) are too cumbersome
and will not be effective.  Based on his declaration, Olsen will instead
propose his own system under which content providers would tag material
with a code (-L18) indicating that the material is not appropriate for
those under 18.

The government is expected to argue that such a content labeling system
would be an appropriate "good faith defense" to prosecution under the CDA.
Interestingly, it is not clear from the language of the CDA that such
system would constitute a "good faith defense" to prosecution, or what
material would require a tag. These issues will be raised by CIEC and ACLU
attorneys during cross examination.

SCHEDULE FOR REMAINDER OF THE TRIAL

April 12 - 15   Government Witnesses (and final CIEC witness)
April 26        Plaintiff's Rebuttal Testimony
May   13        Post-hearing briefs and proposed findings of law and
                fact from both sides will be filed
June 3          Closing Arguments (each side is given 2 hours)

CDT will post a summary of Friday's testimony shortly after the testimony
concludes for the day (and after we travel back down to Washington DC).
Previous issues of CIEC Trial Bulletins are available on CDT's world wide
web page (http://www.cdt.org/)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Transcripts of 3/21 and 3/22 Hearings Available Online

Transcripts of the first two days of testimony are now available online.
Transcripts of the 4/1 hearing will be posted soon.

To view the transcripts, visit:

 http://www.cdt.org/ciec/transcripts/index.html

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

response 22 of 43:

Apr 14 05:40 UTC 1996

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
       _______   _       _    ____        _ _      _   _
      |__   __| (_)     | |  |  _ \      | | |    | | (_)
         | |_ __ _  __ _| |  | |_) |_   _| | | ___| |_ _ _ __
         | | '__| |/ _` | |  |  _ <| | | | | |/ _ \ __| | '_ \
         | | |  | | (_| | |  | |_) | |_| | | |  __/ |_| | | | |
         |_|_|  |_|\__,_|_|  |____/ \__,_|_|_|\___|\__|_|_| |_|

    Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Trial Update No. 9
              Pre-Trial Update -  April 13, 1996 5:30 pm ET
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
                     http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
                        ciec-info@cdt.org
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
   CIEC UPDATES intended for members of the Citizens Internet
   Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the
   Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This
   document may be reposted as long as it remains in total.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------

          ** 40,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. **
                 * The Fight To Save Free Speech Online *
  Contents:

  o Government Argues CDA is Necessary and Not Overly Restrictive
      * Government Witness Proposes Content Labeling Standard
      * SurfWatch Blocks Government Expert
  o How To Unsubscribe from this list
  o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and Technology

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

Quote of the Day: "Come on line with us, and your kids won't see
                   what is in [DOJ lead attorney] Mr. Coppalino's book"
                   of sexually explicit images found online.

-- Judge Stewart Dalzell, suggesting how service providers might market
   PICS compatible Internet services

(1) GOVERNMENT ARGUES CDA IS NECESSARY AND NOT OVERLY RESTRICTIVE

The second phase of the legal challenge to the Communications Decency Act
began on Friday as the Department of Justice presented its defense of the
new law before the three judge panel in Philadelphia. Although basic
outline of the government's defense has been known for some time, Friday
marked the first time that the Government has presented witnesses in
defense of the CDA.

Based on Friday's testimony, the basis of the government's defense appears
to be that sexually explicit material is easily available to minors on the
Internet, and that the CDA, combined with a system for labeling sexually
explicit material, is necessary to prevent minors from accessing sexually
explicit material online.

Three witnesses testified at the Friday hearing:

* Howard Schmidt, Special Agent, Director of the Air Force Office of
  Special Investigations, Computer Crime Investigations, and

* Dan Olsen, Chair of the Brigham Young University Computer Science
  Department

* Albert Vezza, of MIT and the World Wide Web Consortium. (Vezza was
  called by the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition).

DOJ EXPERT CLAIMS THAT SPEAKER-BASED LABELING IS AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTION

The government also called Dan Olsen, form Brigham Young University, who
testified that a content labeling system he has developed can effectively
prevent minors from accessing sexually explicit material online. Olsen
proposed that content providers who offer sexually explicit material should
include a "-L18" (for under 18) tag on their sites, and that World Wide Web
browsers should be programmed to recognize this tag and prevent minors from
accessing tagged sites.

Despite Olsen's academic affiliation and research credentials, his standing
as an expert on Internet standards setting is questionable at best. Olsen
does not sit on the Internet Engineering Task Force or any other body
charged with developing protocols for the Internet, nor does he have any
other direct experience with the Internet standards process.  This fact was
challenged by CIEC attorney's, who initially objected to Olsen's testimony.
The court overruled the objection, stating that they would hear Olsen's
testimony "for what it's worth".

Olsen, who admitted he came up with the idea for a -L18 tag only since the
government asked him to testify in this case, suggested that the burden of
preventing minors from accessing objectionable material online should fall
primarily on content providers, rather than the recipients of the material.


During cross examination by CIEC attorney Bruce Ennis and ACLU attorney
Chris Hansen, Olsen admitted that his proposal contains several critical
shortcomings.  Among these:

* The standard for what material should receive a -L18 tag is difficult
  to determine.

* Relying on speakers to label their material requires that listeners
  trust the judgment of the speaker, and limits the ability of listeners
  to make decisions based on their own personal or family values.

* The -L18 proposal contains no flexibility - it is either on or off.

* It is basically impossible for a content provider to determine who is
  an adult and to ensure that only adults have access to adult-oriented
  materials.

Ennis argued that, as a result, the only effective method to prevent minors
from accessing inappropriate material online is to rely on end users and
parents to control what material comes into their homes using parental
control technologies such as SurfWatch, CyberPatrol, AOL's Parental Control
features, PICS, etc.

Interestingly, although Olsen's proposal is conceptually similar to
KidCode, a content labeling standards proposed by Nathaniel Borenstein last
summer. Olsen stated he didn't know what KidCode was nor had he ever heard
of it.

Finally, Olsen testified that, because the government was involved in the
initial development of the Internet, he believes that the government has a
role in determining appropriate technical standards for content labeling.
This testimony was particularly striking because it in many ways represents
the worst nightmare of CDA opponents -- that the law will permit Government
will dictate technical protocols and standards for content on the Internet.
Although this remains a significant concern, CIEC and ACLU attorneys
effectively demonstrated that Olsen's proposed solution is poorly conceived
and impractical.

SURFWATCH FOILS GOVERNMENT EXPERT

Howard Schmidt conducted a live demonstration of the Internet, taking the
court on a tour of world wide web sites devoted to legal issues, a site
promoting the City of Philadelphia, and several search engines. He then
showed the court several usenet newsgroups and decoded pictures of ducks
from the alt.binaries.pictures.animals newsgroup.  Schmidt then showed the
court sites containing sexually explicit images, although no he did not
actually display any sexually explicit materials.

Schmidt's demonstration was intended to show how easily a child can access
sexually explicit materials online.  Throughout the course of the court
proceedings, the government has sought to show that minors can
inadvertently stumble upon "indecent" or "patently offensive" material in
the normal course of using the Internet, particularly through search
engines, and that parental control software such as SurfWatch and
Cyberpatrol are not effective at preventing minors from accessing such
material.

While Schmidt claimed that minors can "inadvertently" stumble upon sexually
explicit material on the Internet, the Judges appeared unconvinced and
asked several pointed questions. Judge Sloviter repeatedly asked "Can one
inadvertently come across this material?".

Schmidt's claim that minors can inadvertently access sexually explicit
material on the Internet highlights a critical issue in this case. If the
government can demonstrate that minors can easily and inadvertently receive
indecent or patently offensive material on the Internet, the gvt. can argue
that the Internet is a "pervasive medium" similar to television and radio,
and that broad content regulations like the CDA are the only way to protect
minors.

In his testimony, Schmidt cited examples of sexually explicit web sites
which were not blocked by SurfWatch.  Schmidt testified that he had found
these sites by searching for terms such as "sex" and "xxx" on popular
Internet search engines. During cross examination by CIEC attorney Ann
Kappler however, Schmidt revealed that he had run his initial searches
WITHOUT SurfWatch running.  Kappler noted that SurfWatch prevents searches
for terms like "sex" or "xxx", and that had Schmidt been running the
program when he conducted his initial search, he would have been unable to
access any of the sites he claimed SurfWatch didn't block.

In response to relentless questioning by Kappler, Schmidt reluctantly
admitted that "SurfWatch would not have allowed the [initial] search".

PICS - AN EXAMPLE OF A LESS-RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO THE CDA

In addition to the two government witnesses, the CIEC called Albert Vezza
of MIT and the World Wide Web Consortium to explain the Platform For
Internet Content Selection (PICS) to the court.

PICS is a set of protocols which will permit voluntary multiple,
independent third party rating systems to operate on the Internet and
commercial online services, as well as permit content providers to rate
their own material.  The PICS standards are being developed at MIT through
the World Wide Web Consortium with the support of most of the online
industry, including America Online, Prodigy, Netscape, Microsoft, Apple,
and others.

Vezza explained to the court that PICS, unlike Dan Olsen's "-L18" tag, will
allow for tremendous flexibility in rating content, and that many ratings
systems are possible. And, because PICS would be controlled at the user
level, parents and other users would have tremendous control over what
material they access.

Vezza also testified that PICS is far less restrictive and far more
effective at preventing children from accessing inappropriate material than
the Communications Decency Act. Vezza testified that because a substantial
amount of sexually explicit material is available on sites outside the
United states, and because PICS allows parents to utilize trusted
third-party rating systems, it is inherently more powerful and flexible
than the broad restrictions imposed by the CDA.

Vezza also pointed out that the PICS standards will allow parents to block
access to all unrated sites if they choose. As a result, Vezza said,
"children could be protected without mandating any one rating system, from
foreign sites, and from sites with indecent or patently offensive material
that has not been rated".

The Judges appeared extremely interested in Vezza's testimony, and asked
numerous questions. Judge Stewart Dalzell, who has taken a keen interest in
the case, stated for the second time since the trial began that the world
wide web has developed almost entirely because the government has stayed
out of the way.  At one point, Dalzell stated "There must be powerful
market forces driving this process". Dalzell then stated rhetorically that
he could imagine a marketing advantage for implementing PICS standards and
that providers would sell their services by saying, "come on line with us
and your kids won't see what is in Mr. Coppalino's book", referring to the
book of evidence containing sexually explicit images found online.

TESTIMONY TO RESUME MONDAY APRIL 15

Testimony will resume on Monday April 15 with Government witness Dan Olsen.
The trial is proceeding more quickly than initially expected, and it is
possible that all testimony from both sides will be concluded on Monday.
It is possible that the hearing originally scheduled for April 26 will be
canceled, and that the closing arguments, scheduled for June 6, will be
moved to up to mid-May.  CDT will post an update as more information
becomes available.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

More information on the case, including the text of the complaint,
supporting documents, transcripts from the first three days of testimony,
and back issues of CIEC Trial Bulletins can be found on the Citizens
Internet Empowerment Coalition Web Site:

  http://www.cdt.org/ciec

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Subscription Information

As CIEC members, you have been invited to join this list in order to
receive news updates and other information relevant to the CIEC challenge
to the Communications Decency Act. To subscribe, visit
http://www.cdt.org/ciec and join the Coalition.

If you ever want to remove yourself from this list, send email to

   ciec-members-request@cdt.org

with 'unsubscribe ciec-members' in the SUBJECT LINE (w/o the 'quotes').
Leave the body of your message blank.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) For More Information

For more information on the CIEC challenge, including the text of the
complaint and other relevant materials:

* World Wide Web                      --        http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
* General Information about CIEC      --        ciec-info@cdt.org
* Copy of the Complaint               --        ciec-docs@cdt.org

* Specific Questions Regarding the
  Coalition, incuding Press Inquiries --        ciec@cdt.org

* General information about the
  Center for Democracy and Technology --        info@cdt.org

--
end ciec-update.9
4/13/96

response 24 of 43:

Apr 16 02:34 UTC 1996

It sounds like the the defense is doing a very effective job.