[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
HISTORY - pre-CDA, "compromise", untrue civil-liberties groups (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:44:12 -0400
From: Seth Finkelstein <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
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
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 21:11:50 -0500
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected]
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: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 16:35:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[email protected]>
To: Fight Censorship Mailing List <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise
To: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 18:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "[email protected]" 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: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Bob Chatelle)
Subject: Re: Reuters/AP: Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 22:30:05 EST
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
In article Mike Godwin <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 23:51:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[email protected]>
To: Fight Censorship Mailing List <[email protected]>
Subject: CDT Funding and Cyberporn "Compromise"
Cc: [email protected]
References: <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
voice: 202/429-6928