The Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the
Communications Decency Act of 1996 outlawing the distribution of
indecent e-mail for the purpose of harassing other people does
not violate free-speech rights. The law applies to e-mail that is
"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent with intent to
annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person." ApolloMedia,
developer of the annoy.com Web site, had challenged the law as an
infringement of free speech. Annoy.com allows users to send
anonymous communications to public officials. The Supreme Court
justices backed a lower court's ruling that the provision applies
only to "obscenity." ApolloMedia had argued that terms of the
provision extend beyond obscenity and leave the company open to
being criminally prosecuted because its communications could be
judged indecent by some. (Washington Post 04/20/99)
It's unanimous! Free speech wins in the United States Supreme Court. Here is the full text of the Reno v. ACLU decision (~93Kb).
The CDA would have subjected all online content to an unconstitutionally vague and severe "indecency" restriction, imposed speech-chilling liability on Internet access providers, and criminalized even classic works of literature and art, and medical and educational materials about sex and health. We now await the inevitable "Son of CDA"...
"Key recovery" would allow law enforcement officials to rebuild, or "recover" the mathematical key to encoded messages with the help of third-party code-breakers. The new policy reflects suggestions made in a National Research Council report. Under the Clinton plan, encryption keys would be expanded from 40 bits to 56 bits in products to be exported, provided the company agrees to the key recovery process. In addition, authority to issue licenses for overseas sales of such products would move from the State Department, where
they're handled as "munitions," over to the Commerce Department.
The ITARs prohibit the export of encryption software (like PGP), classifying it as "munitions." After extensive review, the Department of State decided to exempt temporary export of cryptographic products for personal use. Unfortunately, the exemption does not apply to sales, marketing or demonstration purposes, or to exports to certain countries. Further legislative efforts to fashion reasonable regulations are underway (Congress and Senate). For a more rational and (probably unwittingly) net-savvy strategy, check out Canada's approach.
The statute includes privacy protection measures. Unhappy, the FBI continues to pursue further expansion of telecommunications wiretapping capacity. The legislation itself imposes requirements on telecommunications carrier and service companies to make their networks wiretap-friendly. Most recently, the FBI requested expanded capacity to allow up to one person on every residential block in the U.S. to be under wiretap surveillance at all times.
Many states have considered, pending, or passed legislation to regulate online content. These bills affect a wide range of online speech and content, but none indicate an understanding of the unique nature of the online medium. The state bills, like the federal Communications Decency Act, raise serious free speech and privacy concerns. Many ban the distribution of material which is clearly constitutionally protected for adults. This link will take you to the ACLU for more info. Use this link at the U.S. House of Representatives to find the text of the state laws.
The Bill (formerly C-118) would make any search warrant for a computer system applicable to "all data contained in or available to" the system, potentially force people to provide passwords and encryption keys to searched data, and even allow warrantless searching. Can you say "privacy nightmare"? The new law would almost certainly be an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." Of course, since identical laws are already in force in other statutes (see here), there's little chance that the Bill will be modified.
UPDATE: Bill C-17 passed Second Reading in the House of Commons on June 11, 1996. It is under review by the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. Also, Bruce Phillips, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has added his voice to this struggle.
The section makes it an offence, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to obtain unauthorized use of a computer system. Did you think it was ok to use your spouse's ATM card and password, with his or her permission, to pay a bill? Did you think that if you misused your university Internet access the worst that could happen was a meeting with the Dean? Think again.
The European Commission has rejected the "key recovery" and "key escrow"
data security approaches favored by the Clinton Administration but opposed
by the computer industry and many privacy groups. Under the "key" system,
the users of encryption software would be required to deposit a decoding
"key" with an independent organization, which would have to make it
available to law enforcement agencies that obtained a court-ordered wire
tap. The European Commission says that the key escrow and recovery
techniques would not only threaten privacy and impede commerce, but would be
ineffective as well. It calls for
encouraging the adoption of leaner, freer laws, and even for the EC to
override member state's rules if they are over-regulatory.
The British watchdog group Statewatch revealed confidential documents from
the European Union's intergovernmental meetings that show a global
wiretapping system is under way among Europe, the United States and other
industrialized countries. Legally speaking, the resolution and memorandum agreed among the EU's 15
countries have not yet been accepted by national parliaments, so it has no
value except as a clear and profound indication of political will.
On March 27/97, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released its "Guidelines For Cryptography Policy," after more than a year of intense talks between officials from the 29 governments. The guidelines do not explicitly urge governments to establish "key escrow" encryption schemes, although individual countries will be able to act according to their own wishes, for "national security" purposes. The United States, France and Britain have taken steps to pursue key escrow schemes -- but northern Europe isn't signing on.
In September 1996, the Association of South East Asian Nations (Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam) agreed in theory to police the internet and block off sites that run counter to Asian values. They did not reach an agreement on what to block, or how. Southeast Asia is quickly becoming one of the worst regions for cyber-rights protection.
Support the STOP! campaign against censorship laws.
In April 1996, New South Wales Attorney-General Jeff Shaw announced plans for new criminal sanctions for restricted online content. The offences are punishable by up to one year in prison or AU$10,000 fines (for individuals; AU$25,0000 for corporations). The planned legislation targets any user or service provider who transmits offensive material via a public telecommunications system. Types of material covered will include films rated "R" and "material unsuitable for minors under 15." Shaw said, "The planned legislation will also promote the development of industry codes of practice." Sure, but will that be before or after the year in jail?
UPDATE: At a meeting in Sydney on July 11/12, 1996, the Standing Committee of Attorneys General (SCAG) put the proposed state legislation "on hold" and effectively handed over responsibility to the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Western Australia, however, is still proceeding independently with its own legislation. The Attorneys General will meet again in October to reconsider the situation.
UPDATE: The "Senate Select Committee on Community Standards" has released its report on on-line services. The committee recieved 46 submissions from individuals and groups of which 39 were opposed to heavy handed government intervention. Despite this, the report recommends the government introduce strict and oppressive laws which are not only a threat to free speech and freedom of access to information, but which also impose heavy financial burdens on small ISPs, making it impossible for them to comply with the law and compete with the large providers such as MSN, OzEmail and Telstra.
UPDATE: The Australian ministry for Communications, Information Technology and the
Arts has proposed draconian measures to block
information on the internet that is rated RC, X or R according to Australian
film and video classification standards. The Australian Broadcasting
Authority (ABA) will administer this regime.
The Australian Government requires that online service providers to remove RC and X-rated material from the Internet once
they have been notified of its existence. The regime also provides for
self-regulatory codes of practice for the online service provider industry,
to be overseen by the ABA. These codes of practice must include a commitment
by an online service provider to take all reasonable steps to block access
to such content hosted overseas, once the service provider has been notified
of the existence of the material by the ABA. Many millions of websites are
likely to be blocked if the proposals are effectively implemented.
In its March 13/96 edition, French newspaper Le Soir reported that a law passed in December 1994 requires the state-owned telecommunications carrier to be capable of activating any wiretap necessary for law enforcement purposes. The law also prohibits any cryptographic systems aimed at protecting privacy from blocking these wiretaps. Crypto systems have to be "agreed" to by the government's Institut Belge des postes et Telecommunications (IBPT). The author of Le Soir article, Alain Guillaume, speculates that this "agreement" means that encryption keys must be kept by IBPT.
In an attack on the country's political dissidents, the military regime in Burma has outlawed the unauthorized possession of a computer with networking capability. Prison terms of 7 to 15 years in prison may be imposed on those who evade the law or who are found guilty of using a computer to send or receive information on such topics as state security, the economy and national culture. (Financial Times 5 Oct 96)
The Chinese government has issued a detailed list of computer crimes, which
include the use of the Internet to defame government agencies, "split the
country" (by encouraging supporters of the Dalai Lama or of independence for
Taiwan), divulge state secrets, transmit or receive pornography, or break
into networked computers. A government official justified the new rules by
saying that "the safe and effective management of computer information
networks is a prerequisite for the smooth implementation of the country's
modernization drive." (New York Times 31 Dec 97)
The Hong Kong government and an organization of Internet
service providers issued a code of practice on October 27/97 to regulate what it
called indecent and obscene material in cyberspace.
The code provided detailed guidelines to members of the Hong Kong
Internet Service Providers Association (HKISPA) on how to prevent
users of their services from "placing and transmitting" obscene
materials, the HKISPA said in a statement.
The government said in a separate statement that the self-regulatory
code of practice would maintain the free flow of information while
safeguarding the interests of young people.
The HKISPA said it would block Web sites that were found to contain
obscene material once it received a complaint.
"We have consulted all our members in drawing up the code of practice
and the practice statement and have obtained their full support in
its implementation. All our members agree that they have an important
social responsibility to fulfill," the group said.
The HKISPA's 40 members provide services that cover about 95 percent
of the Internet market in Hong Kong.
In September 1996, the Chinese Government blocked internet access to approximately
100 web sites including CNN and the Wall Street Journal, and overseas dissident sites. We all know how progressive news media organizations like CNN and the WSJ can provoke rebelliousness. (Well, no one ever accused Chinese leadership of being reasonable.)
Early in February 1996, China issued new rules to regulate links to the Internet, ordering all existing computer networks to liquidate and re-register. All networks must use international channels provided by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT), which will install software to filter out politically sensitive or pornographic information. All existing interactive networks will be subject to management by the MPT, the Ministry of Electronics Industry, the State Education Commission and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The rules ban organizations and individuals from activities violating state security or secrets laws, and ban pornography and political content.
In mid-February 1996, Internet users inside China were ordered to register with the police within 30 days and sign a promise not to harm the nation and not to commit crime. The aim of this procedure, according to a police computer regulation official, was for "the healthy development of China's information industry", to "prevent criminal behavior in this area" and to "halt the flow of harmful information".
On August 30, 1996, Johan "Julf" Helsingius decided to close his Internet pseudonymous remailer. It was the most popular remailer in the world, with over half a million users. However, given the intensity of ignorant fear of the 'net and the ambiguity of Finland information laws, there was no viable alternative to shutdown. "These remailers have made it possible for people to discuss very sensitive matters, such as domestic violence, school bullying or human rights issues anonymously and confidentially on the Internet." Well said, Julf. We salute your withstanding repressive opponents for so long.
On June 5/96, one week before the American CDA was declared unconstitutional, amendment number 200 to the Loi sur la Reglementation des Telecommunications was introduced in the Senate. Two days later, Parliament (Senate and Assembly) voted it into law -- at 3:00am. The new law has two major effects:
Internet services providers will not be held liable for content transmitted through their systems if they block access to sites and newsgroups black-listed by a government organization called the Comite Superieur de la Telematique. If they do not, they will be held liable.
France was the first OECD country to require authorization for use of PGP-like encryption software. The new law lifts this restriction when the encryption keys are held in escrow by "trusted third parties." Welcome to Clipper à la francaise.
UPDATE: Following an application made on June 24 by a group of Socialist Senators, the French Constitutional Council on July 24/96 declared the censorship provisions in the new law (see #1 below) to be unconstitutional and blocked their application.
Germany has passed a law which would allow prosecution of online providers
who "knowingly" allow their services to be used to distribute illegal
material (such as child pornography or Nazi propaganda) if it is
"technically possible and reasonable to prevent it." A German official
said that children must be protected: "That applies even to a network that
knows no national borders. The Internet is not outside the reach of the
law." But critics say the law is too vague to be enforceable. (New York
Times 5 Jul 97, from Edupage)
At the behest of, and in response to legal threats from, the German government, internet providers in Germany have blocked the Dutch Web site Access For All (www.xs4all.nl), removing German users' access to the entire xs4all system. The German government demanded this action because xs4all hosts a Web "home page" with so-called left-wing political content that, though fully legal in the Netherlands, is allegedly illegal in Germany. (see: http://www.anwalt.de/ictf/p960901e.htm). As a result of this action, *all* xs4all web sites, including several thousand that have nothing to do with the offending home page, are unavailable to readers in Germany. However, the futile attempt at censorship has simply drawn increased attention to the offending material and resulted in its widespread availability on other sites throughout the world. They never learn.
UPDATE: With mirror sites defeating it, Germany's main academic network has called off the blockade. The network acted after prosecutors warned that Radikal magazine, hosted by Dutch ISP XS4ALL, was illegal. The network then blocked XS4ALL, which hosts 6,000 Web sites. Protests included widespread mirroring of Radikal. "An effective barrier to the illegal content was not possible," a network spokesman told the Associated Press. (From www.wired.com)
On July 5/96, the German Bundesrat passed the TKG. In Germany, it is sometimes affectionately referred to as "the bugging act" because of its provisions. Article 87 states that anyone who runs a telecommunications facility (like a BBS) must -- at his or her own cost! -- provide the technical capacity to control telecommunication through the facility. Article 88 states that anyone who offers telecommunication services must maintain a database of all customers' addresses. The database must be accessible by a special federal authority called the "Regulierungsbehoerde" at any time and without the knowledge of the service provider!
As millions of subscribers to Compuserve found out, a simple warning from a single German prosecutor was enough to block access to dozens of newsgroups--many of which were news related, of educational interest, or emotional support groups. Access to many of the newsgroups returned when the list was narrowed.
Will they never learn? Attempting to restrict access to revisionist materials only serves the efforts of their promoters. The latest fiasco was initiated by Germany's attempt to curtail Ernst Zundel's website. It was mirrored by several sites outside Germany (e.g.here). Other individuals and organizations have more net-savvy and democratically enlightened approaches to combating revisionism: The Nizkor Project.
The Ministry of Information and the Arts has initiated regulations recommended and administered by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. Under the new rules, discussion is 'free' to take place as long as it "does not undermine the moral values, political stability or religious harmony of Singapore." Effective September 1996, Singapore's access providers are required to install proxy servers that will restrict access to Web resources that are "objectionable," as defined by the Singapore government. What is frightening is that few challenge the restrictions on access to "amoral" sites such as Playboy, "or blocking the stoking of civil unrest over racial or religious intolerance," and that the controversy centers around the political restrictions. The new decrees require religious and political discussion groups to register with the SBA which will censor material it considers likely to incite unrest. The larger issue is that Singapore is often singled out as an example for other Asian countries to emulate, of economic and organizational success. The question is at what cost and whether liberty is to be sacrificed at the altar of so-called "progress."
In October 1997, a single page lauding the cause of North Korea
prompted the South Korean government to
decree a blackout of the million-member GeoCities
community. The Ministry of Information and Communications
directed South Korean ISPs to block GeoCities
after discovering a page celebrating late North
Korean leader Kim Il-Sung's doctrine of chajusong
- self-reliance. The page is attributed to the
Australian Association for the Study of the Juche
Idea - another reference to what the authors term
Kimilsungism. GeoCities has not considered removing the site, accessible here.
In typical Orwellian newspeak, they call it "Safety-Net". The organization, endorsed by the British government, will publish a legality indicator for Usenet news groups to indicate what kind of illegal and pornographic material each contains. No doubt, ratings will be based on some legislators' dimly remembered sexual arousal, but even so we foresee the birth of a surprisingly popular, government-financed guide to naughty bits online. Of course, it will be just as easy to access your favorite kinky knickers page, but now you'll be able to narrow your prurient search courtesy of Her Majesty's Government. (Snippet from Netsurfer Digest.)
The Clubs & Vice unit of Charing Cross police station has written to all Internet Service Providers in the United Kingdom demanding that they censor their USENET newsfeed by deleting certain newsgroups. The police warn that ISPs will be held accountable for the content of their newsfeeds. This could make them liable to length jail sentences if convicted of an offence. The police letter explicitly states that this in only the starting point.
A Department of Trade and Industry discussion paper supports encryption key escrow by licensed "Trusted Third Parties" (TTPs). According to a spokesman, "It is voluntary. If you want to pursue other means of encryption for whatever reason, you can do what you want and we would not stand in your way." Keys held in escrow would be available for authorized intelligence and law enforcement use. The Government plans to encourage the use of TTP networks by the European Union and the OECD.
The rules came into effect in late May 1996. The directive, issued by the General Directorate of Posts and Telecommunications, stipulated that subscribers will only be allowed access via companies which restrict information in accordance with state regulations. In addition, subscribers are legally responsible for any information they provide or receive. These regulations come after the April admission by a government official that Vietnam intends to use filtering software to censor the net.
