Volume 3.03 February 8, 1996
[1] Telecom Bill Signed; Lawsuit Challenges "Indecency" Provision
[2] Court of Appeals OK's Caller ID
[3] Court Refuses to Hear Avrahami Case
[4] Upcoming Conferences and Events
[1] Telecom Bill Signed; Lawsuit Challenges "Indecency" Provision
President Clinton signed the telecommunications reform legislation,
which includes Internet "indecency" restrictions, in a ceremony today
at the Library of Congress. While touting the virtues of the "V-chip"
provisions intended to block children's access to violent television
programming, the President was silent on the controversial Internet
censorship measure.
Shortly after the bill was signed, EPIC, in conjunction with the
American Civil Liberties Union and a broad coalition of other
organizations, filed suit in federal district court in Philadelphia
seeking a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the
"indecency" provision. EPIC is participating as both co-counsel and
plaintiff in the litigation.
The legislation's vague "indecency" standard will have an obvious
impact upon the free speech rights of millions of Americans who use
computer networks to receive and distribute information. Less apparent
is the assault on privacy rights that the legislation will engender.
EPIC believes that in order to avoid potential criminal liability under
the "indecency" provision, information providers would, in effect, be
required to verify the identities and ages of all recipients of
material that might be deemed inappropriate for children. The new
statutory regime would thus result in the creation of "registration
records" for tens of thousands of Internet sites, containing detailed
descriptions of information accessed by particular recipients. Such a
regime constitutes a gross violation of Americans' rights to access
information privately and anonymously.
According to David L. Sobel, Legal Counsel for EPIC, "Whether the
millions of individuals visiting sites on the Internet are seeking
information on teenage pregnancy, AIDS and other sexually transmitted
diseases, classic works of literature or avant-garde poetry, they enjoy
a Constitutional right to do so privately and anonymously. The
Internet "indecency" provisions seek to destroy that right."
EPIC is confident that upon review of the legislation and its impact
upon free speech and privacy rights in emerging electronic media, the
courts will invalidate the measure as fundamentally at odds with the
Constitution.
Current information on the litigation, including the complaint, is
available at:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/
[2] Court of Appeals OK's Caller ID
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on January 31 denied a request by the
California Public Utility Commission and several public interest and
battered women's groups to strike down the pending FCC rules on Caller
ID.
California rules had required that telephone companies automatically
provide per line blocking (the caller's number is not transmitted
unless he or she specifically arranges for disclosure) for all
subscribers with unlisted or unpublished numbers. The FCC rule overrode
that provision and required that subscribers will have only per call
blocking (they must first dial *67 to blocking their number before each
call) .
The court gave great deference to the FCC decision to partially
pre-empt the California Public Utility Commission rules on Caller ID.
The court ruled that the FCC's decision was not "arbitrary and
capricious" because it was "necessary to prevent negation of a valid
FCC regulatory goal" and that "the imposition of the per call blocking
option on subscribers with nonpublished numbers and emergency service
organizations, who do not make a choice between Caller ID blocking
systems, does not violate any federal constitutional right."
The text of the decision is available at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/caller_id/cal_v_us.html
[3] Court Refuses to Hear Avrahami Case
A Virginia district court on February 6 refused to hear the case of a
man suing U.S. News & World Report for selling his personal information
without his consent. District Court Judge Karen Henenberg ruled that
the lower court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The judge
reversed a previous ruling she issued in November that she could hear
the case. The practical effect of the decision is to delay judicial
consideration of the legal issues raised in the case.
The case now goes to the higher Circuit Court to hear a motion by U.S.
News requesting trial in that court. The hearing is scheduled for June
6.
USA Today recently commented on the efforts of Avrahami and several
others opposing junk mail practices by noting that "for anyone tired of
emptying wastebaskets laden with unwanted mail, the efforts of Beken,
Avhrahami, and others deserve a cheer."
More information on the case is available at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/junk_mail/
[4] Upcoming Conferences and Events
Technologies of Freedom: Blueprints for Action, Feb. 29-March 2.
Washington, DC. Sponsored by the Alliance for Public Technology.
Contact: Ruth Holder holder@apt.org or http://apt.org/apt/
Computers Freedom and Privacy '96. March 27-30, 1996. Cambridge, Mass.
Sponsored by MIT, ACM and WWW Consortium. Contact cfp96@mit.edu or
http://web.mit.edu/cfp96/
Conference on Technological Assaults on Privacy, April 18-20, 1996.
Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York. Papers should
be submitted by February 1, 1996. Contact Wade Robison privacy@rit.edu,
by FAX at (716) 475-7120, or by phone at (716) 475-6643.
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 6-8, 1996. Oakland, CA.
Sponsored by IEEE. Contact: sp96@cs.pdx.edu or
http://www.cs.pdx.edu/SP96.
Visions of Privacy for the 21st Century: A Search for Solutions. May
9-11, 1996. Victoria, British Columbia. Sponsored by The Office of
Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Province of British
Columbia and the University of Victoria. Program at
http://www.cafe.net/gvc/foi
Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy June 24-26,
1996. New South Wales, Australia. Sponsored by Australasian Society for
Electronic Security and University of Wollongong. Contact: Jennifer
Seberry (jennie@cs.uow.edu.au).
Privacy Laws & Business 9th Annual Conference. July 1-3, 1996. St.
John's College, Cambridge, England. Contact: Ms. Gill Ehrlich +44 181
423 1300 (tel), +44 181 423 4536 (fax).
Advanced Surveillance Technologies II. Sponsored by EPIC and Privacy
International. September 16, 1996. Ottawa, Canada. Contact
pi@privacy.org or http://www.privacy.org/pi/conference/
18th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy
Commissioners. September 18-20, 1996. Ottawa, Canada. Sponsored by the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
(Send calendar submissions to Alert@epic.org)
The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic
Privacy Information Center. To subscribe, send email to
epic-news@epic.org with the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes).
Back issues are available via http://www.epic.org/alert/
The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest
research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus
public attention on emerging privacy issues relating to the National
Information Infrastructure, such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital
Telephony proposal, medical record privacy, and the sale of consumer
data. EPIC is sponsored by the Fund for Constitutional Government, a
non-profit organization established in 1974 to protect civil liberties
and constitutional rights. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues
Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research.
For more information, email info@epic.org, HTTP://www.epic.org or
write EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington, DC
20003. +1 202 544 9240 (tel), +1 202 547 5482 (fax).
If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks should
be made out to "The Fund for Constitutional Government" and sent to EPIC,
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington DC 20003.
Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and First
Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right of
privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption and
funding of the National Wiretap Plan.
Thank you for your support.