Message-Id: <55206A473154D011924D0020AFF7ACB527C855@mail1.oulan.ou.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:12:28 -0500
From: Bob Swisher <bswisher@ou.edu>
To: "'it-fyi@ou.edu'" <it-fyi@ou.edu>
Subject: FARNET's Washington Update 9/5/97
> FARNET'S WASHINGTON UPDATE --- SEPTEMBER 5, 1997
>
> IN THIS ISSUE:
>
> SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS HEARING ON COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
> ON-LINE
>
> ENCRYPTION ISSUES RECEIVE TRIPLE BILLING AS CONGRESS RETURNS FROM
> AUGUST RECESS
>
> COMMERCE NTIA HOSTS INTERNET TELEPHONY FORUM
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
>
> SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS HEARING ON COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
> ON-LINE
>
> September 4 - FARNET joined sixteen other educational and library
> organizations in endorsing testimony before the full Senate Judiciary
> Committee, calling for legislation exempting on-line service providers
> from copyright liability. At issue is whether on-line service
> providers (OSPs) should be responsible for illegal copyright
> infringement by individuals using their services. It has been
> estimated that American companies lose $18-$20 billion annually due to
> piracy of copyright works. The Joint Testimony, presented by Professor
> Robert Oakley of Georgetown University, calls for a "balanced"
> approach: protecting intellectual property rights while also meeting
> the constitutionally guaranteed "fair use" information needs of
> educators and students.
>
> There is concern in the education and commercial on-line service
> industry that fear of copyright infringement lawsuits will inhibit the
> commercial and educational use of the Internet. Witnesses representing
> the recording and software publishing industries at the hearing stated
> such concerns are unfounded. To date there have been extremely few
> lawsuits against on-line service providers for copyright infringement.
> However, that does not guarantee future lawsuits won't force
> universities providing on-line services to waste scarce financial
> resources avoiding the potential litigation costs that liability cases
> could create.
>
> According to the copyright industry, granting OSPs exemptions from
> liability would make them lax in cooperating with content providers in
> avoiding copyright infringements. One witness even questioned the
> fairness of granting this exemption, citing that TV broadcasters,
> magazine publishers, and retail bookstores face the same risk of
> facilitating copyright infringement. A counter argument is that these
> slower-paced industries are easier to monitor than the Internet.
>
> It is apparent from the hearing that the commercial concerns are at
> the forefront of this on-line copyright debate. (The
> education/research sector was represented only by Professor Oakley's
> testimony.) Proponents for limiting OSP liability and the
> education/research sector may be heartened though, by legislation
> recently introduced by Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO). S.1146 ( The
> Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Act of 1997) would
> guarantee that both commercial and not-for-profit providers of
> Internet access would not be held liable for illegal copyright
> activities over which they had no knowledge or control. Whether such
> legislation meets the "balance" so elusive to lawmakers remains to be
> seen. It is certain, however, that any Congressional bills will be
> the subject of intense scrutiny and debate from both the
> content-provider industry and education sectors.
>
>
> ENCRYPTION ISSUES RECEIVE TRIPLE BILLING AS CONGRESS RETURNS FROM
> AUGUST RECESS
>
> September 3 - Encryption is receiving significant Congressional
> attention over the next two weeks as both houses hold hearings on
> several encryption-related issues. On Wednesday the Senate Judiciary
> subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information held
> a hearing entitled, "Encryption and Terrorism". It focused on how
> encryption is utilized by the criminal element and whether U.S. law
> enforcement is powerless to stop it. FBI Director Louis Freeh stated
> that American law enforcement was not asking for additional power, but
> rather "A Fourth Amendment that works in the information age." When
> committee chair Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)asked what law enforcement needs
> were, Freeh replied that increased access to encrypted data was
> needed. In particular, he suggested that manufacturers of encryption
> products be required to include some built-in decryption ability which
> would allow law enforcement to immediately descramble encrypted
> messages. Although not explicitly calling for mandatory key escrow,
> Freeh's comments alarm both Internet privacy advocates and the
> software industry (which stated the plan was too costly and
> unmanageable). Freeh's statements were the most aggressive to date
> for limiting domestic encryption, and run contrary to the Clinton
> Administration's recent decision not to regulate this sector of the
> industry. Encryption exports are still regulated, however.
>
> Perhaps Freeh was heartened by the receptive audience (Both Senators
> Kyl and Feinstein support legislation granting law enforcement access
> to encrypted communications)and that the group of panelists
> representing the "business sector" was comprised mostly of former law
> enforcement agents. Complemented by Senator Kyl as providing a
> "balanced" testimony, the witnesses preceding Freeh cited the growing
> use of encryption in domestic crimes and the need of corporations to
> protect themselves from industrial espionage and "rogue employees".
> (FARNET is uncertain whether any privacy advocacy groups were invited
> to testify.)
>
> Senator Feinstein questioned the witnesses on whether a "balanced"
> approach isn't in fact a cop-out, and also for reasons why there
> shouldn't be mandatory key recovery. Disregarding privacy concerns,
> Professor Dorothy Denning of Georgetown University (who recently
> conducted a study of criminal and terrorist use of encryption) replied
> that key recovery technology has not been perfected, and also cited
> the difficultly of administering a key recovery system.
>
> Pat Leiberman, VP of Corporate Risk Management at VISA, intrigued the
> Senators with his comments on the Secure Electronic Transaction
> protocol (SET). Used throughout the financial industry, SET encrypts
> the transmission of sensitive personal and financial information over
> public networks. Nothing new there. According to Leiberman however,
> because it is "encryption specific" (meaning only the ongoing
> transmission is encrypted) it cannot be used to hide criminal
> activity. Not only is the data not encrypted after transmission, but
> parties conducting the communication are identified or
> "authenticated". According to Leiberman this could provide the back
> door that law enforcement is looking for when needing to access
> encrypted transmissions.
>
> Many in Congress are searching for that elusive "technology fix" that
> will strike a balance between law enforcement needs and protecting
> privacy. Whether the solution lies in technology or legislation, it is
> doubtful that a balance can be struck that will satisfy all parties.
> As of this writing, the House Commerce subcommittee on
> Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection is holding a hearing
> on legislation that would ease export restrictions on encryption
> software. With over 250 House sponsors, H.R.695 (Security and Freedom
> Through Encryption Act)is the antithesis to the Senate's S.909 (The
> Secure Public Networks Act)which has been deemed by some on the Senate
> Judiciary Committee as not limiting encryption enough! Next week the
> House Select Intelligence Committee, one of the last hurdles for
> H.R.695 before reaching the House floor, will hold its hearing on the
> encryption issue. Unless something out of the ordinary occurs (like
> Director Feech's recent statements)to create more controversy, it is
> likely that both pieces of legislation will reach their respective
> floors with little changes.
>
>
> COMMERCE NTIA HOSTS INTERNET TELEPHONY FORUM
>
> September 4 - The Commerce Department's National Telecommunications
> and Information Administration (NTIA)held its first forum on Internet
> Telephony. This day-long event covered a broad range of issues, from
> an overview of Internet Telephony to the policy issues such new
> technology is forcing governments to face to actual technology
> demonstrations. Put concisely, Internet Telephony is the convergence
> of voice and computer data networks. Larry Fromm, Dialogic's VP of New
> Business Development, cited the future trend of a single wire going
> into each home with multiple uses. This would reduce the
> infrastructure costs to the providers, which ideally should result in
> lower prices for the consumer. Fromm foresees a worldwide Internet
> Protocol telephony, which would offer low cost voice and fax services
> using Internet network backbones. Before that can occur, however,
> technical issues of call control, voice coders, interoperability and
> directory services need to be resolved, or at least considered.
>
> In his opening remarks, Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary for
> Communications and Information at Commerce, made the point that
> "government does not need to regulate, but to understand" this new
> medium. Although it was agreed that such a convergence won't become a
> global phenomenon for awhile, the issues of quality, reliability and
> cost need to be addressed now while the technical problems are being
> resolved. The government representatives on the policy panel seemed
> to agree with Irving that the less government intrusion the better.
>
> According to Diane Cornell, Chief of the FCC International Bureau's
> Telecommunications Division, Internet Telephony would introduce "real
> price competition" to overpriced international calls (currently 88
> cents per minute). Citing the Internet's current flat pricing scheme,
> Cornell noted foreign governments' reluctance to allow this new medium
> to compete with their telephone industry. In addition to one outright
> ban on Internet Telephony (Czech Republic), Internet service providers
> have faced severe licensing fees and restrictions, and some nations
> have restricted the number of computers allowed to access an Internet
> network. The U.S. government has advocated a "self-regulatory" policy
> to other nations. On the domestic front, if Internet telephony
> becomes commonplace, should Internet service providers (ISPs) be
> required to contribute to the Universal Service Fund? Will customers
> be charged by the minute, instead of a flat fee? ISPs - commercial
> and educational alike - need to be prepared for these possibilities
> (along with paying higher access charges to Local Exchange Carriers
> (LECs) because Internet Telephony uses up more bandwidth). Although
> regulatory parity between the traditional telephone versus Internet
> telephony communications is not a crucial concern right now, there is
> fear that this new medium would degrade the public telephone network,
> thus eliminating competition instead of fostering it. As Congress
> questions the effectiveness of the Telecommunications Act, it would
> probably be best for consumers and providers alike if a proactive
> stance is taken, rather than the reactive approach which has resulted
> in the current regulatory confusion.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update"
> is a service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers. We
> gratefully acknowledge EDUCOM's NTTF and the Coalition for Networked
> Information (CNI) for additional support. If you would like more
> information about the Update or would like to offer comments or
> suggestions, please contact Garret Sern at garret@farnet.org.