Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.cyberpunk,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,info.big-internet,misc.legal.computing,talk.politics.misc,umcc.general Subject: National Information Systems and the US Bill of Rights (854 lines) Summary: Every computer a press, every hacker a publisher. Followup-To: comp.admin.policy Distribution: Organization: none Keywords: US,Constitution,Bill of Rights,House of Representatives,hearings,cyberspace Cc: National Information Systems and the US Bill of Rights v. 1.7.1 August 18, 1993 Communications 680 Ethics in Communication School of Communications Grand Valley State University Allendale, MI, 49401, USA Prof. Alexander Nesterenko by Henry Edward Hardy Here is a draft of my proposed testimony for "The Role of the Government in Cyberspace" hearings of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee on Policy and Energy of the US House of Representatives. I am hoping to ensure that this testimony will one way or another become part of the public record of these hearings. --HH (seraphim@umcc.umich.edu, moderator of hh-thesis-l and hh-readers-l) National Information Systems and the U. S. Bill of Rights Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, estimable guests, citizens of the Republic and people of the Net: It is an honor to appear before you today. I ask that the complete written text of my prepared remarks be included in the public record of the proceedings of this Committee. ABSTRACT "It should not be necessary to reinvent the Constitution for every new technology. Mutatis mutandis -- the necessary changes having been made -- we must understand that every computer is a press, and every hacker, a publisher." (see p. 9) INTRODUCTION One of the most cherished guarantors of American democracy is the 'free marketplace of ideas.' The free marketplace of ideas is the essential prerequisite of democracy because without access to the widest possible palette of ideas voting shrinks to be merely a pallid rubber-stamp of a particular ideology or party. It is fundamentally to protect and defend this free marketplace that the first amendment protections of free speech, exercise of religion etc. have been so broadly drawn by the courts and other bodies of governance. The advent of computer mediated communication (CMC) in the past few decades has provided a new and powerful marketplace of ideas open to an ever wider segment of the population. With the advent of 'data superhighways' access to such avenues of ideation may become ubiquitous within the next decade or so. US national information systems such as the Internet, Usenet, Bitnet, Fidonet and their associated networks arguably provide today the most timely, wide-ranging, and uncensored forum for argument, analysis, and exchange of ideas and ideals which has ever existed. Ironically, it is the same trends which promise to make this forum universally accessible which threaten to destroy its value as a free marketplace of ideas. Our national information systems are today threatened by the twin- headed hydra of commercialization and regulation. The thrust of my testimony to you today is that US national interests and the Bill of Rights would be best served by insuring universal access to these technologies for all people while adopting policies which insure that this new national town hall is not denatured by onerous content restrictions or censorship. This presentation consists of four parts. First, a thumbnail description of our national information systems and their development in the context other historical trends in communication and transportation in the US. A substantive discussion of the US Constitution and national information systems follows, with particular regard for the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. My testimony concludes with recommendations and finally a substantial bibliography to which the Committee may direct their staff for further elucidation of the positions outlined in this testimony. WHAT IS 'THE NET?' The Internet. The Internet we make so much of today -- the global Internet which has helped scholars so much, where free speech is flourishing as never before in history -- the Internet was a Cold War military project. It was designed for purposes of communication in a United States devastated by a Soviet nuclear strike. Originally, the Internet was a post-apocalypse command grid. And look at it now. No one really planned it this way. Its users made the Internet that way, because they had the courage to use the network to support their own values, to bend the technology to their own purposes. To serve their own liberty. (Bruce Sterling, Literary Freeware -- Not for Commercial Use. Speech to National Academy of Sciences Convocation on Education and Technology, Washington, D. C., May 10, 1993) Our national information systems for purposes of this paper include those computer mediated communication networks which are at least partially public and/or non commercial in nature. This definition includes both store-and-forward networks such as Usenet, Bitnet and Fidonet as well as integrated networks such as 'the Internet' and Michnet. Such networks may be user-supported, as in the former three , or partially government-funded, as in the case of the latter two. These networks and their associated networks are often referred to collectively as "the Net". Total usership of the Internet is estimated at more than thirty million people, that of Usenet at more than six million. THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY IS ITSELF NOT UNPRECEDENTED Any corporation that genuinely wishes to invest in this country's future should step forward now and offer services and software. Having thrived under democracy, in a free market, the time has come for these corporations to demonstrate an enlightened self-interest, by acting to assure the survival of democracy and the free market -- and, incidentally, by assuring virtually the entire populace of the United States will become computer-literate potential consumers within a single generation. Stop devouring your children's future in order to meet your next quarterly report. (William Gibson, Literary Freeware -- Not for Commercial Use. Speech to National Academy of Sciences Convocation on Education and Technology, Washington, D. C., May 10, 1993) While our CMC-based national information systems are new, it must be understood that the introduction of new forms of communications technology into the US culture is not unprecedented. The US has substantial experience in introducing, facilitating, and regulating new mediums of communication and transportation, and these precedents must be observed and understood in order to illuminate the future of our national information systems. Imagine if telegraphy had been made available to every American in the late 1800's. Or, conversely, imagine that there had never been free broadcast television or radio available to all Americans. Imagine that there were no public highways and that every highway belonged to the construction company which built it and that they were free in the name of the free market to make whatever restrictions on use and charge whatever fees for driving that they desired. Imagine that there was no Postal Service and that private companies were free to open and read every piece of mail they transported. Fax was first made available to people in the old Soviet Union in the 1940's. Facsimile communication was technologically developed in the US by the 1930's, but an alleged anticompetitive agreement between ATT, RCA and newspaper publishers made such technology unavailable to the American people for nearly 50 years. Col. Armstrong, the inventor of FM radio, committed suicide as a protest against the alleged suppression of FM technology. The fate of Tesla's World Broadcasting Company, the Tucker automobile, and the story of Ovshinski's amorphous semiconductors may also be illuminating in this context. The simple fact is that the 'invisible hand' of capitalism in America might more appropriately be likened to the jaws of a wolverine, which bites whatever comes within range of its powerful grip, and fouls whatever carrion it cannot consume. In the context of the national information systems, government regulation should not obstruct the free marketplace, but rather nurture and protect our national town hall from being mortgaged and sold for quick cash. We don't want companies to make windfall profits from other natural monopolies such as our roads, bridges, electrical power grid, postal services, telephone and telegraph services. We should apply the same principles to our national information systems. Deregulation of the savings and loan industry resulted in its self-destruction, and more than a hundred thousand million dollars of tax money were robbed from the American people to pay for this immense error. Airline and oil deregulation have also been a disaster for the American people, and have served to decrease free competition rather than the reverse. Only the chieftains of American capitalism have benefited from the frenzy of corporate cannibalism which has eroded America's once-unquestioned pre-eminence in these fields. Our national information systems are the best in the world. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the Reagan-Bush years which mortgaged America for the short term profit of large campaign contributors. Commercial network service providers, if any, must be regulated as have been other common carriers. Government regulation, if any, must restrict itself to protecting the free marketplace of ideas and not allow any sort of content restriction beyond those imposed on newspapers or telephony. Television, the 'vast wasteland,' might more accurately be described as the 'narrow wasteland.' Despite the proliferation of cable channels, one is simply not likely to hear the views of a Col. Gritz or a Noam Chomsky or for that matter anyone who's views might offend ownership, advertisers, sponsors or pressure groups. In terms of the free marketplace of ideas and national information systems, the FCC regulation of TV and radio content is an excellent example of what we must do everything possible to avoid. THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THE NET To you good lads that dare oppose all lawless power and might, You are the theme that we have chose, and to your praise we write: You dared show your faces brave In spite of every abject slave with a fa la la (A Song Upon the Election of New Magistrates for This City, by John Peter Zenger. To the tune of, "To You Fair Ladies Now on the Land." New York Weekly Journal no. 2., 1734. Burned by the Public Hangman and Whipper of New York by order of the October 1734 New York Grand Jury) The American tradition of freedom of speech and expression antedates the establishment of the Constitution itself by more than 50 years. Alexander Hamilton himself undertook the defense of radical journalist John Peter Zenger in the case of The Attorney General [of New York] v. John Peter Zenger in 1734. The case established precedents in both US and British law, although it was more than 100 years before the case assumed the importance as precedent with which it is now often cited. The Bill of Rights enumerates and illuminates the fundamental freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but does not delimit them. As Justice Ginzberg said during her confirmation hearings before the Senate, the Declaration of Independence which legitimizes the existence of the United States as an independent nation also is the basic rights guaranteeing document of the people. The Bill of Rights particularizes and defines some of these rights but does not at all exhaust them. [PBS, anon2] Let us not trample on the Constitution in any haste to profit from new computer mediated communication mediums. The introduction of new technologies need not eviscerate our most sacred public document. Rather, through modern innovation let us vitalize and make whole the frayed but honorable traditions of public debate, argumentation, and analysis. Scientific advancement brings to each generation the opportunity to validate, or to disappoint, the ideals of liberty, justice and equality so nobly written (but so unevenly applied) by the Founding Parents. In this testimony, I wish to construct my thesis upon the granite foundation laid down in Chapter 11 of the report, 'Computer Based Information Systems', Office of Technology Assessment report OTA-CIT-146 September 1981. In this chapter, titled 'Constitutional Rights,' the staff identifies as of particular relevance to the development of national information systems the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. For those members who have not had the opportunity to read this excellent report I commend it to you. I would also commend as of particular relevance and interest to the Committee "The Constitution in Cyberspace, Law and Liberty Beyond the Electronic Frontier," the keynote address from the first Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy by Lawrence H. Tribe. Prof. Tribe discusses the issues of national information systems and the Constitution primarily in terms of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments. His thesis is essentially that nothing in CMC based systems is so alien to our systems of constitutional liberties as to be unprecedented, and he correctly notes two errors in particular which congress and the courts, by ignorance probably rather than design, have propagated: ...assuming that the processing of "0"s and "1"s by computers as they exchange data with one another is something less than "speech"; and in generally treating information processed electronically as though it were somehow less entitled to protection for that reason. The recent decision in Steve Jackson Games v. US Secret Service has provided a very strong example of the validity of Prof. Tribe's position. In this case, agents of the Secret Service illegally raided and seized computer equipment used by the Texas publisher to operate an on-line computer system, or 'BBS'. The agents were found to have acted improperly and with amazing ignorance with regard to the Privacy Protection Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Fourth Amendment protection versus unreasonable search and seizure. It should not be necessary to reinvent the Constitution for every new technology. Mutatis mutandis -- the necessary changes having been made -- we must understand that every computer is a press, and every hacker, a publisher. Further, the Constitution protects the right of the people to assemble electronically just as it protects the right of each of us to assemble physically. In Maryland vs. Craig, the Supreme Court took the first virtual step toward recognizing the legal identity between telepresence and physical presence. If computer mediated communication is to be our new town hall, the right to so assemble must be understood to extend to each of us assembled on 'the Net.' The Second Amendment right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects likewise has a necessary corollary. We must understand that electronic documents and other forms of stored computer data are papers as surely as if they were printed with hand-set type on a mechanical press. The Constitution cannot be deleted by an accident of technology. The idea that data stored in, or transmitted over, a computer communication system belongs to the owner of the machine or network in question, is a pernicious doctrine quite inimical to the constitution, as the OTA report noted 12 years ago: In a recent case [United States vs. Miller, 425 US. 435(1976)] the Supreme Court ruled that an individual's bank records belonged to the bank and were not protected constitutionally as his or her personal property. One basis for this ruling was that the use of a bank account was a voluntary action. Yet, it is questionable whether future participation in a computerized society can be construed to be voluntary if the alternative is to forego all services necessary to live comfortably as a member of that society. Extensions of such reasoning could leave only a hollow shell of fourth amendment protection for personal records, while eroding any substantive effective barriers against Government intrusion. [OTA, p. 108] Again, a person's computer files, though they may reside in some sense in a machine belonging to someone else, are just as much the protected property of that individual as if they were secured in a locked safe in that person's house. Likewise, the procedure by law enforcement which has become all too common, of kicking in the door and seizing all of the computer equipment of a suspect prior to any trial, is tantamount to kicking in the door and seizing every book and newspaper in the house. What is the justification? Are the authorities just too uninformed or in too much of a hurry to observe the protections provided to an individual by the law and the constitution just because a computer is somehow involved? Likewise, I am not persuaded that there is any substantive difference between a corporation or government agency reading a person's US Mail and reading their electronic mail. Although a full treatment of the subject lies beyond the scope of this testimony, the recent attempts by the NSA through its 'commercial cutouts' RSA and PKP, to limit and cripple the ability of individuals to use the Diffie-Hellman algorithm must be appalling to any true patriot. First, algorithms (generalized mathematical procedures) are intrinsic properties of the universe and as such must not be allowed to be patented. Algorithms are discovered and not invented. One might as well allow someone to patent the Sun, or more exactly, the Pythagorean Theorem. Locks on people's doors may impede government search and seizure, but we don't outlaw them for that reason. Further, NSA and its allies have attempted to restrict the public-domain implementation of the Diffie-Hellman algorithm called PGP (Pretty Good Protection) on the grounds that the International Traffic in Arms Regulations defines cryptographic materials as "munitions". Even if one accepts the bizarre ITAR classification, one may argue that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of such materials precisely because they enhance national security. After all, my computer, river.ann-arbor.mi.us, is rather less likely to be compromised by a foreign power, than say, ozone.house.gov. Further, the proposed "clipper chip" and mandatory public-key registration scheme represents a considerable attack on the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, as well as the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure and the Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendment protections. As noted in the OTA report: If the information is in encoded form (encrypted) and the key to its decoding is only in the head of the suspect, fifth amendment protections may allow that person to withhold the encryption/decryption key or the encryption algorithm. [OTA p. 109] If encryption is a munition, then perhaps the Second Amendment supports putting such munitions in private hands. Many hands pursuing many schemes is better for security than one giant, flawed, inherently insecure scheme of public-key registration. The proposed mandatory public-key registration scheme represents the worst of all possible worlds: a strategy which both intrudes on public liberty and decreases national security. Consider: my computer at home, river.ann-arbor.mi.us, is undoubtedly more secure than your ozone.house.gov. This is because your computer is a high value target for every foreign government and computer cracker. Mine is small, undocumented, and extremely idiosyncratic. A central key repository would be a highest-value target, and would quickly be in the hands of the hacker community and a dozen foreign and internal intelligence agencies. Not universally distributing public keys adds another layer to the national blanket of security. Making the use of encryption completely unregulated would be in the best interests of both the civil liberties and security of the United States. [cf. Levy 53, Bamford 353-354] Prof. Tribe develops the theme of "virtual confrontation" from the Sixth Amendment and Maryland v. Craig. He asserts that the core of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment is a two-way confrontation, liable to make the accuser uncomfortable, and therefore less likely to lie. With the advent of virtual reality, telepresence, and the existing work in cybernetics, we need to ask ourselves again what constitutes "presence", for the purposes of the confrontation clause, and in determining if a person was present at a certain place such as a crime scene. The Ninth Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Underlying the constitutional guarantees of free press, free speech, assembly, bearing arms, and the right of a citizen to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects all uphold a single principle: freedom of thought. Freedom of thought means the ability of every person to discover for themselves the underlying truths of nature and to create each their own varied and individual application. To regulate the application of algorithms or the content of computer programs is to make certain avenues of thought, discoverable by experiment and introspection by anyone, forever inaccessible. If you allow the patenting of algorithms, you will make hackers into a generation of Galileo's burdened by intrinsic truths of nature they have been forbidden to express. Likewise, nurturing the free marketplace of ideas is the highest ideal which you must uphold in considering computer mediated communication systems. Real freedom of thought means being able to not only be exposed to, but to advocate, or criticize, with equal vehemence, any assertion. Our national information systems are at their best when they provide access for even the most extreme views and behaviors. In the case of minors, teachers, parents and guardians are the best gatekeepers for the participation of their children in the Net. Parents have an affirmative duty to learn about the systems their children participate in and to provide some guidance in their appropriate use. Otherwise, the gap between our generation and 'the children of the Net' will grow huge. No corporation, government agency or regulation can or should substitute for the appropriate role of the family in determining what is and is not appropriate for a particular child. RECOMMENDATIONS 1) National Information Systems should include both regulated commercial and non-regulated public networks. Our National Information Systems have been and continue to be, largely self-regulating. This system has worked well, and should be continued. Commercial systems are becoming more and more dominated by the telecommunications and entertainment industry giants. Making these network service providers regulated common carriers like telephone companies is probably the best solution in the public interest. 2) All public data should be provided to the public free or at a nominal fee through public data networks. The diversion of public legal and other data from the government to expensive commercial service providers as an exclusive source is a violation of the public trust and must be stopped. 3) Algorithms must be unpatentable and free to all. Freedom of thought and particularly the freedom to discover universal truths through intellectual inquiry is a fundamental right. 4) Government regulation must put the interests of the people first. Any future regulation or restrictions on computer mediated communication systems must be cognizant of the fact of the great violence that could be done to the free marketplace of ideas which is the greatest treasure of our national information systems. As the OTA report noted, "The principle purpose of guaranteeing freedom of speech is to insure a free marketplace of ideas." [OTA p. 105] New technological developments have the promise of reinvigorating the promise of American democracy through a virtual town hall and through existing forums for free speech on the Net. Our highway and postal systems show us the possibility and the desirability of having regulated commercial and public-access systems side by side. Let us not construct a highway system like the old Soviet Union with innumerable checkpoints along the way. Nor let us construct a system of unregulated toll roads with innumerable toll booths in the way. Rather let us construct a mind's highway that runs free from coast to coast at the speed of light. Bibliography Alexander, James. Katz, Stanley N., ed. (1963). A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of the New York Weekly Journal. Reprint of text of 1737 with commentary and appendices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard College. Alexander, Michael. (1991). Hacker probe bogged down; Operation Sundevil case going nowhere. Computerworld, February 11, p. 1. Anderson, Christopher. (1993). The Rocky Road to a Data Highway. Science, 260(21), 1064-1065. anon1., (1992). Computers and Privacy: the eye of the beholder; through new laws on privacy, piracy and censorship; governments are writing a rulebook for the computer age. Economist 319, p. 21-23. London. anon2. (1993). Excerpts from Senate Hearings on Ginzburg Supreme Court Nomination. New York Times, July 23, A 16. anon3. (1992). The fruitful, tangled trees of knowledge. The Economist, 323, p. 85+. anon4. (1993). Interactive: What it means to you. Newsweek, 121(22) 38-51. anon5. (1992). Merit Network Signs Agreement to Pass Commercial Data Traffic. Information Technology Digest, 1(10) 3. anon6. (1991). National research network driven by differing goals and visions. Common Carrier Week, 8(23) 4+. anon7. (1991). National research network driven by differing goals and visions; OTA concerns outlined; private control questioned; ANS advocates open policy. Communications Daily, 11(108) 2+. anon8. (1992). Secret Service undercover hacker investigation goes awry. Communications Daily 12(218) 2+. anon9. (1993). NTIA warned of regulating 'hate' speech. Communications Daily, 13(84) 3+. Archer, Gleason L. (1972). Big Business and Radio. reprint of edition of 1939. NY: Arno Press. Archer, Gleason L. (1972). History of Radio to 1926. reprint of edition of 1938. NY: Arno Press. Bamford, James. (1982). The Puzzle Palace: a report on NSA, America's most secret agency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Barnouw, Erik. (1968). A Tower in Babel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnouw, Erik. (1968). The Golden Web. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bartholomew, Paul C. & Menez, Joseph F. (1983). Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution. (12th ed). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld. Bjerklie, David. Email, the boss is watching. Technology Review, v. 96, p. 29+. Buerger, David J. (1988). AT & T's shutdown of Usenet backbone nodes need not spell doom to users. InfoWorld. 10(28) 14. Buerger, David J. (1988). Long-term stability and prosperity of Usenet rests on fee-based trunk feeds. InfoWorld. 10(30) 16. Bulkeley. William M. (1993). Censorship fights heat up on academic networks. Wall Street Journal, p. B1+. Cathcart, Robert, and Gumpert, Gary. (1986). 2nd ed. Intermedia: Interpersonal Communication in a Media World. NY: Oxford University Press. Cathcart, Robert & Gumpert, Gary. (1983) Mediated Interpersonal Communication: Toward a New Typology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, v. 69, 267-277. Cerf, Vincent G. (1991). Networks. Scientific American, 265(Special Issue: Communications, Computers and Networks) 72+. Cheney, Margaret. (1981). Tesla, man out of time. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. DeLoughry, Thomas J. (1993). Regional Networks Prepare for Change in the Internet: New company seeks to provide continuity for college customers. Chronicle of Higher Education, June 9, 1993, A16. Detweiler, L. (1993). Identity, Privacy, and Anonymity on the Internet. Usenet newsgroup alt.answers, May 7 1993. Ellis, Deborah. (1991). Hate speech is still protected speech. New Jersey Law Journal, 129(15) 15+. Farrow, Rik. (1991a). Commercial Links to the Internet. UNIX World, p. 82. Farrow, Rik. (1991b). How the Internet Grew. UNIX World, p. 80. Farrow, Rik. (1991c). Who Pays for All This Great Stuff? UNIX World, p. 84. Farrow, Rik. (1991d). Will Success Spoil the Internet? UNIX World, pp. 79-86. Frey, Donnalyn & Adams, Rick. (1990). %@:: A Directory of Electronic Mail Addressing and Networks. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly and Associates. Frey, Donnalyn & Adams, Rick. (1987). Usenet: Death by success? UNIX Review, 5(8) 55 et passim. Gibson, William. (1993). Literary Freeware -- Not for Commercial Use. Speech to National Academy of Sciences Convocation on Technology and Education, May 10, 1993. Washington, D. C.: Computer Underground Digest #5.54. Godwin, Mike. (1991). The Electronic Frontier Foundation and virtual communities. Whole Earth Review, Summer, 1991, p. 40+. Godwin, Mike. (1993) *** citation for the Index on C. article *** Hogan, John V. L. (1941). Facsimile and its Future Uses. The Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, January 1941. Hauben, Michael. (1992). The Social Forces Behind the Development of Usenet News. Usenet Newsgroups: comp.misc, news.misc etc. Hauben, Michael. (1993) The Political Theories of Paine and Rousseau Applied to Usenet News. unpublished (proposal for NEH grant). Hauben, Ronda. (1993). The Town Meeting of the World: Usenet News, uucp, and the Internet. Dearborn, MI: wuarchive.wustl.edu, /doc/misc/acn. Hauben, Ronda. (1992). In Defense of Technology: arte, computers, and the wonderful world of usenet news: a historical perspective. (unpublished). Hold, David F.; Sloan, Michael B. et. al. (1991). First Amendment rights for electronic media. Viewtext, 12(6) 3+. Huston, John. (1993). Virtual Journalism. Detroit Metro Times, 13(38) 24,28. Innis, Harold Adams. Minerva's Owl; presidential address reprinted from the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Jenkins, Jolyon. (1993). Cyberthreat. New Statesman and Society v. 6, p. 29+. Kadie, Carl M. (1992, December 1). File 4--Hacker Crackdown Review. Usenet Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, comp.org.eff.talk. Karracker, Roger. (1991). Highways of the Mind. Whole Earth Review, Spring, 1991, p. 8+. Kellner, Douglas. (1990). The Crisis of Television Democracy. Boulder, Westview. Kellner, Douglas. (1981). Network Television and American Society: Introduction to a Critical Theory of Television. Theory and Society 10, p. 31-62. Kellner, Douglas. (1992). Persian Gulf TV War. Boulder, Westview. Kobayashi, Koji. (1986). Computers and Communications: a vision of C&C. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. LaQuey, Jeanne. (1993). The Internet Companion: a beginner's guide to Global Networking. Tracy LaQuey with Jeanne C. Ryer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Laulicht, Murray J. & Lindsay, Eileen L. (1991). First Amendment Protections don't extend to genocide. New Jersey Law Journal, 129(5) 15+. Laver, Murray. (1975). Computers, Communications, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Law Reform Commission of Australia. (1991). Censorship Procedure. Sydney: Law Reform Commission of Australia. Levy, Steven. Crypto Rebels: the battle is engaged. Its the FBI's, NSA's and Equifaxes of the world versus a swelling movement of cypherpunks, civil libertarians and millionaire hackers. At stake: whether privacy will exist in the 21st century. Wired 1.2, 54-61. Lindquist, Christopher. (1991). Child porn sent to America On-line; Transmission raises censorship, liability issues for nervous bulletin board owners. Computerworld, December 9, p. 7. Lunin, Louis F. (1991). Wanted, civil liberties for the network: forum at ASIS explores roles and responsibilities of nets in public interest. Information Today, 8(1) 12+. Madsen, Wayne (1992). THE CHANGING THREAT - Information security and intelligence. February, Computer Fraud & Security Bulletin. McLuhan, Marshall. (1989). The Global Village: transformations in world life and media in the 21st Century. NY: Oxford University Press. McLuhan, Marshall. (1967). Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man. London: Sphere Books. McMullen, Barbara E. (1992). CFP-2 features role-playing FBI scenario. March 25. Newsbytes. McMullen, Barbara E. & McMullen, John F. (1992). Computer Professionals sue FBI. Sept 18, 1992. Newsbytes. McMullen, Barbara E. & McMullen, John F. (1992). EFF examining arrest of 5 'hackers.' July 15, 1992. Newsbytes. McMullen, Barbara E. & McMullen, John F. (1993). EFF's Godwin -- 'Don't self-censor.' April 26, 1993. Newsbytes. Metcalfe, Bob. (1993). On the wild side of computer networking. InfoWorld 15(13) 54. Metz, Jason M. (1992). Computer-Mediated Communication: Perceptions of a New Context. Paper presented at annual SCA conference, Chicago, IL. Miller, Philip H. (1993). New technology, old problem: determining the First Amendment status of electronic information services. Fordham Law Review 61(5) 1147-1201. Mosco, Vincent. (1982). Pushbutton Fantasies: critical perspectives on videotext and information technology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Mulgan, Geoff J. (1991). Communication and Control: networks and the new economics of communication. New York: Guilford Press. National Science Foundation (NSF). (1992). National Science Foundation Network achieves major milestone. T-1 NSFnet now part of history. Press release, December 2. Naughton, Edward J. (1992). Is Cyberspace a public forum? computer bulletin boards, free speech, and state action. Georgetown Law Review 81, p. 409-441. Nickerson, Gord. (1992, April). Networked Resources: Usenet. Computers in Libraries. 12(4) 31-34. Nielson, Brian. (1991). Intellectual Freedom in an electronic age. Online, v. 15, May 1991, p. 88+. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1981). Computer-Based National Information Systems: Technology and Public Policy Issues. (OTA-CIT-146). Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. Powers, Rebecca. (1993). Gizmo gadgets: New generation of technology. Detroit News, July 19, p. 1E, 2E. Quarterman, John S. (1990). The Matrix: computer networks and conferencing systems worldwide. Burlington, MA: Digital. Reid, Elizabeth M. (1991). Electropolis: Communication and Community on Internet Relay Chat. Honors Thesis, University of Melbourne. Reingold, Howard. (1992). A Slice of Life in My Virtual Community. unpublished revision -- personal communication with author. (published version: well.sf.ca.us /uh/72/hlr/virtual_communities88). Reinhart, Robert B. (1993). An Architectural Overview of Unix Security. Annapolis, MD: ARINC Research Corporation. Schatz, Willie. (1993). DARPA's Industrial Policy Overkill. Upside 5(5), 35-48. Smith, Norris Parker. (1993). Jockeying for Position on the Data Highway. Upside 5(5), 50-60. Stanford Research Institute (SRI). (1973). Computer Abuse. Prepared for National Science Foundation (Publication Number PB-231 320). Springfield, VA: Reproduced by National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. Sterling, Bruce. (1992). Free as Air, Free as Water, Free as Knowledge. Speech to the Library Information Technology Association, June 1992. San Francisco, CA. Sterling, Bruce. (1993). Literary Freeware -- Not for Commercial Use. Speech to National Academy of Sciences Convocation on Technology and Education, May 10, 1993. Washington, D. C.: Computer Underground Digest #5.54. Templeton, Brad. (1992). CFP-2: computer crime session focuses on FBI wiretap bill. March 25. Newsbytes. Tillman, Hope N.; Ladner, Sharyn J. (1992). Special librarians and the INTERNET. Special Libraries, 83(2) 127+. Tribe, Lawrence H. (1991). The Constitution in Cyberspace. Keynote address at the first conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy. Woodside, CA: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Ubois, Jeff. (1992). TECH ANALYSIS: What is acceptable Internet use? MacWeek, September 28, p. 30. U. S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice. (1985). 1984. Civil Liberties and the National Security State. Committee Serial No. 103. Hearings to assess the threat to civil liberties posed by Government national security secrecy and surveillance activities, including restrictions on disclosure of certain types of information and use of electronic surveillance and other information-gathering practices. Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office. Van, Jon. (1993). Chicago a crossroads in information highway research. May 17, Section 4, p. 1,4. Wagner, Mitch. (1991, April 15). PSI's Policy Change Irks Usenet Readers. UNIX Today, p. 5. Wagner, Mitch. (1991). Usenet: Information At Users' Fingertips. March 4, UNIX Today, p. 12. Waldrop, Frank C. & Boorkin, Joseph. (1972). Television: A Struggle for Power. reprint of edition of 1938. NY: Arno Press. Wiener, Norbert. (1961). Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. (paperback, 2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT. copyright (C) 1993 Henry Edward Hardy