[FYI] (Fwd) GILC Alert

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:47:29 -0400
From:           	Chris Chiu <CCHIU@aclu.org>
Subject:        	GILC Alert
To:             	"GILC announce (E-mail)" <gilc-announce@gilc.org>
Send reply to:  	gilc-plan@gilc.org

GILC Alert
Volume 5, Issue 5
July 26, 2001

Welcome to the Global Internet Liberty Campaign Newsletter.

Welcome to GILC Alert, the newsletter of the Global Internet Liberty
Campaign. We are an international organization of groups working for
cyber-liberties, who are determined to preserve civil liberties and
human rights on the Internet. We hope you find this newsletter
interesting, and we very much hope that you will avail yourselves of
the action items in future issues. If you are a part of an
organization that would be interested in joining GILC, please contact
us at <gilc@gilc.org>. If you are aware of threats to cyber-liberties
that we may not know about, please contact the GILC members in your
country, or contact GILC as a whole. Please feel free to redistribute
this newsletter to appropriate forums.

===============================================
Free expression
[1] EBook hacking case sparks speech worries
[2] Afghanistan's new Net ban
[3] Chinese net users face more speech hurdles
[4] Malaysia to restrict more Net speech
[5] Concerns rise over Australian Net censorship
[6] Cubans face further Net restraints
[7] Korean Net censorship scheme in effect
[8] Court sets new anonymous Net speech rules 
[9] Mexican Net libel battle looms
[10] Hague treaty negotiations stalled again

Privacy
[11] Privacy complaint filed over Windows XP
[12] New Japanese ECHELON spy allegations
[13] New cybercrime plans in Australia, elsewhere
[14] Update: rental car Net trackers defiant
[15] US and Aussie workers face Net monitoring
[16] Interactive TV privacy concerns grow
[17] New tool forces ads into email
[18] Prozac email privacy breach
[19] UK online privacy concerns rise
[20] Click-through ruling has privacy impact
[21] LifeMinders.com deal sparks privacy worries

=================================================
[1] EBook hacking case sparks speech worries 
=================================================
The arrest of a Russian computer programmer after he gave a lecture
about EBook encryption codes has outraged free speech advocates.

The programmer, Dmitriy Sklyarov, works for Elcomsoft, a Moscow-based
company that is developing software to allow readers of electronic
books to view such products on whatever computers they like. As part
of this effort, Sklyarov developed a program that circumvents the copy
protection scheme contained on Adobe Systems EBooks. He later wrote a
paper on the subject and presented it to the public at a Las Vegas
computer convention. After Adobe complained about Sklyarov's
activities, officials from the United States government arrested him
on charges of violating the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA), which restricts the right of computer users to circumvent
any program that "effectively controls access" to copyrighted works.
Sklyarov faces up to 5 years in prison and a US $500 000 fine.

The case has caused considerable consternation from Internet user
groups. Shari Steele, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF-a GILC member), charged that the DMCA "is proving
itself to be as harmful to civil liberties as we predicted it would
be. Lest anyone be confused, this case is not about copyright
infringement. Mr. Sklyarov is not accused of infringing anyone's
copyrights. Mr. Sklyarov has entered the strange Twilight Zone of the
DMCA, where using a tool is legal, but building it is a crime." EFF
began preparations to defend Sklyarov as well as protests in several
cities around the globe. Other online activists launched a massive
boycott campaign against Adobe to protest the company's apparent
anti-speech stances. 

Subsequently, Adobe officials sought to defuse the situation by
holding talks with EFF representatives. After the meeting, Adobe
general counsel Colleen Pouliot called for Sklyarov's release, saying
the company had now come to the conclusion that "the prosecution of
this individual in this particular case is not conducive to the best
interests of any of the parties involved or the industry." However,
Pouliot still tried to claim the incident as a victory of sorts for
Adobe, since Sklyarov's software is no longer available for sale in
the U.S. Moreover, Adobe's about-face may have no direct impact on the
case; as one United States government attorney pointed out, "[T]his is
a criminal matter brought by the United States against the defendant
and Adobe is not a party to that action." A court hearing is expected
within two weeks.

To see Sklyarov's presentation (in PowerPoint format), click
http://www.download.ru/defcon.ppt

For the latest details, see "Russian developer's allies aim at
Mueller," Reuters, July 25, 2001 at
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6669833.html

Read Robert Lemos, "Adobe seeks release of Russian programmer," ZDNet
News, July 24, 2001 at
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5094588,00.html

See Declan McCullagh, "Release the Russian, Adobe Says," Wired News,
July 23, 2001 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,45489,00.html

For information in German (Deutsch), read Hubert Erb, "Adobe lasst
sich erweichen," Heise Telepolis, July 25, 2001 at
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/te/9162/1.html

More of Ms. Steele's comments are available at
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/20010718_eff_sklyarov_stateme
nt.htm l

For Russian language information, click
http://ezhe.ru/elcomsoft/

For more on the boycott campaign against Adobe, visit
http://www.boycottadobe.org

See also
http://www.freesklyarov.org

===============================================
[2] Afghanistan's new Net ban
===============================================
Here's one way to silence online critics-ban the Internet entirely.
 That's apparently what the rulers of Afghanistan have decided to do.
 The
Taliban government has made it illegal for anyone in the country to
use the Information Superhighway. This rule applies to government
employees and private citizens alike. According to Taliban Foreign
Minister Maulvi Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, the measure is targeted at
"all those things that are wrong, obscene, immoral and against Islam."
Reports suggest that the agents >from Ministry for the Promotion of
Virtue and Prevention of Vice will enforce the ban, although it is not
clear precisely what methods these officials will use. 

Indeed, only a handful of Afghanis have been able to go online even
before the new Taliban edict, due to severe problems with the nation's
infrastructure. Bobson Wong, Executive Director of the Digital Freedom
Network (DFN-a GILC member), pointed out that "[t]here aren't a lot of
people in Afghanistan who have access to electricity or a telephone,
much less the Internet." Moreover, the nation's telecommunications
network has been found so wanting that the few Afghanis who have
connected to the Internet have had to do so via cables in neighboring
Pakistan.

For more information, visit the DFN website under
http://dfn.org/focus/afghanistan/internetban.htm

Read David McGuire, "Taliban Net Crackdown Highlights Global Trend,"
Newsbytes, July 17, 2001 at http://newsbytes.com/news/01/168050.html

See also "Taleban 'outlaw internet,'" BBC News, July 13, 2001 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1437000/14378
52.stm

Read "Taliban bars Internet in Afghanistan," Reuters, July 13, 2001 at
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5094100,00.html 

===============================================
[3] Chinese net users face more speech hurdles
===============================================
Many Chinese citizens continue to encounter serious difficulties when
trying to express themselves along the Information Superhighway.

For example, Chinese authorities have decided to hold online activist
Huang Qi indefinitely without a trial. Huang, who operated a "Tianwing
Missing Persons Website," was arrested over a year ago on subversion
charges for posting articles written by other people on several
subjects that are considered taboo by government censors, including
the 1989 Tiananmen massacre and the Falun Gong spiritual movements. So
far, he has only appeared once in court, where he collapsed, allegedly
due to beatings he has received in detention.

Mainland Chinese authorities have taken other steps to stifle possible
dissent online. They have shutdown thousands of cybercafes and have
instituted a ban on any such establishments within 200 meters of a
school. In addition, government pressure has reportedly led many
Chinese language websites to engage in self-censorship. One consultant
explained that "the way you encourage self-censorship is to have
isolated crackdowns on individuals or companies in the hope that this
will then make people more aware of the line in China which they
should not cross."

Meanwhile, Chinese government agents routinely block many overseas
webpages, including the sites of prominent Western news sources
(including the BBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times). In
one case, an Australian government webpage that mentioned Chinese
human rights abuses was apparently blocked for years, which ended
after complaints from officials Down Under (though Chinese authorities
have denied charges that they deliberately prevented access).  

For the latest on the Huang Qi case, visit the Digital Freedom Network
(DFN-a GILC member) website via
http://dfn.org/focus/china/huangqi010627.htm

For more on the Chinese cybercafe crackdown (including audio
coverage), see Duncan Hewitt, "China acts on net 'addicts'," BBC News,
July 20, 2001 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1448000/144
8423.s tm

For additional details on the pressure to self-censor, read Duncan
Hewitt, "China's net generation," BBC News Online, July 25, 2001 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1455000/145
5943.s tm

Read "China cracks down on Internet cafes," Reuters, July 20, 2001 at
http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2792693-2,00.html

See also John Gittings, "Great leap forward," The Guardian, July 12,
2001 at
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,520065,00
.html

For more on Chinese attempts to blocking Australian government sites,
see "Blacked-out site returns online to China," Reuters, July 5, 2001
at http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5093716,00.html

===============================================
[4] Malaysia to restrict more Net speech
===============================================
Watch what you say online. You could be hit a barrage of
"missiles"...at least if you're in Malaysia.

The Malaysian government has announced plans to "unleash another set
of missiles" against various forms of Internet speech. A government
spokesperson, Dr. Rais Yatim, said that these strictures would target
"hate messages, seditious writings and e-mail advocating religious
dissent and others." He did not specifically explain what these
"missiles" were, but did say that new Internet content laws would be
introduced. While details on these proposals are still sketchy, some
experts believe that they may include a Code of Conduct for website
creators. Curiously, when asked how these measures could be compatible
with Malaysian government's prior promises not to censor Internet
speech, Yatim gave a series of bizarre comments such as: "Due to the
government's no-censorship commitment, the initial missiles do not
seem to follow the enemy but has ricocheted towards us. However, I
assure you, the missile's inventor is not without imagination or
recourse."

The announcement was met with concern from several quarters, as the
Internet has become an important outlet for ordinary Malaysian
citizens to voice their feelings in spite of harsh censorship regimes
for most communications media (including newspapers and television).
Mah Weng Kwai from the Malaysian Bar Council warned that the
government "should not over-legislate. The prosecutor will want a
whole array of laws behind him to make sure that he will get the
offender, but would that impinge fundamental liberties such as the
freedom of speech?"  

Read Tong Yee Siong, "Gov't to launch upgrade 'missiles' on dangerous
websites," Malaysiakini, July 5, 2001 at
http://www.malaysiakini.com/News/2001/07/2001070502.php3 For
background information, see "Malaysia Considers Cafe Rules," Reuters,
June 21, 2001 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44716,00.html

=================================================
[5] Concerns rise over Australian Net censorship
=================================================
Want to know what websites your government has censored? If you're in
Australia, you might have to go to court to find out.

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA-a GILC member) has appealed a
decision of the Australian Broadcasting Authority to deny access under
Freedom of Information law to more details about controversial web
content rules that were created nearly two years ago. Under this
complaint-based regime, certain websites are supposed to be screened
out based on film guidelines. The list of affected webpages includes
sites that contain "verbal references to ... suicide, crime,
corruption, marital problems, emotional trauma, drug and alcohol
dependency, death and serious illness, racism, [or] religious issues."


After the standards took effect, EFA requested documents from the ABA
regarding what sites had been the subject of complaints. While the ABA
did provide various papers on this subject, many of them were heavily
redacted. EFA then appealed via the Broadcasting Authority's internal
review processes but were unable to retrieve the details they desired,
including basic information such as "page titles and URLs," according
to EFA Executive Director Irene Graham. The Administrative Appeals
Tribunal's decision will probably not be known for at least three
months.

Meanwhile, experts are also voicing concern over a recent Australian
defamation lawsuit. The dispute revolves around the U.S. business
magazine Barron's, which published an article that accused an
Australian citizen of "a series of offences, stock manipulations,
classic stock scams and frauds and connection with money laundering."
That citizen, Joseph Gutnick, sued Barron's parent company Dow Jones,
claiming that the online publication of the article made the
corporation liable under Australian laws, which are less protective of
free speech than United States standards. Some observers fear that a
decision in this case could chill Internet expression by subjecting
online speakers to liability under speech restrictions from a
multitude of nations.

More on EFA's Freedom of Information Application to the ABA is
available at http://www.efa.org.au/FOI/foi_aba_2000.htm

Read Caitlin Fitzsimmons, "Battle looms over net censorship,"
Australian IT, July 18, 2001 at
http://australianit.news.com.au/common/storyPage/0,3811,2367582%5E442,
00.htm l

For further details and editorial comments on the Gutnick case, see
Mark Day, "Internet case has global impact," Australian IT, June 21,
2001 at
http://australianit.news.com.au/common/storyPage/0,3811,2140242%255E44
2,00.h tml

Background information on the Gutnick case is available from Alison
Crosweller, "Case test internet freedom," Australian IT, June 6, 2001
at
http://australianit.news.com.au/common/storyPage/0,3811,2082612%5E442,
00.htm l

=================================================
[6] Cubans face further Net restraints
=================================================
Through extensive access controls and intimidation, the Fidel Castro
regime has prevented many Cubans from freely voicing their views
online.

Many of these measures are documented in a new report commissioned by
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The study, which was
released this past month, describes how the Cuban government has
severely limited Internet access to communities and agencies that are
deemed loyal. Home Internet connections are extremely rare. There is
only one publicly accessible cybercafe in the country (in the capital,
Havana); it charges fees that are too expensive for most Cuban
citizens. Institutions that do have Internet access often block users
from visiting many websites, while the government forges ahead with
plans for an national intranet that will be devoid of content that
criticizes the ruling elite.

These restrictions are not the only way the Castro regime has stifled
dissent. Cuban authorities also harass and imprison independent Cuban
journalists who publish articles on the Information Superhighway. A
two-year old law allows the government to put such writers in jail for
up to 20 years, while their associates can be fired from their jobs or
otherwise shunned from Cuban society. 

The full Carnegie Endowment report is available (in PDF format) via
http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/21KalathilBoas.pdf

For information in German (Deutsch), see Florian Rotzer, "Lasst sich
das Internet wirksam von autoritaren Staaten kontrollieren?" Heise
Telepolis, July 22, 2001 at
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/te/9137/1.html

For further background information, see Julia Scheeres, "Faint Voices
Rise >From Cuba," Wired News, May 29, 2001 at
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44045,00.html

=================================================
[7] Korean Net censorship scheme in effect
=================================================
Protests continue to mount over a Korean government scheme that may
inhibit online speech.

A newly effective Internet ordinance created by the South Korean
Ministry of Information and Communication essentially requires
blocking software to be installed in cybercafes and other public
computing facilities. A special Information Communication Ethics
Committee already had made a list of some 119 000 "anti social" sites
to be targeted and screened out. This list, which apparently includes
many non-Korean webpages, is to be given to software developers for
incorporation within blocking packages. Authorities will soon work
with Internet service providers to prevent access to any such
webpages; criminal penalties will be levied on those who aid and abet
access to these sites. Moreover, the plan reportedly criminalizes
online protests and demonstrations, including mass email campaigns.
The ordinance went into effect despite the fact that many questions
about this scheme have yet to be answered, including what criteria
will be used to determine which sites should be blocked, or even the
precise pages that have banned.

The measure, which went into effect a few weeks ago, has met with
derision >from many Internet groups. JinboNet, a node of the
Association for Progressive Communications (APC-a GILC member),
accused the government of ignoring public demonstrations against the
ordinance and pleaded for worldwide support against the Korean
government's restrictions. JinboNet also urged citizens to call Korean
government agencies by phone and make their concerns about these
Internet restrictions heard.

For further details, visit a special protest website created by
JinboNet under http://www.freeonline.or.kr/english/

=================================================
[8] Court sets new anonymous Net speech rules 
=================================================
A new ruling from the United States has provided the framework for
stronger protections for anonymous Internet speakers.

The ruling revolved around online comments that criticized
pharmaceutical giant Dendrite International, Inc. A pseudonymous user
posted the remarks in a digital bulletin board operated by Internet
portal firm Yahoo. Subsequently, Dendrite sued Yahoo to discover the
identity of the user who posted these comments, claiming that the user
had given out company secrets.


In the case, a New Jersey state appellate court laid down several key
procedural rules to help ensure that personal information about
Internet users is not given out unnecessarily. "[T]he trial court
should first require the plaintiff ... to notify the anonymous posters
that they are the subject of a subpoena or application for an order of
disclosure, and withhold action to afford the fictitiously-named
defendants a reasonable opportunity to file and serve opposition to
the application. These notification efforts should include posting a
message of notification of the identity discovery request to the
anonymous user on the ISP's pertinent message board.  The court shall
also require the plaintiff to identify and set forth the exact
statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that plaintiff
alleges constitutes actionable speech." Furthermore, the appellate
judges mandated that the trial court should determine whether the
plaintiff truly has a substantial case, and to balance the defendant's
"right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima
facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the
anonymous defendant's identity to allow the plaintiff to properly
proceed." 

Cyberlibertarians have cited the decision as perhaps the first
comprehensive set of ground rules to protect the personal information
of Internet speakers >from needless exposure. Public Citizen attorney
Paul Levy pointed out that "[b]ecause it sets forth strict procedural
and evidentiary standards for compelled identification, and then shows
that these standards can produce real protection for anonymity, this
decision is a tremendous victory for free speech." 

The text of the opinion is posted at
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/A2774-00.htm

Read Jane Black, "A Victory, of Sorts, for Spouting Off," Business
Week Online, July 20, 2001 at
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2001/nf20010720_543.htm

See also Ralph Siegel, "Court Sets Rules on Disclosing Internet
Identities," Associated Press, July 11, 2001 at
http://www.washtech.com/news/regulation/11094-1.html

===============================================
[9] Mexican Net libel battle looms
===============================================
A defamation case has raised questions concerning Internet freedom of
expression across borders.

The battle centers on Mexican newspaper articles that were republished
on the World Wide Web by New York-based Narco News. The articles
raised drug trafficking allegations against Roberto Hernandez Ramirez,
the executive director of Mexican banking conglomerate Banamex.
Banamex has now launched a defamation action against Narco News in a
US court. The move came despite the fact that Mexican courts had
thrown out 3 previous Banamex lawsuits based on the same writings.

The case has alarmed a number of online free speech groups. Cindy
Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC
member), voiced concern that Banamex "resorted to New York courts to
try to shut down this website because it could not do so in Mexican
courts. This kind of forum shopping threatens to shut down one of the
greatest benefits of the Internet -- giving a voice to independent,
Internet-based journalists. Faced with having to defend themselves in
far-flung jurisdictions, many independent journalists will simply
choose not to publish on the Internet." A final decision may come in
several months.

Cohn's comments and other information are available from the EFF
website under
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Forum_shopping/BNM_v_Narco_News/20
010712 _eff_narconews_pr.html

Read Mark K. Anderson, "Net Reporting at Stake," Wired News, July 23,
2001 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,45231,00.html

See Mark Ward, "Drugs case tests net boundaries," BBC News Online,
July 20, 2001 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1448000/1448428.stm

===============================================
[10] Hague treaty negotiations stalled again
===============================================
A controversial treaty that could have serious implications for online
free speech has become bogged down in diplomatic quicksand.

The latest round of negotiations regarding the Hague Convention on
Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments has recently ended. This
convention, which is meant to ease enforcement of court rulings across
borders. The document's terms are currently being worked out by
representatives of many countries, including the United States,
mainland China, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Japan, Korea and
Australia.

However, the different nations remain deeply divided on many key
issues, particularly speech-related subjects such as intellectual
property and defamation. These issues were highlighted by a recent
court case where a French court ordered Internet portal giant Yahoo
(which is based in the US) to block access to Nazi-related items,
despite the fact that selling such items is legal in the United
States. While the next set of talks will occur within a few months,
many observers believe it could take two years or so before a
finalized agreement can be hammered out.

Read Peter Griffin, "Global web law a thorny issue," New Zealand
Herald, July 16, 2001 at
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=200279

See also Jean Eaglesham and Patti Waldmeir, "Laws unto themselves,"
Financial Times, July 8, 2001 at
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT35YWU4X
OC

===============================================
[11] Privacy complaint filed over Windows XP
===============================================
Several privacy groups have filed a formal complaint over perceived
deficiencies in the latest version of Microsoft Windows.

The complaint, dated July 26, 2001, alleges that Microsoft "has
engaged ... in unfair and deceptive trade practices intended to
profile, track and monitor millions of Internet users." The document
charges that Microsoft's release of Windows XP and related products
such as Passport and Hailstorm will shift control of sensitive
information away from respective users to the company. Thus, the
Passport user authentication standard will make the corporation "the
central repository for routine information for commercial
transactions, as well as personal facts such as birthdates and
anniversaries." Hailstorm, in turn, "will enable the widespread
exchange of personal information among Microsoft business partners."
In addition, the filed papers suggest that Microsoft's statements
regarding the privacy implications of this scheme are misleading.
Among other things, other websites are allowed to join into this data
collection and dissemination system provided that those sites have
their own "posted privacy policy," without defining "what level of
protection that policy must provide." Similarly, despite "broad
representations, the control that users will ultimately have over the
extensive collection of their personal information within the
Hailstorm system will be subject to the vagaries of Microsoft's
business model." The document also notes how individuals trying to use
Windows XP and Office XP may be continuously prompted to register with
Passport (and thus divulge personal details about themselves) in order
to receive certain services. In short, computer users may be coerced
into providing sensitive details about themselves to the software
giant and be left without "meaningful or effective control over the
use of that information within Microsoft."

The complaint urges the United States Federal Trade Commission to
launch a formal investigation of these Microsoft activities and to
order the company to take several key steps to protect user privacy.
These steps include "blocking the sharing of personal information
among Microsoft areas ... absent explicit consent," incorporation of
techniques to "allow users of Windows XP to gain access to Microsoft
web sites without disclosing their actual identity," and providing
better notice to users. The list of signatories included several GILC
member organizations, including the Electronic Privacy Information
Center (EPIC), Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

A copy of the complaint (in PDF format) is available at
http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/MS_complaint.pdf

See Sandeep Junnarkar and Stefanie Olsen, "Win XP under fire from
privacy groups," ZDNet News, July 25, 2001 at
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5094734,00.html

===============================================
[12] New Japanese ECHELON spy allegations
===============================================
What is a super-secret surveillance network doing in the Land of the
Rising Sun?

The network in question is popularly known as ECHELON, and is
supposedly operated by the United States National Security Agency in
conjunction with government intelligence organizations in several
other countries, including Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Designed to intercept communications from around the world, ECHELON is
reportedly capable of capturing e-mail messages, faxes, and telephone
conversations. 

Recently, Nicky Hager, a New Zealand intelligence expert, claimed that
ECHELON was used to conduct widescale surveillance on Japanese
citizens. He based these allegations on interviews with some 50
individuals, including former intelligence operatives from New
Zealand's Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). ECHELON
apparently targeted a variety of activities and locations, ranging
from Japanese fishing boats to diplomatic documents.

These charges have heightened concerns that ECHELON has severely
undercut the privacy rights of individuals worldwide-concerns that are
currently being investigated by a special European Parliament
committee. Several weeks ago, the panel drafted a resolution calling
for stronger privacy measures to be taken, including greater use of
computer encryption, as a way to counter possible ECHELON abuses. The
resolution is expected to be tabled in a plenary session during the
fall of 2001.

The text of the resolution is available under
http://cryptome.org/echelon-epmr.htm

To read 2 minority reports that accompany the resolution, click
http://cryptome.org/echelon-turco.htm
http://cryptome.org/eu-priv-iset.htm

Read "Japanese diplomatic dispatches infiltrated by English-speaking
spies," Mainichi Daily News, June 27, 2001 at
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/archive/200106/27/20010627p2a00m0fp0020
03c.ht ml

For information in German (Deutsch), read Harald Neuber, "Alle
Geheimdienste sind undemokratisch," Heise Telepolis, July 9, 2001 at
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/9033/1.html

See also Steve Kettmann, "Louder Call for Echelon Probe," Wired News,
June 27, 2001 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44841,00.html

=====================================================
[13] New cybercrime plans in Australia, elsewhere
=====================================================
A firestorm has erupted over recently introduced cybercrime
legislation Down Under.

Among other things, the Australian Cybercrime Bill 2001 would greatly
expand the power of government agents to conduct surveillance along
computer networks. It also would impose absolute criminal liability
for many Internet activities, including "unauthorized impairment of
electronic communication," with no exceptions for individuals who
access computers by mistake of fact. Violators could be sentenced to
10 years in prison. Proponents claim that the Bill is necessary to
conform with a proposed international cybercrime Convention that is
currently being considered by the Council of Europe--a treaty that has
already received intense criticism from privacy advocates as well as
telecommunications providers.

The proposal was savaged by cyberliberties experts. Electronic
Frontiers Australia (EFA-a GILC member) issued a statement charging
that the plan was "an overbroad knee-jerk reaction to recent
well-publicised virus attacks, and has the potential to criminalise
innocent behaviour such as possession of security software. It also
introduces an alarming law enforcement provision requiring release of
encryption keys or decryption of data, contrary to the common law
privilege against self-incrimination." EFA also noted the "resemblance
of provisions in the Bill to the CoE Convention" and called provisions
that criminalized the "possession of data with intent" as
"ridiculous." 

Similar views were aired by the Australian Computer Society. Philip
Argy, ACS vice president, warned that the Bill's "breadth of
definitions leaves everyday activity vulnerable to prosecution by
misguided, if not overzealous, enforcement authorities. We also have
serious reservations about the broad powers conferred upon statutory
agencies." An Australian Senate committee has already launched an
inquiry into the Bill, and is scheduled to issue a report by August
21, 2001. Meanwhile, despite mounting criticism of both the Bill and
the Council of Europe Convention, similarly-styled cybercrime
proposals are cropping up in other parts of the globe, including New
Zealand and Hong Kong.

For more on the Australian proposal, visit the EFA website under
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/cybercrime.html

Read Karen Dearne, "Cybercrime Bill 'excessive'," Australian IT, July
24, 2001 at
http://australianit.news.com.au/common/storyPage/0,3811,2414351%5E442,
00.htm l

Read Adam Creed, "New Zealand Crimes Bill Raises Cybersnooping
Concerns," Newsbytes, July 23, 2001 at
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/168208.html

See also Kim Griggs, "Kiwi Spy Bill Inches Forward," Wired News, July
25, 2001 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,45501,00.html

Read Adam Creed, "Hong Kong Mulls Measures To Fight Computer Crime,"
Newsbytes, July 18, 2001 at
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/168057.html

To read a press release on a CoE committee's approval of the
Convention, click http://press.coe.int/cp/2001/456a(2001).htm

For further details on the European government support for more
surveillance measures, see Graeme Wearden, "EU Council backs Net
snooping," ZDNet News, June 28, 2001 at
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2780944,00.html

To read a GILC letter regarding a past version of the CoE treaty,
click http://www.gilc.org/privacy/coe-letter-1200.html

===============================================
[14] Update: rental car Net trackers defiant
===============================================
A rental car company plans to continue tracking its customers in spite
of mounting criticism.

Previously, US-based Acme Rent-a-Car installed special Global
Positioning System devices (made by AirIQ) on its automobiles, then
tracked its customers with these devices via the Internet. Acme
charged at least one of these customers, James Turner, an extra US
$450 for driving at what it deemed an excessively high speed, and even
pointed out the exact location where he had done so. The charges came
despite the fact that Turner never received a police citation for the
alleged transgressions. Turner responded by suing in small claims
court, as well as filing a complaint with his state Department of
Consumer Protection. Subsequently, both the Department of Consumer
Protection and the state's attorney general lashed out at Acme,
calling its practice of doling out private speeding tickets as
deceptive and illegal.

Since the revelations, Acme Rent-a-Car said (through its attorney)
that it may refund some of the money it took from its customers, and
it has altered its contracts by raising the speed threshold at which
it will levy its private-speeding tickets. However, it remains adamant
about its right to follow consumers via the Information Superhighway.
Further legal action is expected.

For more about AirIQ tracking technology, visit AirIQ's homepage at
http://www.airiq.com

Read Michelle Delio, "Rent-a-Car Motto: Speed Bills," July 12, 2001 at
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,45163,00.html

See also Bob Jamieson, "Watching You: Rental Car Company Sued for
Tracking Customer's Speed," ABC World News Tonight (US), July 5, 2001
at
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/dailynews/rentalcar_010705.htm
l

===============================================
[15] Workers worldwide face Net monitoring
===============================================
Is someone watching you via the Internet while you work? 

Increasingly, the answer is yes, according to a new report conducted
by the Privacy Foundation. The survey shows that some 27 million
employees around the world (including 14 million in the United States)
"have their Internet or e-mail use under continuous surveillance at
work." The paper also indicates that the "low cost" of spyware, "more
than any other factor, is driving the growth of e-mail and Internet
surveillance in the workplace. Employee monitoring, as measured by the
sales of surveillance software, has increased at least twice as fast
as the number of U.S. employees with Internet access in the past few
years." Ironically, the paper also suggests corporations that engage
in such monitoring "may be putting themselves at risk. By creating and
storing a detailed audit trail of employee activities, organizations
may be inadvertently stockpiling large amounts of potential evidence
that could be used against them in future litigation."

The report also suggests that tougher privacy rules to protect workers
may be necessary. Andrew Schulman, the Privacy Foundation researcher
who wrote the study, worries that mere notice to workers that they are
being watched "might not go far enough. Companies and government
agencies are basing firing and suspension decisions on the
employee-monitoring reports. Yet, employees are generally not told
beforehand what information will be gathered and how it will be
judged. Companies can use employee-monitoring logs as a kind of
'wishing well' to justify actions against employees, including
dismissals and layoffs."

Indeed, experts Down Under are questioning whether a set of new
privacy standards (which are scheduled to take effect in a few months)
are strong enough to deter workplace surveillance abuses. The language
contained within extensions of the Australian Privacy Act is unclear
on whether employers have the right to spy on their workers' Internet
activities. Malcolm Crompton, the Australian Federal Privacy
Commissioner, suggested that the exemptions within the Privacy Act for
employee records only covered materials "that were part of the
employer relationship." Thus, for private emails, companies may have
notify their workers of the surveillance and get consent first.

The Privacy Foundation report is available under
http://www.privacyfoundation.org/resources/14million.asp

Read Carrie Kirby, "The boss may be spying: Net use easy to monitor,"
San Francisco Chronicle, July 9, 2001, page D1, at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/07/09/BU14474
6.DTL& type=printable

See Stephen Shankland, "Study: Someone is watching you," ZDNet News,
July 9, 2001 at
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5093810,00.html

See also "Under Surveillance," Associated Press, July 9, 2001 at
http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,300508-412,00.shtml

For more on Australian workplace Net privacy woes, see Sue Lowe,
"Emails at work  a grey area under extended Privacy Act," Sydney
Morning Herald, June 26, 2001 at
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0106/26/biztech/biztech5.html

For further details on Australian privacy plans, see Matthew Spencer,
"Follow NZ on privacy: expert," Australian IT, June 26, 2001 at
http://australianit.news.com.au/common/storyPage/0,3811,2189962%5E442,
00.htm l

===================================================
[16] Interactive TV privacy concerns grow
===================================================
New technologies may be allowing companies to watch you while you
watch television.

That's according to a report recently released by the Center for
Digital Democracy, in cooperation with Privacy International (a GILC
member) and White Dot. Entitled "TV That Watches You: The Prying Eyes
of Interactive Television," the study suggests that new interactive
television systems are being "deliberately being designed to record
the viewing and spending habits of the viewer." This data collection
is done through the set-top boxes that had previously been used for
switching between different television channels. Newer set-top boxes,
which "are essentially computers, with microprocessors, memory and
storage capacity," have unique built-in identifiers that allow
companies to track users. Indeed, many of these devices are connected
to the Internet and can log information about users, then send this
information back to their manufacturers via the Information
Superhighway. These profiles can "include one's age, discretionary
income, parental status, along with psychographic and demographic
data," and "be collected, analysed and made available to marketers,
advertisers, programmes and others."

These findings have fueled efforts to enact tougher privacy laws. In
the U.S., California state senator Debra Bowen is fighting for new
rules that would require interactive TV companies to get their
customers' permission before collecting personal information.
Moreover, these concerns are not confined to the United States. In
Britain, public anxiety over the privacy of interactive television
systems has also risen, as several major companies plan to introduce a
series of new generation of such devices within several months.

The "TV That Watches You" report is available (in PDF format) at
http://www.democraticmedia.org/privacyreport.pdf

See Sean Dodson, "The spy in your living room," The Guardian, July 9,
2001 at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,518674,00.html

Read Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Interactive TV Puts Users' Privacy at Risk,
Report Says," Washington Post, June 27, 2001, page E3, at
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47809-2001Jun26.html

See also Jeffrey Benner, "Report: Beware the Eye in ITV," Wired News,
June 26, 2001 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44801,00.html

===================================================
[17] New tool forces ads into email
===================================================
Overwhelmed with email messages? Would you feel any better if every
one of those emails included advertisements?

An Australian-based company, Reva Networks, has created a new program
that apparently intercepts emails and inserts advertisements in
messages before they are sent. The advertisements themselves are
tailored to users based on personal information profiles. Reva CEO
Robert Pickup explains that this Admail system will make it harder for
users to avoid online commercials: "Because the advertising is
embedded within a regular e-mail and not a separate e-mail message
from an advertiser, users are more likely to open the message and
hence be exposed to the advertising offer." Indeed, because Admail
works at the Internet service provider level, individual users may
have little choice on whether they want to receive ads in their own
messages, although Pickup claims that "an opt-out function is likely
to be provided in that case."

Consumers advocates have been less than receptive toward this
apparently invasive product. Charles Britton from the Australian
Consumer Association voiced support for standards that would force
corporations to get customer consent before using such systems. He
also questioned Reva's suggestions that private Internet users would
welcome this device: "Without some incentive why would you want
advertising in your e-mail?"

See Andrew Colley, "Tool feeds ads to your e-mails," ZDNet Australia,
June 22, 2001 at
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2779267,00.html

===================================================
[18] Prozac email privacy breach
===================================================
Privacy advocates are in arms after a major drug manufacturer released
sensitive medical information via the Internet.

Previously, Eli Lilly and Company provided a daily email service,
called Medi-Messenger, that reminded Prozac users to take their
anti-depressant medication. These messages were sent without
identifying the recipients. However, when Eli Lilly discontinued the
service, it sent an email to its customers that included a long,
publicly visible list of over 700 recipients under the previously
blank "To:" header.

In the wake of this development, the American Civil Liberties Union (a
GILC member) sent a letter to the United States Federal Trade
Commission, charging that Eli Lilly's distribution of the email
violated the company's posted privacy policy and constituted an unfair
trade practice in violation of Federal laws. The ACLU called on the
FTC to launch a full investigation into this case. ACLU Associate
Director Barry Steinhardt said that "[t]his disclosure of personal
data may subject hundreds of people to discrimination. We hope that
Federal regulators will do what is necessary to protect these
individuals from further harm, and prevent similar mishaps >from
occurring in the future." 

An ACLU press release on this subject is posted at
http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n070501a.html

===================================================
[19] UK online privacy concerns rise
===================================================
Various reports suggest that more people in Britain want more
protection for their privacy online.

According to a study performed by the British Information
Commissioner, Elizabeth France, almost three out of every four people
(73%) in the United Kingdom are "very" or "quite concerned" about how
much information about them has been stored in databases. The same
paper showed a whopping 96% of respondents have termed their personal
privacy rights as important or very important. In addition, the number
of inquiries on privacy matters made to the Commissioner has reached a
record high. Moreover, total yearly complaints of data privacy
violations had jumped by 700% between 1991/92 and 2000/2001.

Commissioner France held that these results indicate support for
strong online privacy rules, and argued that such standards should be
an integral part of any future e-government plans: "People are worried
about the ways their information might be being used without them
being aware of it. The most important thing is that people have some
confidence about what is happening to their information and understand
that there are boundaries." She also attacked European proposals that
would require Internet service providers to retain traffic data about
their customers for 7 years. The Commissioner said that such measures
were unjustified and called instead for measures that were more
"proportionate ... to the problem law enforcement agencies face."

See "E-privacy complaints soar," BBC News Online, July 11, 2001 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1433000/1433208.stm

Read Andy McCue, "Gateway raises privacy fears," Computing, July 23,
2001 at http://www.vnunet.com/Print/1124148

See Sarah Left, "Complaints over data privacy soar," Guardian
Unlimited, July 12, 2001 at
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,520513,00
.html

See also Mark Ward, "The problems of protecting privacy," BBC News
Online, July 11, 2001 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1434000/1434131.stm

===================================================
[20] Click-through ruling has privacy impact
===================================================
A decision from a US court regarding online agreements may have
serious repercussions for Internet privacy.

New York Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein refused to enforce
click-through contracts from Internet browser company Netscape in
connection with the customer acquisition of special SmartDownload
software. Hellerstein based his decision in part on the fact that
users could access Netscape software but were not required to assent
via computer or otherwise "click-through" the licensing agreement
first. "Before downloading the software, the user need not view any
license agreement terms or even any reference to a license agreement.
>From the user's vantagepoint, SmartDownload could be analogized to a
free neighborhood newspaper, readily obtained from a sidewalk box or
supermarket counter without any exchange with a seller or vendor. It
is there for the taking." 

The ruling was significant from a privacy perspective because the very
same contracts included language that required customers to submit to
tracking via the Internet. While Hellerstein's decision was primarily
targeted at other provisions requiring users to submit claims to
arbitration (rather than a court of law), the same logic could be
applied to the tracking arrangements. A spokesperson for AOL Time
Warner (which owns Netscape) said the company was still reviewing the
decision and had not decided yet whether to appeal.

Read Lisa M. Bowman, "Netscape ruling bolsters privacy efforts," CNet
News, July 9, 2001 at
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6527744.html

==================================================
[21] LifeMinders.com deal sparks privacy worries
==================================================
How would you like to buy sensitive information concerning 20 million
people?

Cross Media Corp., a direct marketing company based in New York, has
decided to purchase online advertiser LifeMinders for a reported US
$68.1 million. LifeMinders had previously compiled a personal
information database that contained details about 20 million Internet
users. The database, had previously been used to send
advertisement-laden messages about birthdays and various special
occasions. It is unclear, however, precisely what uses Cross Media
will make of this information, or whether the sale conflicts with
LifeMinders' privacy policy. That policy tells customers that the
company "will never share your information with third parties unless
you grant us consent," but includes an exception for disclosures
"pursuant to a sale, merger, assignment, joint venture or other
transfer or disposition of a portion or all of the assets or stock of
LifeMinders or its affiliated entities."

Not surprisingly, the deal has raised questions as to whether the
privacy of the individuals profiled in the database have been
sufficiently protected. Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC-a GILC member) pointed out
that "[e]ven if a transaction doesn't violate the original privacy
policy, it's still appropriate to ask whether this respects the
privacy interest of members and lets them decide whether to opt in to
the new owner. There's always a risk of public backlash when people
feel they've been given the privacy bait-and-switch."

The move comes as US politicians are considering whether to enact new
Internet privacy rules. At a recent hearing before the US Senate
Commerce Committee, several privacy advocates, including Rotenberg,
argued in favor of legislation requiring companies to ask their
customers consent before collecting personal data. These feelings were
shared by the Committee's chairman, Ernest Hollings, who said:
"Clearly we need legislation that requires notice, affirmative
consent, reasonable access and reasonable security to protect
individuals online. Poll after poll indicates that the public wants
this level of protection." US policymakers also have held sessions to
talk up privacy measures for the personal information contained within
domain name registrant Whois databases. 

See Neil Irwin, "N.Y. Marketing Firm To Buy LifeMinders," Washington
Post, July 20, 2001, page E1 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23914-2001Jul19?language=pri
nter

LifeMinders' current privacy policy is posted under
http://www.lifeminders.com/lifeminder30/lmsite/utilities/privacy.html

Read Jonathan Krim and Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Democrats Focus on
Internet Privacy," Washington Post, July 12, 2001, page E2 at
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48700-2001Jul11.html

See also Lisa M. Bowman, "Congressional hearings focus on Whois,"
ZDNet News, July 11, 2001 at
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5094032,00.html

=========================================================
 ABOUT THE GILC NEWS ALERT:
=========================================================
The GILC News Alert is the newsletter of the Global Internet Liberty
Campaign, an international coalition of organizations working to
protect and enhance online civil liberties and human rights. 
Organizations are invited to join GILC by contacting us at
gilc@gilc.org.

To alert members about threats to cyber liberties, please contact
members >from your country or send a message to the general GILC
address.

To submit information about upcoming events, new activist tools and
news stories, contact:

Christopher Chiu
GILC Coordinator
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10004
USA

Or email:
cchiu@aclu.org

More information about GILC members and news is available at
http://www.gilc.org

You may re-print or redistribute the GILC NEWS ALERT freely.

To subscribe to the alert, please send e-mail to
gilc-announce@gilc.org

with the following message in the body:
subscribe gilc-announce

========================================================
PUBLICATION OF THIS NEWSLETTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY A
GRANT FROM THE OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE (OSI)
========================================================


------- End of forwarded message -------