Personal tools


The CPSR Newsletter


What's inside...


A look at how the police & government used high technology in intelligence gathering & repression
techniques. Page 5


An alternative use of computer technology in low income communities. Page 8


With this issue, we begin a regular column focussing on the latest news on the NII and CPSR's work on
the data highway. Page 12

Focus on Computers and the Poor A Brand New Poverty

Tim Davis

According to the 1993 U.S. Census report, released in early October, more Americans live in poverty
than at any time since the early 1960's.

In the 1980's, according to Business Week, U.S. companies poured $1 trillion into computer

Poverty and the computer revolution may seem at opposite poles of contemporary life. The
pervasiveness of computers, though, links the two at many levels. The connection may be the more
obvious interaction with the computerized welfare office, dealings with an increasingly computerized
police force, or being left out of the "technology future" for want of a decent education or access to
equipment. Or the connection may be the more subtle, but perhaps more profound, connecting tissue of
computers and the economy.

We are well underway in a radical reorganization of the world economy made possible by computer
technology. The host of new technologies which are also bound up with this processÑ digital
telecommunication, biotechnology, new ' smart" materials. robotics' high-speed transportation, etc.Ñ
would not be possible without the capabilities of computers to analyze, sort, and process vast amounts
of data.

These technologies have made global production serving a global market possible, the nature of which
we have never before seen. It is feasible and economic to have design done in Silicon Valley,
manufacturing done in Singapore or Ireland, and the resulting products air-shipped to markets
thousands of miles away. Along with global production and global consumption, we also have a new global
labor market. U.S. workers compete against Mexican or Thai or Russian workers for all kinds of jobsÑ
not just traditional manufacturing and agriculture jobs, but also software design and data analysisÑ and
capital enjoys remarkable fluidity as it seeks out the lowest costs and the highest returns.

With networking, robotics, and information-based production, fewer people are needed to work in
contemporary industry. New teens emerge in management-speak to accommodate the reorganization of
production around the new technologies: the "virtual corporation" focuses on "core competencies",
requiring a vastly reduced full-time workforce of "core staff." "Contingent workers", "consultants",
and "independent contractors" absorb the shocks of economic expansion and contraction. The bastion of
stable jobs, those Fortune 50() companies that could promise steady employment. generous benefits
and a secure retirement are "restructuring," or "downsizing" at a dramatic pace. According to a recent
Harper's article, Fortune 500 companies have shed 4.4 million jobs over the past 14 years. Even the
computer industry is not immune, as the implosion at IBM testifiesÑsince 1985, it has shrunk from
405,000 employees to 250,000. The global economic restructuring shows up as declining wages for
American workers (down 11% since 1970), with more people working at temporary jobs with fewer
benefits. The economy is failing to create well-paying jobs for semi- and un-skilled workers. Parallel
to this restructuring, we are witnessing a dramatic polarization of wealth and poverty in the U.S. And
in the Third World, the situation is much, much more extreme.


It makes no sense to think about poverty today outside of these profound changes in the economy. Thomas
Hirschl, a sociologist at Cornell University, argues that poverty in the 1990's has a distinctly
different cast than poverty in the 1960's, when most of the government programs dealing with poverty
were designed. In "Electronics, Permanent Unemployment and State Policy", Hirschl sees "a qualitative
difference regarding the social dynamics associated with poverty in the contemporary United States." He
proposes that "a new type of poverty will develop in response to the widespread use of labor- replacing
electronic technology." People "caught up in this new type of poverty may ultimately form a new social
class" that creates "qualitatively new challenges for state policy."

Hirschl goes on to observe that we have moved past the "post-industrial" economy, and are now settling
into a "post-service" economy. Labor-replacing technology, as it becomes more efficient and cheaper,
invades the realm of service industries, across the board, from investment counseling to Taco Bells and
cleaning services. So the pressure is on up and down the line, from executives to the least skilled clerk.
We see not just "increases in the section of the economically marginalized population obtaining poverty
or near-poverty incomes," but also a growth of even more unfortunatesÑa "destitute, economically
inactive population," writes Hirschl. "The theory of the post-service economy predicts that, over time,
increasing numbers of workers will lose all economic connection to production, and join the ranks of
the destitute... Attempts to secure economic resources directly from the post-service economy will be
blocked by the state."


Short of some radical restructuring of society that accepts that work, as traditionally conceived, can no
longer be the measure of how necessities will be distributed, the government's ability to respond is
constricted. One growing trend has been to cut the poor loose, by cutting benefits and public services.
Michigan completely eliminated its General Assistance (GA) program for indigent adults in 1991, and
other states have considered similar steps. California has cut the welfare grant to families with
children each year for the last three consecutive years, and in the most recent state budget, opened the
door to counties dramatically reducing their GA programs. (GA is mandated by the state, but paid for and
run by counties.)

A totally marginalized population desperate to survive will do so by any means, whether legal, semi-
legal or illegal. So police technology is enhanced, even militarized, to contain the social breakdown. It is
foolish to consider the 1992 rebellion in Los Angeles apart from 100,000+ jobs lost in Los Angeles in
the past three years. Or not to recognize the growth in prisons, prison technology (assembly line
prison manufacture, automated prisons, hightech ankle bracelets to track movement) and the prison
populationÑmostly a result of participating in one of the only viable job-schemes available to
impoverished youth, illegal drug distributionÑas inextricably linked to the economy and through the
economy to the technology revolution. The whole thing turns in and back on itself when the technology
revolution is directly applied to tagging, tracking and tasering what can only be described as a social


The police collection of massive databases in Los Angeles (150,000 files of mostly youth over the past
five years) under the pretext of containing gangs is only possible via computer technology.

[Hirsch!] proposes that "a new type of poverty will develop in response to the widespread use of labor-
replacing electronic technology."

In welfare offices in California, it is becoming increasingly common to electronically fingerprint
welfare recipients. Los Angeles has been fingerprinting GA recipients since 1991, and has a pilot plan
to extend the system to welfare mothers and their kids, adding 300,000 more sets of digital
fingerprints to their files. That pilot program will likely be extended across the state, and since AFDC
is a federally-mandated program, will quite likely be adopted nationally, unless public presure stops
it. San Francisco has a measure on the November ballot to give the green light to electronically
fingerprint GA recipients there. While social service agencies try to assure the public that this
information will not be shared with police, California state law does provide a mechanism whereby
police can obtain information on welfare clients; and nothing precludes confidentiality laws from being
changed. Electronic fingerprints then become a common, unique digital link between welfare and police
computer systems.

Political supportÑboth for cutting government aid in a time of increasing need, and for extending the
use of computer technology to tracking and controlling peopleÑis mobilized by fear of crime, and by the
potent spectre of "welfare fraud." While the most callous could rationalize this use of technology by
saying that "it won't happen to me", oftentimes the results do come back to haunt the rest of the
population. For example, as Jeffrey Rothfeder describes in Privacy for Sale, computer-matching of
databases, where government agencies go on data fishing expeditions by matching unrelated databases,
gained a foothold in the late 1970's under the pretext of catching "welfare fraud." A House of
Representatives staff member told Rothfeder that 'anything that promises to catch welfare cheats
doesn't get a lot of objections." After the precedent was set for welfare recipients, the use of matching
was extended to other groups, and has subsequently been used on everyone who files a tax return.


Privacy, as a right and privilege, is an unknown for people on welfare. As a condition of receiving
assistance recipients are required to sign forms that basically open their lives to the government. Bank
accounts, homes, and personal history are open to welfare investigators on the lookout for "welfare
fraud." While proposals to deliver welfare benefits electronically, via ATM cards, has some decided
benefits for welfare recipients, including increased flexibility and security, it also poses serious
risks. When food "stamps" are delivered electronically, for example, the potential for tracking
purchases and comparing them with other welfare data becomes a possibility. (Never mind the
headaches when the computer system goes down, as it did twice in Maryland's pilot program in May,
1992, meaning that food stamp recipients were unable to buy groceries.)

Computers are more likely to be used, by the police or the welfare agency, against a poor person, than
they are to be used by a poor person. The cost of the equipment, software and services is one obvious
barrier. The limited access to computers in underfunded schools in poor neighborhoods is another.
Macworld's special education issue a few years ago dramatically pointed out the inequity by comparing a
school in East Palo Alto ("a poor minority blip on Silicon Valley's wealthy white screen") and another
in well-to-do Palo Alto, just a few miles away. The number of usable computers in the East Palo Alto
school is one for every 60 students, as compared to one for every 9 students in the Palo Alto school.

As government services have been reduced, the poor are most affected. The transformation of
information into a commodity item over the past few decades has paralleled the defunding of public
libraries, museums, schools, and other programs that delivered information and skills to people
regardless of ability to pay. Once the barrier of an admission price is raised, those with no money are
effectively excluded.

Mike Davis, who has written extensively on social trends in Los Angeles, describes this process of a
developing information apartheid in a remarkable essay "Beyond Blade Runner: Urban Control, the
Ecology of Fear":

"[T]he city redoubles itself through the complex architecture of its information and media networks.
Perhaps 3-dimensional computer inter aces will allow /people/ to stroll though this luminous
geometry of this mnemonic city... If so, urban cyberspaceÑas the simulation of the city's information
order Ñwill be experienced as even more segregated, and devoid of true public space, than the
traditional built city. Southcentral L.A., for instance, is a data and media black hole, without local cable
programming or links to major data systems. Just as it became a housing/jobs ghetto in the early
twentieth century industrial city, it is now evolving into an electronic ghetto within the emerging
information city.


Computer professionals are obviously concerned about these issues, as the impromptu gathering at
1992's SIGCHI, initiated by CPSR members, signifies. In the wake of the L.A. rebellion, several
hundred people gathered to discuss the basic question,' whet can I do?"

There are both defensive and offensive steps that people could take. One step would be to place the same
emphasis on challenging police technology as CPSR did for military technology (and in many cases, it's
the same technology being turned home). Slowing the destruction of the information commons, by
promoting the preservation of intellectual achievements as a public treasury will help ensure that
people still have access to information. Otherwise, all information will disappear into "pay-per"
private reserves, and those without resources will be effectively excluded from the information
society. We need to promote equity of access to information. This includes supporting projects like
Community Memory in Berkeley, civic networks, equitable access to the Internet, access to education,
extension of free public library services, and community-based computing (see Peter Miller's article
on page 7 of this issue). And why not begin to consider the distribution of basic computer technology to
every household? We also need to support an international information infrastructure that serves the
underdeveloped world, not exploits it.

In the discussion of a national information infrastructure, it is critical that we don't lose sight of the
needs of a population that, as one recent U.S. study indicated, does not have the math or reading skills
necessary to carry out basic daily activities like using a bus schedule. The national information
infrastructure, now and in the future, rests on a foundation of educationÑon the ability to acquire,
process and generate information. Without ensuring basic educational skills for all, we will effectively
relegate substantial sections of the population to barren information-Bantustans.

Beyond this, a really visionary leap would be to take up the profound challenge of what technology
makes possible, and to conceive of what kind of social order can make the optimum use of it for all.
Crisis? Opportunity.

The Police, Technology, and the Los Angeles Rebellion

[Editor's note: The Summer, 1992 issue of CovertAction Information Bulletin had an excellent
interview with Mike Davis on the L.A. Rebellion. Davis is the author of City of Quartz, a social/political
profile of Los Angeles. Excerpted below is a portion of the interview that dealt with police technology.]

[Reprinted with permission. CovertAction Information Bulletin is available for $19 per year from
CovertAction, 1500 Mass. Ave., NW#732, Washington, DC 20005.]

Covert Action Information Bulletin: In LA, we saw the police and government use a high level of
technology in intelligence gathering and repression techniques. What was the role of this increased
sophistication, and what can we expect in the future?

Mike Davis: The mass arrests following the rebellion have depended upon the combined information
processing capacities of the FBI and local law enforcement. In particular, the comprehensive databases
on Black and Latino youth which the LAPD and sheriffs have been constructing over the past decade have
been augmented by the FBI's expertise in analyzing video and photographic evidence.

It is now clear that one on the main functions of the 'anti-gang' dragnets such as the LAPD's Operation
Hammer has been to create a rap sheet on virtually every young Black male in the city. Data are not
simply being kept on people arrested, but rather people are being detained solely in order to generate
new data.

Thanks to massive street sweeps, the gang roster maintained by the LAPD and sheriffs has grown from
14,000 to 150,000 files over the last five years. This accumulation has allowed the District Attorney,
Ira Reiner, to make the hyperbolic claim that 47 percent of all young Black males in LA County are
active gang members. Needless to say, these files are not only employed in identifying suspects, but
have also become a virtual blacklist. Under California's recent "Street Terrorism Enforcement and
Prevention Act" (STEP), for instance, membership in a gang, presumably as proven by inclusion in
one of these databases, can become a separate felony charge...

The cops, of course, have tried to impress everyone with their speedy identification of the youths
supposedly responsible for the beating of the white truck driver. But the real threat of these massive
new databases and information technologies is not their role in a few sensationalized instances, but
their application on a macro scale in the management of a criminalized population.

In Los Angles I think we are beginning to see a repressive context that is literally comparable to Belfast
or the West Bank, where policing has been transformed into full-scale counterinsurgency (or "low-
intensity warfare," as the military likes to call it), against an entire social stratum or ethnic group.

CAIB: Will the recent appointment of Willie Williams to succeed Gates make a difference to LA?

Davis: ... It's ironic, but you can have a kinder, gentler LAPD that includes more people of color, with
fairly effective systems for dealing with the more egregious abuses, and at the same time have a rapidly
rising level of repression.

In a recent essay, Davis speculated on the future of Los Angeles, which deals in part with the changed
contours that technology brings to the city:

...[E]merging technologies may give conservatives, and probably neo-liberals as well, a real
opportunity to test cost-saving proposals for community imprisonment as an alternative to expensive
programs like prison construction. Led by Heritage Institute ideologue Charles MurrayÑwhose polemic
against special spending for the poor, Losing Ground (1984), was the most potent manifesto of the
Reagan eraÑ conservative theorists are exploring the practicalities of the carceral city depicted in sci-
fi fantasies like Escape from New York.

Murray's concept, as first adumbrated in the New Republic in 1990, is that "drug-free zones for the
majority" may require social refuse heaps for the criminalized minority. "If the results of
implementing these policies [landlords' and employers' unrestricted right to discriminate in the
selection of tenants and workers! is to concentrate the bad apples into a few hyper-violent, anti-social
neighborhoods, so be it." But how will the underclass be effectively confined to its own "hyper-violent"
super-SCD's [Social Control Districts - ed.] and kept out of the drug-free Shangri-las of the

One possibility is the systematic establishment of discrete security gateways that will use some
biometric criterion, universally registered, to screen crowds and bypassers. The "most elegant
solution," according to a recent article in the Economist, "is a biometric that can measured without the
subject having to do anything at all." The individually unique cart-wheel pattern of the iris, for
example, can be scanned by hidden cameras "without the subject being the wiser." "That could be useful
in places like airports -- to check for the eye of a Tamil Tiger, or anybody else whose presence might
make security guards' pupils dilate."

Another emerging technology is the police utilization of LANDSAT satellites linked to Geographical
Information Systems (GIS). Almost certainly by the end of the decade the largest U.S. metropolitan
areas, including Los Angeles, will be using geosynchronous LANDSAT systems to manage traffic
congestion and oversee physical planning. The same LANDSAT-GIS capability can be cost shared and
time-shared with police departments to surveil the movements of tens of thousands of electronically
tagged individuals and their automobiles.

Although such monitoring is immediately intended to safeguard expensive sports cars and other toys of
the rich, it will be entirely possible to use the same technology to put the equivalent of an electronic
handcuff on the activities of entire urban social strata. Drug offenders and gang members can be "bar-
coded" and paroled to the omniscient scrutiny of a satellite that will track their 24-hour itineraries
and automatically sound an alarm if they stray outside the borders of their surveillance district. With
such powerful Orwellian technologies for social control. community confinement and the confinement of
communities may ultimately mean the same thing.

Reprinted with permission from Beyond Blade Runner: Urban Control / The Ecology of Fear Open
Pamphlet Press, 1992.

The CPSR Board endorsed a resolution opposing electronic fingerprinting for welfare recipients at its
June Board Meeting. The resolution and a supporting statement appear below:

Resolved: Electronic fingerprinting, as a means of deterring welfare fraud, represents a use of
computer technology that degrades the quality of people's lives instead of enhancing it. Electronic
fingerprinting is a barrier to receiving government assistance, and poses serious privacy risks for
America's poorest citizens. CPSR opposes the use of electronicfingerprinting as a condition of receiving
welfare benefits.


Electronic fingerprinting is a means of capturing, in a digital format, an image of a person's
fingerprint, and then storing it on a computer system for later retrieval. In 1991, Los Angeles County
became the first agency in the country to require electronic fingerprints of people applying for General
Relief, ostensibly to prevent a kind of welfare fraud called "double-dipping" where people sign up for
benefits under more than one name. The same system has since been installed in Alameda County, and is
currently under consideration for San Francisco.

CPSR is opposed to the use of electronic fingerprinting as a condition of receiving welfare benefits on
several grounds. The discussion below refers to the Automated Fingerprint Image Reporting and Match
(AFIRM) system, a specific implementation in use in Los Angeles and Alameda Counties, but the general
principles apply to electronic fingerprinting in general. AFIRM was developed by Electronic Data
Systems (EDS). A more detailed analysis of the AFIRM system and its use is available from CPSR.

The complexity of computer technology too often leads to a public perception of computer systems as
magical solutions to problems. But the mystery surrounding computers can also be used to obscure the
facts of their use. Computers are not magical solutions. Like any proposed solution to a problem, the
benefits need to be weighed against the costs, both monetary and otherwise, and potential side effects
must be carefully analyzed and understood. The use of the AFIRM system fails on all counts. The agencies
using AFIRM technology have no data to document the size of the problem they are trying to solve.

It is possible that the "solution" costs more than the problem. Secondly, they have no strategy for
measuring the effect of using electronic fingerprinting. That is, they have no concrete way of assessing
the benefits of the system.

Installation of the AFIRM technology has often coincided with a drop in welfare caseloads, but it is not at
all clear that the drop is due to elimination of "double-dipping". When fingerprinting is required, some
people simply fail to show up for their fingerprinting appointments, resulting in their cases being
closed. Perhaps some of these are double-dippers, perhaps some forgot the fingerprinting appointment
because it was a new step in the procedure that they had never had to go through before, perhaps some
have disabilities that make it difficult for them to make yet another appointment, and perhaps some
simply consider fingerprinting to be an infringement of their privacy. Agency spokespersons have been
quite candid in acknowledging that they don't know what causes the decreased caseload. "If I were to
speculate, it could be they found employment, or they could have moved from the county," said [Alameda
County] Social Services Agency spokeswoman LuAnn DeWitt, who added that no formal effort was being
made to contact people who did not appear. (Oakland Tribune, June 10). In other words, savings are
erroneously being attributed to the AFIRM system.

In addition, dangerous potential side-effects exist with the system. While social service agencies are
bound by state law to protect the confidentiality of welfare data, law enforcement agencies may, under
specific circumstances, obtain this data. This raises major privacy concerns for electronic
fingerprinting. The fingerprint data can become the common link between welfare and law enforcement
agencies. This would establish a frightening and dangerous precedent, wherein some citizens are singled
outÑregardless of whether they are law-abiding citizens or notÑsimply because they are welfare
recipients, while other citizens enjoy greater privacy. Given this country's historically lax privacy
protections, people are justified in fearing that one day this government data will be plugged together
and used as a means of tracking a growing section of our population. Electronic fingerprinting of
welfare recipients is an expensive solution to a problem of unknown (but most likely overstated)
dimensions, which will have undetermined results, with potentially serious negative side-effects. The
proposed AFIRM system is not focused, cheap, or safe enough to merit its social and financial cost. CPSR
believes that this is a poor, and socially irresponsible, use of technology, and opposes its use.

VOLUME 11, NO. 3 The CPSR Newsletter FALL 1993

The Community Computing Center Movement

Peter Miller

"In a large, airy room there is a crowd of young people and adults all working at computers. In one
group students are having their first experience using a spreadsheet on an IBM PS/1. At the same time,
in another corner, a senior adult is teaching herself to use a database on an IBM PC. A young man is
updating the church's membership files and printing mailing labels. A young woman is at the Macintosh
working on a desktop publishing project, and two teenagers are in another corner debating how best to
make the Logo Turtle do what they want it to do. Others are casually 'messing about' with simulations.
They are all using these technologies to achieve their own personal goals and objectives. "

The "community computer center" movement is part of the larger community technology movement in
general, and is reflected in the growing trend among community-based organizations, social service
agencies, churches, and community centers for acquiring and integrating computers into their

Just as schools, libraries, museums and summer camps in our more well-to-do communities are
acquiring and developing computer components and resources, so, too, are day care programs, Boys and
Girls Clubs, YMCA's, and other indigenous low-income community agencies and centers, albeit, as in
everything else, with severely restricted finances. The entire field of employment and training itself is
increasingly coming to be defined in computer skills terms. The community computing movement
bridges generations. Recreation, support, and training programs for seniors are seeking out computer
resources, too.

No wonder. Computers are powerful tools for helping individuals from many disadvantaged groups.
Adult literacy students gain confidence and facility in reading and writing English through use of the
word processor. Unemployed workers prepare resumes and cover letters and learn and improve
keyboarding, business applications and systems skills for re-entering the job market. After-school and
day care children learn how useful and fun computer applications can be. Participants of all ages
improve their communications, writing, keyboarding and literacy skills and gain knowledge of the
world and others through growing telecommunications optionsÑonline chats, email and pen pals,
contributing, posting and commenting on essays and stories, and working on joint projects frequently
involving graphics and desktop publishing.

As computers become more and more ubiquitous, their appearance among programs and agencies which
serve primarily poor people is part of their "natural" development. Yet it is a movement, too, which is
guided by the radical democratic egalitarian principle that basic tools of daily life need to be accessible
to everyone.


This radical and self-conscious philosophy is most articulate among those programs which have
established community computing centers in a deliberate fashion. Among these, one of the most
developed is Playing to Win (PTW), a 13 year-old nonprofit headquartered in Harlem. PTW is
nationally recognized as a pioneer and leading advocate of equitable access to computer-based
technologies. The Harlem Center provides a range of computer-based learning and playing
opportunities. In 1990, the National Science Foundation provided PTW with funding to help establish a
network of 30 centers across the eastern United States. There are currently centers in New York,
Boston, Washington D.C., Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Jacksonville, Florida. The scene depicted at the
beginning of this article comes from the Staff and Volunteer Handbook for PTW's Washington affiliate,
Future Center, the community technology lab at the Capital Children's Museum.

PTW is established on the principles that technology is a tool to help participants achieve their own
goals; students work together as much as individually and learn as much from play as from work.
Teachers are facilitators, resources and participants in the learning process. Curriculum is project-
based. Playing to Win founder Antonia Stone is coauthor of, among other books and articles, The Neuter
Computer, designed to help educators, parents, students, teachers, trainers and policy-makers
overcome the computer gender gap, and Keystrokes to Literacy, which shows how to integrate computer
with traditional literacy.

This focused and developed philosophy helps define the Harlem and Washington centers which are
complex and sophisticated, and it helps more modestly-sized and financed programs make a substantial
impact, too.


"Recognizing that in our increasingly technological society, people who are socially and economically
disadvantaged will become even further disadvantaged if they lack access to computers and computer-
based technologies," the Technology Education Council of Somerville, Massachusetts, was formed in
August 1989. The Technology Education Council established local control and management of the
Somerville Community Computer Center (SCCC). SCCC provides residents of all ages access to
computer-based technology which they would not otherwise have.

With active support from the city's Adult Education program known as SCALE (the Somerville Center
for Adult Learning Experiences), the Community Action Agency of Somerville, Apple Computer, and
PTW, the SCCC provides low-income Somerville residents with access to equipment, training and

technical assistance. SCCC serves as the computer facility for adult education and human service
programs in the Somerville Community Service Center building. Programs include employment and
training; ESL, ABE. and GED programs; during- and after-school programs for the Community Schools
and the Powderhouse public elementary school next door; and other programs for Head Start and Even
Start students, teachers, parents, and staff. Elderly participants from the Council on Aging also use the
center. The Mystic Learning Center Teen Program, Elizabeth Peabody House Day Care and the Open
Center for Children, Short Stop Youth Shelter, and Somerville/Cambridge Elder Services come over to
the SCCC to use its technology programs.

One of the hallmarks of community computing center philosophy and service is open access hours for
the general public where anyone in the community can come in, use and get help using equipment,
software and peripherals. The SCCC has provided six sessions totaling 14 hours a week of this access
and support on Apple iie, Macintosh and IBM-compatible platforms over the last two years. SCCC
serves as a useful model and training ground. A $2 donation is generally requested but no one is ever
turned away because of financial hardship.

Elsewhere in the Boston area, the United South End Settlements has a Computer Resource Center which
serves all the programs in the Harriet Tubman House as well as such groups as Jewish Vocational
Services and the computer literacy and access program for Project Place. Project Place is an adult day
shelter which serves as the magnet program for all the homeless shelters in the Greater Boston Adult
Shelter Alliance. The Roxbury Family YMCA has an established computer lab, too, which serves all its
programs and provides a key component for its summer camp. The Roxbury YMCA recently collaborated
with the Boston Computer Exchange, a local used-computer reseller, in providing more than 40
families with double disk drive clones for less than $100. Boston's famed Computer Museum has just
opened a Club House, geared to 10 to 15 year-old low-income youth, with special multi-media
resources in virtual reality, robotics, music, desktop publishing and game design.

Community computing centers extend well beyond the PTW network. In just the Boston area, La Alianza
Hispana and the Dorchester YMCA have major labs which serve their communities. Freedom House has
an expansive lab of DEC and Macintosh equipment which serves not only all of its agency programs, but
is also the facility for an independent business training program as well.

The Cambridge-based Lotus Development Corporation's Philanthropy Program and the Boston
Foundation have funded the Greater Boston Community Technology Access Project. This project supports
all of these programs as well as over two dozen special projects involving various Boys and Girls Clubs,
unions, immigrant organizations, Survival News (the official newspaper of the National Welfare Rights
Organization), and homeless organizations. Staff, board and volunteers with community computing
centers have provided key personnel for the first three Boston Computer Society (BCS) and
CPSR-sponsored New England Conferences on Computers and Social Change.


The scene in Boston is being replicated to various degrees all across the country. Community computing
centers frequently work closely with PC user groups as well as CPSR chapters since they have a strong
need to rely on the volunteer support of those with computer skills. Computers and You, the lab-based
project of Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco, is frequently looked to as a model. The North Texas
PC Users' Group has helped establish a network of community computing centers in Dallas. The Clerical
Skills Training Program of the Metacenter YMCA is Seattle teaches clerical, computer and employment
skills to low-income youth. The Association of Personal Computer Users Groups (APCUG) is working
with the computer industry in presenting REACH Awards to Recognize Exceptional Achievement in
Community Help and publishes a national resource guide of community computing projects.


As part of the wider community technology movement, community computing centers are starting to
receive attention from local community access television stations. The SCCC has close relations with
Somerville Community

Access TV and, in collaboration with the Boston Computer Society, provides training to public access TV
participants in Deluxe Paint III on its Amigas for the production of short animations for broadcast.
Cambridge Community Television is a few doors down from the BCS, and Malden and Lowell cable access
are both in the process of developing computer components.

Last year's December issue of Community Television Review was dedicated to computer resources
projects. CTR is the publication of the Alliance for Community Media, formerly the National Federation
of Local Cable Programmers. The organizational name change and its expanded focus are solid indicators
of where all the talk about the convergence of cable, data and the telephone is going. We can certainly
anticipate that the future will see the development of community technology centers.


Community computing centers face many obstacles. What kind of equipment should be acquired? What
kind of software? How do we get it? How do we integrate the technology into ongoing agency programs?
How do we develop public access components? How do we develop funding sources; establish a support
or advisory board; and recruit and train volunteers?

However serious these obstacles, community computing centers do hold enormous promise and provide
a unique volunteer opportunity. If you're interested in helping out, find out what your local PTW
affiliate, Boys and Girls Club, Y or community center is doing. Or contact your local CPSR chapter or
computer users group. There's lots to do. By the very fact of belonging to CPSR, CPSR members indicate
a special combination of skills and interests.

Your assistance on the front lines can make a crucial difference.

VOLUME 11, No. 3 The CPSR Newsletter Fall 1993


(all ptw internet addresses are

EL BARRIO POPULAR, EDUCATION PROGRAM Klaudia Rivera 218 East 106th S New York, NY 10029
212/348-0292, ptw10

THE COMPUTER MUSEUM Natalie Rusk, Director of Education Nancy Boland, The Kids' Club House 300
Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 617/426-2800, ptw302

20002 202/675-4167, ptw07

PHILADELPHIA PARENT CHILD CENTER Gwenda McFadden 2515 Germantown Avenue Philadelphia, PA
10304 215/229- 1800 x234, ptw306

PLAYING TO WIN AT FOX HILLS T.J. Williams 320 Vanderbilt Avenue Staten Island, NY 10304
718/273-1140, ptw11

COMPUTERS & YOU Glide Memorial Church 330 Ellis St., 6th floor San Francisco, CA 94102
415/922- 7593

SOMERVILLE COMMUNITY COMPUTER CENTER Peter Miller 167 Holland St Somerville, MA 02144
617/625-6600 x 6948; after 4:30, 625-1335; ptw08

THE BRIDGE / FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES, INC. Matt Burt P.O. Box 43126 Jacksonville, FL
32203-3126 904/354-7799, ptw304

FORTUNE SOCIETY David Hurt 39 W. 19th Street New York, NY 10011 212/206-7070, ptw303

NEW BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER Marcia Snowden 202 Robinson Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412/683-2140, ptw09

PLAYING TO WIN Executive Director, Ramn Morales Network Director, Laura Jeffers (ptw305 Project
Associates: Nina Vukovic (ptw01) Liz Rios (ptw307) Harlem Center Director, Andrea Kimmich-
Keyser (ptw06) 1330 Fifth Ave. New York, NY 10026 212/369-4077

ROXBURY YMCA Chris Commodore Computer Learning Center 285 Martin Luther King Blvd Roxbury,
MA 02119 617/427-5300, ptw301

UNITED SOUTH END SETTLEMENTS Anita Bachrach Harriet Tubman House 566 Columbus Avenue
Boston, MA 02118 617/536-8610, ptw12

The CPSR National Information Infrastructure Initiative

Paul Hyland

Mid-Atlantic Regional Director

Last spring, CPSR conducted a one-day retreat in Palo Alto, where some 50 CPSR activists and
representatives from around the country came together to discuss CPSR's future direction. A consensus
quickly emerged that the rapidly developing National Information Infrastructure, or NII, should become
a major focus area for CPSR. The policies and infrastructures that are established in the next few years
will do much to shape human communication, and the social order, for quite some time. Computer
professionals are integrally involved in this process. The NII seemed like the perfect issue for CPSR, as
the public interest voice of the profession. CPSR could analyze the issues, and then articulate its vision
of how such communication technologies should be implemented.

At the March retreat, and at the Board meeting the following day, we decided to focus the 1993 annual
meeting in Seattle on the NII. In addition, we decided to devote the next two newsletter issues to
educating our membership about NII matters. The May issue compiled representative submissions from
Gary Chapman's call for "Email to the President." Internet users sent in over 1000 suggestions for the
new administration. The July newsletter featured an overview of NII issues, and was devoted to
explaining the issues involved, and received much positive feedback.

At the June Board meeting in Washington, DC, we took advantage of the meeting location to meet with
several of the key players in the NII policy debateÑfrom the White House, public interest groups,
academic computing, and industry. While we learned much about the policy framework in Washington,
we also realized that there was a serious gap in these policy circlesÑthe public interest vision of the
future information infrastructure was either under-represented or missing from important policy


At the June Board Meeting, we decided that a major component of our effort in the summer and fall
months would be devoted to crafting a CPSR document that, one, examines the issues and stakes
involved, and two, articulates a public interest vision of how the NII should evolve and what the
government's role in its development should be. Many of the "Email to the President" suggestions
discussed issues that we address in our initiative. We are in the midst of revising and developing the
CPSR NII document, under the direction of CPSR Board member Todd Newman. As we move through
successive revisions, we are expanding the circle of reviewers and contributors to include the rest of
the leadership and membership of CPSR, and eventually, other individuals and groups that share our
basic principles. Several chapters, including Seattle and Berkeley, have held public events to invite
feedback on the draft CPSR vision statement.

CPSR President Eric Roberts sent a letter to the membership in August, outlining our NII plans and
publicizing an Internet email address we have set up for receiving comments and suggestions. That
mailbox,, has been very busy. We have made the most recent draft of the
NII document available through our Internet information server. We will publicize and distribute the
vision statement more widely once we release it to the public in November. If you have any suggestions
for the document, or would like to find out how to obtain a copy, please send email to the suggestion box


Other public interest organizations are also concerned about how the NII is taking form. A newly-
formed coalition of groups, the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable is also laying out a set of
principles for the development of the NII (see facing page). CPSR's Washington office has been active in
this group, and the CPSR board recently endorsed TPR's efforts. The Center for Civic Networking has
also drafted a statement of principles for guiding the development of the NII. The CCN document is an
outgrowth of discussions at a roundtable meeting on Civic Networks held by CCN last April. That event
was attended by many of the groups participating in the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable.

These related projects are complementary to CPSR's, and can be viewed as different ways of
articulating the same goal creating a national information infrastructure that serves broad democratic,
public needs. The TPR statement provides a general overview of NII issues. The CCN piece articulates
similar base principles, but focuses on how civic networking could play a role in the democratization of
the net.

At the October annual meeting, we will discuss and approve the final draft of our vision statement. We
will also discuss the next steps that we can and should take to further the realization of these goals.
After the meeting, we will distribute the document and publicize the ideas contained within it. The NII
will continue to be a very important issue area for many years, and CPSR must stay in the forefront of
the policy discussions.

Renewing the Committment to a Public Interest Telecommunications Policy Telecommunications Policy
Roundtable September 1, 1993

A communications revolution is underway as profound as the introduction of the printing press. A new
"National Information Infrastructure" is rapidly moving into placeÑwhich will carry video, audio, and
data information into homes and offices across the country. Its emergence will produce fundamental
shifts in American life, transforming everything from work to education to government to culture.
Because the health of our democracy is inextricably linked to the nature of our communications system,
this new information infrastructure raises far-reaching questions about our country and its transition
into the next century: Who will own these networks? Who will have access to them? What steps will be
taken to preserve public institutions?

Policy decisions made during the next few years will shape the communications system for decades to
come. Enlightened policies could harness the power of these new technologies to ameliorate many of our
nation's most critical problems by revitalizing civic institutions, expanding educational opportunities,
enhancing access to health care services, and improving job training. However, without a clear
commitment to public goals, this promise will never be fulfilled. Instead, many of the shortcomings of
our present telecommunications system will be intensified and a host of more serious problems created.
There is already a growing disparity between the technologically affluent and the technologically
disenfranchised that endangers our social fabric.

Policy makers must ensure that the development of the information infrastructure reflects the public
interest spirit that has long guided our country's communications policies: our commitment to a
national telephone system available to all gave rise to the concept of "universal service," enabling those
in the most remote parts of' the nation to have access to the means of communication; our commitment
to snaking noncommercial educational, arts. and public affairs programming available to all Americans
led to the creation of a public broadcasting system.

Our government has the responsibility as public trustee to ensure that new communications
technologies serve the democratic and social needs of our country. The rise of new technologies and new
businesses has increased the importance of this responsibility. The convergence of once separate
industries requires a new policy framework for the information infrastructure, rooted in the shared
values of our country and dedicated to the common good.

We call on the President and the Congress to pursue a broad and public interest vision for the National
Information Infrastructure. We must move beyond narrow and short-term interests and embrace a
view that reflects the great diversity and richness of our country. Our policies should reflect the values
of a democratic governmentÑopenness, participation, and discussion. They must be inclusive and
generous in spirit, ensuring that all segments of our pluralistic society have meaningful access to the
telecommunications system. These are the principles on which a great nation has been built.

As representatives of many nonprofit and public interest organizations, we believe that the following
principles must guide policy making in order to ensure that future generations inherit an information
infrastructure which enhances the quality of life for everyone.


All people should have affordable access to the information infrastructure.

Fundamental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Information Age is access to video,
audio, and data networks that provide a broad range of news, public affairs, education, health, and
government information and services. Such services should be provided in a user-friendly format,
widely available to everyone, including persons with disabilities. Information that is essential in order
to fully participate in a democratic society should be provided free.


The information infrastructure should enable all people to effectively exercise their fundamental right
to communicate.

Freedom of speech should be protected and fostered by the new information infrastructure,
guaranteeing the right of every person to communicate easily, affordably, and effectively. The design of
the infrastructure should facilitate two-way, audio and video communication from anyone to any
individual, group, or network. The rights of creators must be protected, while accommodating the needs
of users and libraries. Telecommunication carriers should not be permitted to constrain the free flow
of information protected by the First Amendment.


The information infrastructure must have a vital civic sector at its core.

For our democracy to flourish in the 21st Century, there must be a vital civic sector which enables the
meaningful participation of all segments of our pluralistic society. Just as we have established public
libraries and public highways, we must create public arenas or "electronic commons" in the media
landscape. This will require the active involvement of a broad range of civic institutionsÑ schools,
universities, and libraries, not-for-profit groups, and governmental organizations. It will also
require vibrant public telecommunications networks at the national, regional, and state level.


The information infrastructure should ensure competition among ideas and information providers.

The information infrastructure must be designed to foster a healthy marketplace of ideas, where a full
range of viewpoints is expressed and robust debate is stimulated. Individuals, nonprofits, and for-
profit information providers need ready access to this marketplace if it is to thrive. To ensure
competition among information providers, policies should be developed to lower barriers to entry
(particularly for small and independent services): telecommunications carriers should not be
permitted to control programming; and antitrust policies should be vigorously enforced to prevent
market dominance by vertically-integrated media monopolies.


New technologies should be used to enhance the quality of work and to promote equity in the workplace.

Because the information infrastructure will transform the content and conduct of work, policies should
be developed to ensure that electronic technologies are utilized to improve the work environment
rather than dehumanize it. Workers should share the benefits of the increased productivity that those
technologies make possible. The rights and protections that workers now enjoy should be preserved and
enhanced. To encourage nondiscriminatory practices throughout the information marketplace, public
policy should promote greater representation of women, people of color, and persons with disabilities
at all levels of management.


Privacy should be carefully protected and extended.

A comprehensive set of policies should be developed to ensure that the privacy of all people is
adequately protected. The collection of personal data should be strictly limited to the minimum
necessary to provide specific services. Sharing data collected from individuals should only be permitted
with their informed consent, freely given without coercion. Individuals should have the right to inspect
and correct data files about them. Innovative billing practices should be developed that increase
individual privacy.


The public should be fully involved in policy making for the information infrastructure.

The public must be fully involved in all stages of the development and ongoing regulation of the
information infrastructure. The issues are not narrow technical matters which will only affect us as
consumers; they are fundamental questions that will have profound effects on us as citizens and could
reshape our democracy. Extensive efforts should be made to fully inform the public about what is at
stake, and to encourage broad discussion and debate. The policy process should be conducted in an open
manner with full press scrutiny. Effective mechanisms should be established to ensure continued
public participation in telecommunications policymaking.

CPSR Washington update


The Clinton Administration has unveiled its plans for the National Information Infrastructure in a
report titled "NII: Agenda for Action." The plan targets job creation, economic development, and
healthcare for the NII. The plan calls for an updated view of universal service, as well as improved
access to government information. There is also support for technological innovation and new
applications, including new money for Information Infrastructure Technologies and Applications and the
NII Pilot Project Program. Interactivity is given high priority, as is security and reliability. There
are references to life-long learning, revitalizing democratic institutions, and encouraging new
educational opportunities. The plan also calls for the creation of an Information Infrastructure Task
Force Advisory Council.

Bruce McConnell, chief of the information policy branch at the Office of Management and Budget, kicks
of the CPSR Annual Meeting in Seattle with a talk on the Administrations plan's for the NII.


The Administration has moved forward with two important changes intended to improve access to
government information. First, a new circular from the Office of Management Budget urges federal
agencies to make information more widely available through electronic dissemination. Second, Attorney
General Janet Reno has recommended that government agencies respond more favorably to Freedom of
Information Act requests. (Both changes were recommended in the Summer 1993 issue of the CPSR
Newsletter). One outstanding information issue is revision of national security classification. A revised
executive order on secrecy is expected later this year.


The Administrations continues to press the "key escrow" cryptography / surveillance proposal, but the
proposal is finding Iittle support outside of the National Security Agency and the FBI. A recent call for
comments by the Department of Commerce produced widespread opposition to the proposal. CPSR
Freedom of Information Act litigation also reveals doubts about the proposal within the federal


The National Information Infrastructure Act of 1993 passed the House this summer. The bill amends
the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 and calls for the establishment of an inter-agency
program to implement four program areas: government information dissemination, libraries, health
care, and education. Two remaining program components include network access and applications
research. The measure also includes funding to explore the ethical, legal and social implications of
computer networking.


In response to the growing interest in infrastructure issues, more than fifty organizations have come
together to establish the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable. A draft document "Renewing the
Commitment to a Public Interest Telecommunications Policy" is now circulating. The statement calls
for an expanded view of infrastructure policy and highlights several goalsÑuniversal access, freedom
to communicate, a vital civic sector, a diverse and competitive marketplace, an equitable workplace,
privacy protection, and democratic policymaking. [See page 13 for the full statement.]


Current policy documents, such as the administration's NII plan and the Reinventing Government
proposal, are now available at Also, the CPSR Alert will be sent to all subscribers on the
CPSR listserver. [see page 19 for information on how to subcribe to The Alert, as well as the

Inside CPSR

What's new?

most of you may know, Kathleen Kells is our new Managing Director. Kathleen has been on board since
July 15th. At the end of July, Susan Evoy joined the office as the new Database Manager. Susan handles
all of the requests for information, membership changes, and overall office administration. If you need
to get in touch with Susan, she can be reached at

We also have two additions to our national leadership. Marsha Woodbury is our new Director-at-Large;
and Judi Clark is our new Executive Committee Member-at-Large.

Marsha has a background in journalism and is currently researching the impact of the Freedom of
Information laws on learning institutions for her dissertation. Marsha lives in Urbana, IL and, like
20% of our members, is not affiliated with a chapter. We are looking forward to Marsha's insights on
the needs of those members.

Judi Clark is a CPSR/Berkeley member. She is the former co-chair of the chapter and is a long-time
activist in CPSR. Judi initated the the Freedom, Privacy and Technology working group and speaker
series at the Berkeley chapter, worked on the chapter's Computer and Information Technologies
Platform, is a founding member of BAWiT, Bay Area Women in

Telecommuncations, and organized the panel on gender issues at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy III

Finally, at the June board meeting, the board approved a new chapter in Louisiana, CPSR Loyola/New
Orleans. Judith Wester is the contact there and she can be reached at (504) 895-3613.


Chapter News

The Berkeley chapter has been active with several projects. The chapter's regular July meeting
featured Gary Peete, UC-Berkeley Business/Economics Librarian and former head of the Berkeley
Government Documents Department speaking on developments in electronic access to government
information. In August, Lenny Siegel, publisher of Global Electronics and director of the Pacific Studies
Center discussed changes in the Silicon Valley workforce and the long range future of the Valley.

In early September, the chapter hosted a public discussion on CPSR's draft NII vision statement (see
the NII column elsewhere in this issue). A diverse group of 35 people, most of whom were not CPSR
members attended. The broad discussion focused on a number of NII issues, including how to ensure
public access to the NII. Those suggestions have been forwarded to the drafters of the NII document. The
meeting laid the basis for future discussion of the NII with other constituencies who will have a stake in

Members of CPSR/Berkeley are also actively working to defeat the electronic fingerprinting of welfare
recipients proposal that is in the ballot in San Francisco in Noveember. And finally, a chapter working
group has now published five issues of CPU, and electronic newsletter on working in the computer
industry. At last count, the publication has over 1200 subscribers. See the resources listing in this
newsletter for information on subscribing to CPU.

Boston is making headway getting some state policy-makers hooked into a chapter State Policy project.
In order to help them get the job done, Tom Thornton, Boston chapter contact, asked the National office
to put interested power- brokers, like state legislature members, into our National Specials mailing
list for future complimentary copies of the newsletter.

If your chapter has people or organizations - potential chapter activity funders, reporters, legislators
- who you would like to keep informed of CPSR activities, please give Nikki Draper their mailing
address. Nikki can be reached at or 415-322-3778.

Inside CPSR

Madison and Milwaukee: The Wisconsin chapters have banded together to work against the introduction
of Caller ID (CNID) in their state. CPSR/Madison and Milwaukee members attended a prehearing
conference in Madison before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC). They discovered that a
number of other groups were also concerned about the lack of per line blocking in Ameritech's CNID
proposal, including the ACLU, women's defense groups, fair housing groups, and others.

In February, Dave Rasmussen and Frank Evans drove to Madison through a snowstorm, where, with
Sam Bates and other CPSR members, they testified before the PSC about their concerns, emphasizing
the lack of per-line blocking. The telephone company's proposal does include per-call blocking, and
very limited per-line blocking for women's groups. The matter is now in the hands of the PSC, and
further legal action is expected if the telephone company prevails.

Palo Alto: The Palo Alto chapter had two union-related meetings that looked at working _ _ conditions in
the computer industry. David Bacon of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America
(UK) spoke on Silicon Valley sweatshops in the manufacturing sector. Jon Barton of Justice for
Janitors, an initiative of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1877, described their
efforts to organize Silicon Valley janitorial workers, most recently at Oracle. The chapter made a
donation to the UE fund to support striking Versatronex workers, and has heard from Justice for
Janitors that the chapter's attention to this issue contributed to greater responsiveness by the building
management company that oversees janitorial service for Oracle.

The PA Privacy and Civil Liberties Working Group has worked on a number of projects, including
efforts to support California legislation for privacy of personal information and open electronic access
to state information; they've helped a group of Alameda County psychotherapists roll back some
intrusive aspects of a new county database; and they've continued their public outreach with talks,
radio and TV appearances, and newspaper and magazine interviews.

Seattle: In addition to all of the work the _ Seattle chapter has been doing to plan for the annual
meeting, chapter members have been very busy with several other projects. One of the Seattle
chapter's largest and most visible projects to date is the Seattle Community Network (SCN). With lots
of help from the community, Seattle is developing a free, public-access network system. They have
received some media attention - there have been several newspaper stories on SCN, Doug Schuler's
editorial on community networks and the SCN was printed in the Seattle Times, and chapter members
have made television appearances.

Steve Henderson helped SCN to get off the ground with a $2000 challenge grant which was met two
weeks later with another $3500 in donations. They are planning to go on-line in September, 1993
with the machine located in the Seattle Public Library. CPSR member Sharma Oliver has worked very
hard on the project doing outreach to the community in addition to storing donated hardware and
arranging for free e-mail for volunteers.

CPSR/Seattle also became more involved in local and state issues. Several members testified on the
possibility of fee-based services at Seattle Public Library. Janeane Dubuar also testified before the
state legislature on privacy concerns related to Washington's education reform bill.

Last, but not least - Eric Rehm and Aki Namioka developed "Information Policy Sheets" which were
distributed at the Computer Fair and at many other events and locations. Aki wrote on "Caller ID" and
"Community Networks" and Eric wrote about "General Policy" and "Social Security Number as National

Chapter Contacts

Jim Grant 806 Martin Luther King Drive Abbeville, LA 70510 318-231 -5226 /

We are looking for volunteers. If you are interested, call 415-322-3778 or send email to

Karen Coyle P.O. Box 40361 Berkeley, CA 94704 510-987-0567

Tom Thornton 2 Newland Road Arlington, MA 02174 617-621 -0060,

Don Goldhamer 528 S. Humphrey Oak Park, I1 60304 312-702-7166

David Black 3121 Seventh Street Boulder, CO 80304 303-673-3554 /

Rodney Hoffman 4022 Elderbank Drive Los Angeles, CA 90031 213-259-2560 /

Judith Wester CPSR, Loyola University City College, Box 14 6363 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA
70118 504-895-3613

Sam Bates 1406 Drake Street #1 Madison, WI 53711 608-262-2542 /

Kent Gordon 46 High Bluff Road Cape Elizabeth, ME 04107 207-799-8236

Dave Rasmussen 2015 E Kenwood Boulevard Milwaukee, WI 53211-3310 414-229-5133,

Roger Rydberg 3225 Wellington Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 612-540-4818

Larry Wright I Brook Hill Road Hamden, CT 06514 203-248-7664

David Friedlander 1781 Riverside Drive New York, NY 10034 212-942-1156,

Amy Pearl Sun - Mailstop UMTV 29-114 2550 Garcia Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 415-336-

Jim Gawn 321 Nevin Street Lancaster, PA 17603-3357 717-871-2038 /

Susan Finger Civil Engineering, CMU 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-8828 /

Steve Biederman 8086 S.W. 66th Avenue Portland, OR 97223 503-293-1633

Paul Kube 3245 Dale San Diego, CA 92104 619 534-4973 /

Alan Schlenger 419 Rigg Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 408-459-4641 /

Doug Schuler 2202 N. 41st Street Seattle, WA 98103 206-865-3832

Larry Hunter 2921 Terrace Drive Chevy Chase, MD 20815 301-496-9300

CPSR Literature & Electronic Resources

Sourcebook on Cryptography Policy. by Dave Banisar & Marc Rotenberg.

Contains anaylsis of cryptography policy by CPSR staff, internal government documents obtained by
CPSR under the Freedom of Information Act, portions of congressional hearings and other materials.
Topics covered include the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony Proposal, the Computer Security Act of
1987, Export Controls, and new innovations in cryptographic technology. June 1993, 450 page .
$50.00. (available from the Washington office. 202-544-9240 or

Setting a New Course for Science and Technology Policy. Executive Summary of The 21st Century
Project Report. by Gary Chapman & Joel Yudkin.

Describes and critiques an emerging post-Cold War paradigm for science and technology policy. July
1993, 20 pages. $5.00.

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN: Principles and Practices. Edited by Douglas Schuler & Aki Namioka.

This collection is characterized by diverse points of view that share a distinctive spirit - a more
humane, creative, and effective relationship between those involved in technology's design and those
who use technology in their everyday lives and work. December 1992, 312 pages, paperback book.

PDC '92. Proceedings from the 1992 Conference on Participatory Design. Edited by Sarah Kuhn, Judith
A. Meskill, & Michael M. Muller.

A collection of papers and workshop guidelines from the second U.S. conference on Participatory Design.
November 1992, 198 pages. $20.00.

Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing: Proceedings from the DIAC '92 Conference. Edited
by Douglas Schuler.

Contains articles on intellectual property, designing local civic networks and community
communication with computers, and virtual realities. Softcover, 225 pages. $20.00

Computers and Social Responsibility: A Collection of Course Syllabi. Edited by Terry Winograd & Batya

Includes sections on social implications of computing, ethics for computer professionals, computers in
the arts, computers in the third world, and computers in education. 1990, 143 pages. $15.00.

A Computer & Information Technologies Platform. by The Peace and Justice Working Group,

Describes a possible program for research, development, and implementation of computer and
information technologies that will move towards resolving our most pressing social needs. October
1992, 30 pages. $4.00.

Electronic Resources

The CPSR ALERT, an electronic newsletter from Washington, D.C., has returned. The Alert covers the
latest news frm the Washington office. To subscribe to The Alert, send email to The message should read: subscribe cpsr <firstname><lastname>

Back issues of The Alert are available at the CPSR Internet Library FTP/WAIS/Gopher

CPU. Working In the Computer Industry is a moderated forum dedicated to sharing information among
workers in the computer industry. CPU is a project

of the CPSR/Berkeley working group, Working in the Computer Industry. To subscribe, send email to, with the message: subscribe CPSR-CPU <firstname> <lastname>

CPU can also be found via anonymous ftp from in /cspr/work.

CPSR/PDX is a publication of CPSR/Portland and is edited by Erik Nilsson. The newsletter covers
national and regional issues of interest to computer professionals. PDX is published approximately
monthly. For correspondence or subscription requests, email:

CPSR has a list server to archive CPSR related materials and to quickly disseminate official, short
CPSR announcements. We encourage you to subscribe and publicize the server widely. To subscribe,
send mail to: (internet) or listserv@gwuvm (bitnet) Your message needs to contain only
one line:

subscribe cpsr < first name> < last name>

You will get a message that confirms your subscription. If you have a problem with the list server,
please contact Paul Hyland at

To find out what email lists are available on and how to join them, send email to with the message:



The CPSR Newsletter is published quarterly by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, P.O.
Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94301, voice: 415-322-3778, FAX: 415-322-4748, email:

Copyright 1993 by CPSR. Articles may be reproduced as long as our copyright notice is included The
item should be attributed to The CPSR Newsletter and contact information should be listed.

Jim Davis Guest Editor Nikki Draper, Executive Editor, Layout & Design

Board of Directors Eric Roberts, President Jeff Johnson, Chair Lesley Kalmin, Treasurer Steve Dever,

Jim Davis Jim Grant Paul Hyland Steven Miller Terry Winograd

Aki Namioka Dave Rasmussen Coralee Whitcomb Todd Newman Marsha Woodbury

CPSR's National Office Staff Kathleen Kells, Managing Director Nikki Draper, Communications Director
Susan Evoy, Database Manager CPSR's Washington, D.C. Office Marc Rotenberg, Director David Sobel,
CPSR Legal Counsel Dave Banisar, Policy Analysist

CPSR Washington, D.C., 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20003 202-544-
9240 FAX: 202-547-5481 email:

CPSR wants YOU! be a part of the CPSR Experts List.

The National Office keeps a directory of CPSR members who have expertise on privacy and civil
liberties, the NII, technology policy, ethics, women and computing, and much more.

The directory is a resource for staff use in deciding whom to refer to reporters and other people, who
call for information about CPSR related issues.

If you are interested in volunteering your time in this way, please call Nikki Draper at 415322-3778
or send email to

If you move, please notify the CPSR National Office. The CPSR Newsletter is mailed bulk rate and the
postal service will not forward bulk mail.

CPSR PO Box 717 Palo Alto, CA 94301 415-322-3778 /

Archived CPSR Information
Created before October 2004

Sign up for CPSR announcements emails


International Chapters -

> Canada
> Japan
> Peru
> Spain

USA Chapters -

> Chicago, IL
> Pittsburgh, PA
> San Francisco Bay Area
> Seattle, WA
Why did you join CPSR?

I like the health insurance opportunity.