The CPSR Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 1 COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Winter 1993
Special Issue: Recommendations for the Clinton Administration
CPSR and the New Administration Marc Rotenberg CPSR Washington Office Director
As a new generation of leaders comes to Washington, technology issues will be near the forefront of the
public policy debate. Committed to the development of the nation's high-tech infrastructure, the Clinton
administration may determine the direction of federal technology policy well into the next century.
The CPSR Washington office is following closely policy developments in many areas. Critical areas
include privacy protection, access to information, computer security authority, and information
infrastructure policies. Here is a brief summary of recent developments in these areas and key
concerns for CPSR.
Access to information should be the central goal of an information economy. This principle is not unique
to the computer age. For more than a century the federal government has made information available to
the public through the Depository Library Program. But as information moves to the marketplace, new
questions have been raised about the role of the public and private sectors. How should federal agencies
disseminate electronic information to the public? How will public libraries connect through the
There are two critical documents that largely shaped the information policy debate in Washington, D.C.,
during the past decade. The first was an Executive Order signed by President Reagan in 1982 that
expanded the scope of classification authority and made it more difficult for scientists to exchange
technical information and for the public to follow the activities of the federal government.
The second document is a circular, "A-130," developed by the Office of Management and Budget in
1985. A-130 attempted to limit the dissemination by federal agencies of public information in
electronic formats. It was opposed by library organizations, small businesses, and public interest
organizations across the United States.
CPSR has recommended revisions of both the Executive Order on classification and the OMB circular on
information dissemination. The executive order is particularly important. It has led to over
classification, frustrated government accountability, and skewed national priorities. As CPSR National
Advisor John Shattuck has said the Executive Order has caused "substantial long-term costs to the
economy, the national defense, and the democratic tradition of open government."
CPSR has recommended that the Executive Order be rescinded and a new order put in its place. The new
Executive Order should narrow the scope of classification authority. It should reduce the classification
bureaucracy. Information should be released unless an identifiable harm can be clearly shown.
Reclassification authority contained in current Executive Order should be repealed.
The new order should reflect the economic cost of classifying scientific and technical information; such
information should be presumptively available. In the FOIA context, the new Executive Order should
also require agencies to identify "an ascertainable harm" before invoking the national security
Other organizations, including the ACLU, the National Security Archive, Public Citizen, and the
Association of American Historians have called for a revision of the Executive Order. CPSR plans to
work with theses groups over the next year to promote greater access to information.
Computer Security Authority
During the 1980s a debate arose in Washington about whether authority for computer security shouId
be entrusted to a civilian agency or an intelligence agency. A presidential directive signed by President
Reagan, "NSDD-145" transferred computer security authority from the National Bureau of Standards
(later renamed the National Institute of Standards and Technology) to the National Security Agency and
gave the intelligence community authority for "sensitive but unclassified information." A subsequent
memorandum from John Poindexter expanded this authority still further to "all computer and
communications security for the federal government and private industry."
As the government's authority to control access to computerized information expanded, the free flow of
information diminished. Stories of agents visiting private information vendors and public libraries
soon followed. At the same time, a wide range of other activities by the federal government further
threatened to restrict access to information.
Many organizations opposed these efforts. Mead Data Central, l EKE, the American Library Association,
and CPSR all expressed concern. Mead said that such "restricted and unwarranted policies" threatened
not only the information industry, but many other sectors of the economy "including legal, financial,
government, medical, and the scientific community." Congressman Jack Brooks said that NSDD-145
was "one of the most ill-advised and potentially troublesome directives ever issued by a President."
In short, there was a widely shared belief, based on experience and public policy consideration, that the
National Security Agency was the wrong agency to set computer security standards for the federal
government. As a result, in 1987 Congress passed the Computer Security Act, a law intended to place a
civilian agency back in control of standard-setting for the federal government. However, the law did not
In June of 1990, President Bush issued a new National Security Directive on computer security, NSD-
42. This directive undermined the 1987 law and transferred authority back to the intelligence
community. It led to several bad decisions in the area of technical standard setting. For example, as
documents obtained by CPSR through the FOIA showed, the National Security Agency played a crucial
role in the development of the Digital Signature Standard. As a result, the privacy available to users of
the communications infrastructure is less robust than is otherwise possible. The revised directive may
also be partly responsible for the FBI's recent proposal to build wire surveillance into the
CPSR believes that the National Security Directive should be rescinded. CPSR has recommended that the
President either withdraw NSD-42 or revise the National Security Directive, consistent with the aims
of the 1987 law, recognizing the recent problems with technical standard setting by the intelligence
A wide range of privacy issues will confront the new administration. There are legislative proposals to
strengthen the Fair Credit Reporting Act, create a Data Protection agency, limit the use of Social
Security numbers, establish safeguards for Caller ID services, create legal protection for medical and
prescription records, and strengthen the Privacy Act of 1974. Also on the table may be proposals from
the FBI to facilitate wire surveillance and from the State Department to continue restrictions on the
export of computer products containing cryptography.
Of particular importance for the computer community is the development of technical and legal
protections for network communications. The United States currently lags behind Canada, Japan, and
development of new services and the protection of consumer interests. CPSR has already made a series
of recommendations for communication privacy in the United States. [See accompanying article, page 4]
CPSR has also worked to promote new safeguards for personal data, opposed efforts to restrict privacy-
enhancing technologies, and worked with state legislators and regulatory officials on many privacy
Considering the wide range of privacy issues, and the diversity of opinion about how best to protect
privacy, the CPSR Washington office has recommended the creation of an intra-agency task force that
would study the range of privacy of issues and possible solutions and report to the President within
180 days with legislative recommendations. The task force should include public participants from the
civil liberties, consumer, computer science, and business communities and representatives from the
Justice Department, the Commerce Department, the State Department and the Office of Science and
A well developed outline of privacy issues and possible s particularly useful document for the new
administration as new privacy concerns arise.
Computer Crime Law
During the last several years, CPSR has testified before both the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the need to be careful about the criminalization of computer use. The recent spate of
raids on young computer users has raised questions about the allocation of law enforcement resources
and the proper scope of computer crime investigations.
CPSR has made a number of suggestions for changes in the federal computer crime law. These
recommendations include: establishing an annual reporting requirement for the Department of Justice
on computer crime prosecutions so that the public would have more information about the use of
computer crime law; considering the addition of a "recklessness misdemeanor" offense that would cover
cases where people act in a negligent fashion but without intention to cause harm; revising the
computer crime law so that more emphasis is placed on the actual harmÑe.g., theft, destruction, or
physical injuryÑwith less attention placed on the simple use of a computer. The reason for this last
recommendation is to prevent the use of a computer from becoming a criminal act.
Many other issues of interest to CPSR members are likely to arise during the administration of
President Clinton and the new Congress. The CPSR Washington office will continue to keep CPSR
members informed about developments in Washington, D.C., and to represent the computing community
on matters of public interest.
The CPSR Washington office is located at 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 303, Washington D.C.,
20003. Phone (202) 544-9240. Fax (202) 547-5481. E-mail: email@example.com.
CPSR/Berkeley, "A Computer and Information Technologies Platform" (1992)..
National Commission on Library and Information Sciences, "Library and Information Services in the
National Research and Education Network" (Washington, D.C., 1992).
"Military and Civilian Control of Computer Security," Hearing before the Legislation and National
Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, May 4,
Marc Rotenberg, "The Only Locksmith in Town: The NSA's Efforts to Control the Dissemination of
Cryptography," The Index on Censorship (January 1990).
John Shattuck and Muriel Morisey Spence, "A Presidential Initiative on Information Policy,' (Benton
Network Users Send Messages for the President
This issue of The CPSR Newsletter contains a sample of messages that were sent to CPSR in response to
a question distributed over computer networks by electronic mail. The question was, "What can the
Clinton administration do for the computing profession and the public?" Respondents were urged to
submit short e-mail messages dealing with pressing public controversies involving information
Eventually the collection of responses reached 1,235 messages; they came into The CPSR Newsletter at
a rate of about fifty to seventy per day. The messages that follow are representative of the comments
received, since it would be too costly to publish all the responses, as well as tedious to read. As the
reader will see, the messages came from a fascinating variety of sources and people, including people
from outside the United StatesÑe-mail arrived from Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Russia,
Venezuela, and Israel. Commentators ranged from high school students and teachers to prominent
computer scientists to librarians to government officials, along with many others. Respondents were
asked to identify themselves, and what each offered for identification is what is printed after his or her
The population that participated in this "survey" was biased, of course, in that everyone who saw the
question had some access to a computer and access to a network path to send a reply. Not everyone was a
user of the standard collection of networks known as the InternetÑthere were also replies from
America On-Line, CompuServe, the WELL, PeaceNet, MCI Mail, and maybe others; these services are
``gatewayed" to the Internet so that the messages couId find their way to the CPSR Internet address.
However, it should be noted that this collection of messages is clearly not a representation of an average
group of American citizens, perhaps not even an average representation of computer users. As is
apparent from the content of the messages, many of the respondents view computer networks as an
outstanding contribution to society; in fact, recommendations for expanding access to people not
familiar with the benefits of computer communication constituted the majority of responses. There was
a kind of computer network "evangelism" apparent throughout the entire collection, which one might
suspect is an artifact of the bias of this particular segment of citizens.
The categories that were used to classify the content of the messages were somewhat abitrary and
general, and quite a few messages could have been in more than one category. The messages were
organized in this way to point the reader to particular subjects, and the messages were only put into
categories well after the flow stopped; that is, there were no boundaries set for the content in the
original question, and the authors had no knowledge of what category their message might wind up in.
For the record, the distribution worked out something like what appears on the next page (roughly,
because of the subjective nature of categorizing messages):
Networking infrastructure 407 33%
Education 121 10%
Intellectual property 86 7%
Privacy 98 8%
Equity 62 5%
Funding priorities 49 4%
Tax policy 30 2%
Encryption policy 56 5%
Access to information 104 8%
Miscellaneous 209 17%
For the messages that are reproduced here, there were no criteria established for publication other
than that they be representative of the general character of the messages in that category, reasonably
literate, more interesting than those left out, and so on.
There are some admissions and disclaimers that should be posted here: the messages were corrected for
spelling and some terms and abbreviations were standardized. English usage in some messages from
foreign commentators was very modestly cleaned up to better communicate the obvious intentions of the
authors. In a few cases, missing characters that made a word or phrase unclear required substitutions.
All degrees, such as Ph.D., or M.D., were eliminated. Sentences or phrases that did not contribute to the
recommendations in the message were dropped, such as those that closed with a "Sincerely yours," or
began with a ``Dear Mr. President." Some messages are obviously addressed to someone, so one can
assume the person being addressed is President Clinton, since that was the purpose of this survey. The
identification of the author of each message was provided by the author, in a very few cases augmented
by a city and state provided by the editorÑif the latter are mistaken, the fault lies with the editor.
Finally, for all of the authors who identified themselves with an institution or corporation, the reader
should assume a blanket disclaimer that the author speaks for himself or herself, and not for the
As promised in the CPSR message that solicited these comments and the ones not published, this issue of
The CPSR Newsletter will be delivered to key officials in the new Clinton administration, especially
those who will have jurisdiction over the issues the respondents have identified as their most pressing
concerns. A larger set of contributions, numbering over 200, will also be given to President Clinton
and Vice President Gore, and also made available in electronic form on CPSR's ListServer. Instructions
for how to access the electronic collection appear at the end of this sample.
A simple message: keep the channels of communication open and affordable. Prevent the monopolization
of information channels that has creased the media wasteland. Electronic media of all kinds are
immensely valuable resources for ordinary people to communicate, distribute knowledge, share art
works, trade with, educate and entertain each other. Computer networks deserve to be thought of as part
of the essential infrastructure of the nation. If they are, we could all have access to radio, TV and news
services of much greater variety and interest than the mass-produced material that the monopolies of
the information and entertainment industries produce.
Vivienne S. Begg Human Interface Engineering SunSoft Chelmsford, Massachusetts
Computers have been traditionally looked upon as tools to manipulate information. Today, we are
beginning to see computing technology as a medium for establishing relationships and working together
over great distances. This new use of computers will be as significant as the industrial revolution.
Government can support this revolution by demonstrating a commitment to linking every American
home and business with a state-of-the-art fiber optic network. This "electronic highway" will become
the backbone for America to maintain its leadership.
Dave Marca Principal Software Engineer Digital Equipment Corporation
Computer-mediated communications systems are proliferating. Experience has shown that people insist
on using these systems for interpersonal communication, not just for access to "canned" information.
As public access to the Internet increases, it, too, is being used increasingly for passing
communications from one online system to another. What we have now is a large and growing selection
of discrete systems from huge commercial systems like Prodigy and CompuServe to the thousands of
scattered independent owner-financed BBSs. Each has its own pricing scheme, interface and
information focus. Users can decide what they want to pay, what interface they prefer, how large a
community of users they want to join. But because there is no intentionally-designed national
infrastructure, these users are limited in who they can connect with and what types of information they
can exchange. This country needs an infrastructure accessible by all at reasonable cost which can
provide a conduit linking independent systems, able to pass not only text but "live" graphics between
users. It needs an infrastructure which can serve as an "open platform" for development of new tools
for the as yet unforeseen applications that can teach our children and adults and spread critical
information to those who can best use it.
Cliff Figallo Director Electronic Frontier Foundation Cambridge, Massachusetts
Access to Information
Encourage the free flow of information and equal access to information!
The free flow of information is a "universal" issue impacting the solutions of man and the helping of
many people. Please eliminate content-based censorship and content restrictions on electronic
communication no matter where it originates, what path it travels or its destination. Most importantly,
please insure that all people are provided equal access to technology so everyone can participate. Full
participation with all of its diversity devoid of restrictions will help generate the ideas and solutions so
Jeff Suttor Programmer/Analyst UCLA Library Information Systems Los Angeles, California
Over the past decade, public access to government information has been greatly eroded due to reductions
at the Government Printing Office (GPO). This results in fewer documents being delivered to depository
libraries, the public's main access to government information. This administration must recognize the
importance of an informed public and support GPO accordingly. It must also back new legislation to
provide on-line access to government information, whether as text or data. This new legislation should
be at least as ambitious as the original GPO Wide Information Network for Data On-line (WINDO)
proposal (H.R. 2772).
Karen Coyle University of California Division of Library Automation
Computers are available for personal and small business use only to create and process information.
Access is still not a reality. If these groups had real access to real information there is ample reason to
believe that an explosive growth would ensue both in computer sales and in a myriad of new cottage
industries. Real access is public access to a network at a bandwidth sufficient to support multimedia and
X-windows. ISDN at 128 kbits is both sufficient and cost effective for home use. Real information is the
entire content of the Library of Congress, U.S. Patent Office, etc. i believe the way to proceed is for the
government to provide the initial market for both gigabit national networks and local ISDN. Let
industry respond freely with implementation. The local aspect should be through all the public and
branch libraries fulfilling not only their mission but providing equal access to those who cannot afford
computers and ISDN.
Brian L. Scipioni Deputy Head Computing Department and Systems Integration SSC Laboratory
The Federal government should make all public documents freely accessible to the public in electronic
format and available free via the Internet. Much energy is wasted searching for information that can
only be obtained via paper and therefore is of limited value.
This can be done in several ways. First, provide documents in a standard character set, such as ASCII.
Second, provide the same documents in SGML format. The first step will ensure wide distribution over
public data services and the second will allow better use of the information in data intensive activities
such as organizations required to interact with the Federal Government according to the content of those
B. Alton Brantley, Jr. The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Pennsylvania State College of Medicine
I believe the single most important computing-related issue is access to information. A person should
be able to obtain, easily and free of charge, any and all information about him/herself located in any
database, public or private (with a very few exceptions for national security interests and ongoing
Robert Aitken Software Engineer San Jose, California
I would like to see all legislation, both pending and approved, available for FTP. I would also like to be
able to send e-mail to any senator or representative. Finally, I would like to see most computer science
research funded via NSF rather than DARPA, and a greater emphasis given to basic research.
Bob Krovetz Department of Computer Science University of Massachusetts at Amherst
The Federal government spends an enormous amount of money collecting data on economic, business,
social, demographic characteristics of our country and the world. The cost of making this data available
on storage systems accessible via Internet and other networks is minimal compared to the collection
cost. The Federal government should make this information publicly available and not give vendors the
exclusive right to offer it for profit. The higher cost restricts access to the information which we need
to anticipate and solve the problems of tomorrow.
David Nelson Professor of Finance Bentley College Waltham, Massachusetts
Over the past decade, public access to government information has been greatly eroded due to reductions
at the Government Printing Office (GPO). This results in fewer documents being delivered to depository
libraries, the public's main access to government information. This administration must recognize the
importance of an informed public and support GPO accordingly. It must also back new legislation to
provide on-line access to government information, whether as text or data. This new legislation should
be at least as ambitious as the original GPO Wide Information Network for Data On-line (WINDO)
proposal (H.R. 2772).
Karen Coyle Division of Library Automation University of California
Please lobby to enact more restrictive policies for protecting individual's privacy with respect to the
Social Security Number (SSN) and computer info-bases. Presently this number is widely abused by
companies, banks, and marketers to invasively monitor individuals. Restricting inclusion of SSNs only
to info-bases that directly affect individual's Social Security benefits and taxable income (e.g.
employer's payroll system, banks paying interest to individuals, etc. ). The intent of a SSN (as
currentIy enacted by Congress) is to identify an individual for taxation (IRS) and benefits from the
SSA; let's keep it at that.
Mike Rhodes Principal Software Engineer Digital Equipment Corporation New Hampshire
The chief technology-related issue I'd like to see the new administration address is the threat which
abuse of computing technology poses to privacy. In a nation born out of the need for personal liberty, we
must not have a government whose policy or use of computers violates private communications and
permits the free exchange of private information. Personal information, such as medical records and
credit history, should belong to the subject of those records and not the insurance and credit industries.
It is entirely too easy for people with access to computers to compile detailed dossiers on individuals
and their habits. The government should also not be involved in forcing the telecommunications
industry to adopt protocols for encoding digital messages that give the government easy wiretap access
at the expense of the ratepayers whose calls would be tapped. The time has come for explicit protections
for the right to privacy.
David Deyo Technical Writer Microsoft Corporation
Two technological trends are changing the nature of privacy threats facing individuals in the United
States: inexpensive information processing technology, and widespread network interconnection.
Information processing technology has already enabled privacy invasions in the form of telemarketers
seeking increasingly fine-tuned "niche" markets for advertisements. Network interconnection has led
to many new types of directory and information services, which can threaten privacy other ways. In
combination these two technology trends could lead to many new types of privacy problems.
The main privacy law in existence in the United States (the Privacy Act of 1974) does not effectively
address many of the privacy problems that face us today; nor is it effectively enforced. I would like the
U.S. government to enact stronger privacy legislation. As a point of departure, perhaps the National
Research Council could commission a study focused on privacy problems raised by networked
Michael Schwartz Professor Department of Computer Science University of Colorado-Boulder
In terms of the safety of individuals from misuse of personal data, we'll be facing an endless series of
battles with people who want to get and use data for personal/corporate gain. Some of these may be lost,
some won, but underlying them all is the need for accuracyÑof both the data and the techniques used for
searching databases. Standards in this area, and laws/regulations with harsh teeth in them for those
failing to adhere to those standardsÑin and out of governmentÑare essential, no matter how restrictive
or liberal the outcome of the battles on how personal data can be used.
Dick Atlee Computer Science Center University of Maryland
Around the world computers provide tremendous power in collecting and using information. When the
information is about people, this becomes a tremendous threat to individual privacy. Fortunately we
now have the understanding and technical means to implement systems which allow use of information
while protecting privacy. See the article "Achieving Electronic Privacy" in the August 1992 issue of
Scientific American for an example of such a system.
For these systems to work, they must be used. The United States government maintains extensive
information on citizens and their activities. Government can lead the way in the protecting privacy by
using these techniques in government information systems. i call on the Clinton administration to make
this a requirement on future government information systems.
Colin Gerety Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins, Colorado
My suggestion to the new Administration is to hold an "electronic retreat" of concerned individuals on
the topic of computer privacy not unlike the recent face to face retreat held in Little Rock on the
economy. The Administration should solicit suggestions from the computing world to safeguard
individual privacy in computing so that the best ideas surface in the process and get implemented in
law, regulations, policy and so on. Such an electronic gathering would allow for the discussion and
refinement of ideas as well as the chance to foster a form of participatory democracy.
Peter Madsen Executive Director Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics Carnegie Mellon
University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Let me tell a brief story and you can draw your own conclusions.
I was having dinner with a woman friend who happens to be every attractive veterinarian. We noticed a
sleazy character who cruised our table several times. When my friend returned home, she got a call
from this man. When she asked how he got her (unlisted) number, he told her that he had followed her
to her car, noted the license, and since he works for an insurance company, was able to run the number
through the Department of Motor Vehicles computer to get her home address and phone number.
Anne Marchant, Lecturer in Computer Science University of California at Berkeley
My concerns have to do chiefly with insuring that computer information and databases are not used as a
means to keep tabs on people in this country. I am tremendously concerned about the privacy issue, in
respect to both government and business practices. It is pretty evident to me that, with the flow of
information I see over the Internet and Bitnet, it would be very easy for government to keep tabs on
what people write and say merely by "lurking" on something as simple as a discussion list. I believe the
next administration must make it a priority to assess the current state of computer technology and use
in this country and then establish clear and enforceable public policy which will protect our
Constitutional rights as citizens to privacy and freedom of expression. Put simply, I don't want anyone,
EVER, to be able to collect and keep a database of information on me without my knowledge and
permission. Thank you.
Tom Loughlin Department of Theater Arts SUNY College at Fredonia
Funding Priorities One of our most difficult challenges will be to convert the peace dividend into
something really constructive. Bill Clinton has suggested establishing some sort of civilian advanced
research projects agency (CARPA?) and other stimulants to non-DoD R&D. William Anders of General
Dynamics typifies a corporate mentality that is opposed to conversion, suggesting that making
plowshares instead of swords is simply not profitable enough to justify the effort and that it would be
better simply to shut down the company. In the face of such resistance, we need a balanced program that
includes investment incentives, intelligent education and retraining, and major efforts to rebuild our
infrastructure. The government must have a major role if such efforts are to succeed.
Peter G. Neumann Principal Scientist Computer Science Laboratory SRI International Menlo Park,
Basic research is the nation's headlights. Let's increase basic research funding, to cast the beams
wider, farther, and brighter.
Jonathan A. Marshall Professor Department of Computer Science University of North Carolina Chapel
Hill, North Carolina
The Clinton administration should reform the federal funding of computer research, which is now
primarily via the military, through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration (DARPA).
The unfortunate effects of DoD funding include a focus on military-oriented problems to the neglect of
civilian-oriented problems (although the two often overlap at the level of basic research), and the
claiming of the benefits of Pentagon-funded research as justification for further investment in the
While retaining DARPA to fund work that really has military applications, the government should
create a civilian version of DARPA (CARPA?) to fund research with non-military government
applications, and move other funding to existing science-funding agencies such as the NSF to fund truly
basic work in computer science. This would make everyone more honest, provide a focus on all worthy
application areas, and prevent the military from taking credit for basic research advances merely
because the money passed through their hands.
Robert Frederking Systems Scientist Carnegie Mellon University
Establish an institute similar to the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University,
targeted at small companies doing non-military software development. The SEI's emphasis has been
overwhelmingly on development of military systems by large contractors. With the end of the Cold
War, most new jobs will come from small to medium-sized businesses developing products for civilian
markets. Small companies need assistance at least equivalent to that given to military contractors in the
Alan Bleier Biomedical device developer Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
In the last ten years there has been an increasing emphasis on "applied research" in computer science,
often funded through large collaborative "centers." Although such projects are valuable and needed,
applied research done at the expense of basic research is a short-term expedient leading to long-term
disaster. For example, there is very little scientific foundation for "software engineering"Ñthe
discipline of developing software. Unless we find out more about software in principle, its design,
implementation, testing, and maintenance, all the "practical" work in the world will not lead to
dependable, cost-effective programs. Agencies like NSF must support study of the scientific basis for
computing, study that can only be carried out by individual researchers in small-scale projects. We
desperately need better engineering in software. But engineering is applied science, and without
foundations, there is no science to apply.
Richard Hamlet Professor Portland State University Portland, Oregon
There is a desperate need to educate inner-city kids on the use of computers and software. I am
originally from Detroit and visited the city's public high schools to encourage kids to pursue college
education. What became clear is that not only were many not prepared for college, but ill-prepared for
any job that would require interaction with computers. Illiteracy is a tragedy that has contributed to
the nation's poor productivity, unemployment, and in some cases, crime. Computer illiteracy in our
nation's inner-city youth will be as equally damaging to tomorrow's workforce (particularly "at-risk"
youth of today) in the next decade as these young adults will be seeking rewarding and productive jobs.
The United States would be well served if the Clinton administration not only ensured that computer
learning is better incorporated into the learning process in large urban areas, but that programs such
as Seattle's "Project Compute", which focus on teaching computer skills to at-risk youth, get funding to
expand the breadth and depth of their programs. As an African-American product marketing manager at
Microsoft, I would like to ensure that the pool of potential employees and customers grow in diversity.
Ron Simons Product Manager Mail Business Unit Microsoft Corporation
Get one computer in every classroom across the country. The students will know what to do with them.
John F. Quinn Technical Specialist Columbia University New York, New York
Our new President can help young children gain access to the information age by providing grants and
incentive programs to businesses to donate computers to schools in the inner city. Every child needs to
be computer literate or they will be left out of the 21st century. This should start at an early age and
continue through graduation.
Laura Wall Technical Writer Microsoft Corporation
I recommend a K-to-Ph.D. perspective aimed at promulgating goals and fiscal support for developing
computer-assisted educational technology in every state as part of a public-private agenda. The
actuation of fiscal support, at minimum, should include: (1 ) a super-computer hub in all fifty states;
(2) K-through-university grants-in-aid for hardware/software acquisition/development; and (3)
grants for public-private application/innovation.
Edward A. Mabry Associate Professor Department of Communication University of Wisconsin at
The Executive branch must take the lead in getting Internet (NREN) access for this country's 85,000
K- 12 public schools and our 8,900 public libraries. Schools and public libraries simply do not have
the financial resources to tap the wealth of information available via the network. To help insure,
promote, and encourage school and public library network access the Administration should consider:
1) tax or other incentives to private network providers to reach out to schools and libraries, 2)
regulatory or rate structures that encourage network access, and, 3) providing more network
"start-up" grant funding than is now provided through the NSF. If the "E" in NREN means "education" at
a much broader level than the narrow access provided by academic/research institutions, it will be
necessary for the federal government, specifically the NSF and Department of Education, to become
more directly involved. If NREN is to reach the broad level of use envisioned by Vice-President Gore
then our public schools and libraries must be a central focus of that vision.
Bob Bocher Wisconsin State Library Madison, Wisconsin
I plead with the Clinton-Gore team to provide free Internet and other electronic informational database
access for K-12 schools. Training in the use of computer telecommunications and the searching of
electronic informational databases is also essential for teachers and other school resource staff, such as
school library-media professionals is also essential. I would like to stress the emphasis on free access
for schools. Given the dire straits that most state school systems are currently in, it is difficult to see
how individual schools and districts will be able to provide Internet access. Free, regional networks
must be created and supported for K-12 schools.
Internet access, with the full range of resources (electronic mail, telnet, and FTP) needs to be simply a
local phone call away for students and teachers, with no added on-line charges. As many electronic
informational databases as possible should also be provided for free, or at greatly-reduced rates.
Otherwise the Internet will be yet another divisive force in our society, separating those who can afford
access to it from those who most need access to the power of the information.
Peter G. Milbury Librarian Pleasant Valley Senior High School Chico, California
Information technology is generally recognized as the presently most important factor for economic
growth (by OECD and others). The single most important action that can be taken by the government of
the U.S. and of any other country regarding computing in the future is to strengthen the ability of the
education system to give children, from kindergarten and up, efficient use of information technology in
their present and future everyday lifeÑ at school, at home and at work.
Einar Skjorten Computer consultant Oslo, Norway
As an educator active in developing the use of telecommunications as an educational tool, I feel it is
important for a continued strengthening of the current Internet system. Creative educators are rapidly
expanding Internet use into all grade levelsÑeven the lowestÑfor activities in education that include
research, but go way beyond research into the realms of simulation, exploration, and inventiveness.
The computer and telecommunications provide a method by which all school classrooms can become part
of the external world. Activities, issues, and research become real, not artificial. Continued support for
systems which promote telecommunications is critical for education at all age levels.
Robert E. Morgan Director of the Computer Center University School Shaker Heights, Ohio
The Clinton administration should make it possible for all teachers and students to have easy and
frequent access to digital electronic networks. With inexpensive telecomputing, students gain a unique
preparation for the networked world they will inherent, giving them skills, knowledge, language, and
global outlook they will need in our increasingly interdependent world. Networking can help teachers
make fundamental changes in the nature of learning by providing resources that empower the learner
and support the current education reform. Universal access to a rich variety of inexpensive educational
network resources is a vital national priority. By containing the cost of the technology required by
these resources, it is possible to offer something of value to every teacher and student within four
years by stimulating the development of decentralized educational services offered over networks using
NREN. Few other educational reforms offer such profound and universal impact with such certainty and
Robert F. Tinker Chief Science Officer TERC Cambridge, Massachusetts
On a daily basis, librarians provide reference consultations to undergraduate and graduate students
who, by their active coursework and research in international studies, are bravely attempting to
reverse the shameful trend of ethnocentrism and ignorance of the rest of the world which have become
trademarks of the poor quality of education in America. These students, who will be our educators,
leaders and policy-makers of tomorrow, depend completely on information about the histories,
cultures, languages, peoples, economies, and governments of the rest of the world. Our ability to
support their endeavors depends critically on wide access to the informational resources of large
noncommercial electronic networks. We hope the new education president will strongly endorse NREN,
design our national information infrastructure to enhance Americans' ability to discover the world, and
protect it from those who would narrow its usefulness to the pursuit of corporate profit.
David Magier Head of Area Studies Columbia University Libraries New York, New York
Address the complex issue of instructional technology, i.e. computers in education. To date, "computer
literacy" has been emphasized equally by educators and policy makers. Little attention has been paid to
the minority voice that addresses the "moral poverty of the information age." Computer-aided
instruction amplifies certain instructional goals (individualized, efficient instruction) because they
are programmable, and reduces others (spontaneity, community mores) because they cannot be reduced
to lines of code. It is time to re-examine the unquestioning acceptance of computers as instructional
Penelope Karovsky College of Education University of Washington Seattle, Washington
This letter respectfully inquires your interest in supporting a project of extending American
educational courses, business administration, computer science, telecommunications (later other
subjects) to Russian gifted students via various telecommunication media. The aim is the development
and implementation of a telecommunications network in the system of higher education of the Russian
Federation, the organization and promotion of the operation of the network, the exchange of scientific
and technological information among distance education and higher education institutions, first of all
through out the Russian Federation and the United States, and establishing the contacts and agreements
When successfully funded, this project will construct an infrastructure for distance (electronic)
education in Russia and then in the Commonwealth of Independent States, with particular emphasis on
the new information technology (e.g., electronic mail, etc.), the most appropriate technology in the
country's present economical and technological position. Further development will provide the basis for
creating the global distance education system on the base of satellite video conferencing technology. The
electronic linkage among participation institutions via e-mail technology, a prototype of the U.S.-
Russian educational and training course exchange system, will enable Russian students receive courses
from American universities and colleges without leaving Russia, and teachers from American
universities need not to be in Russia. With telecommunications, more students and teachers of Russian
and American institutions can share discussions on educational, research and cultural problems. The
American and international students will have the equal possibilities to receive courses from Russian
universities and colleges and outstanding academicians.
Vladimir Kashitsin Russian Federation Committee for Higher Education Moscow, Russia
America must begin to use technology in the schools for social as well as academic gains. Computer
networks, already in place, should be used to facilitate written communication via e-mail among
children who lack both communication and social skills. Policy and funding for efforts such as these
will improve students' writing and social competence as well as forge friendships with other students
in different parts of the country.
This is not innovative; however, we are fast becoming a nation of non-writers and are witnessing the
escalation of violence in our nation's schools. The technology is there. Leadership is needed to promote
this important use of technology in developing social values.
Marty Meyer Special Education Valdosta State College Valdosta, Georgia
Social and Economic Equity
Many others will say this, but at least let me add my vote to theirs: We are in the process of creating
yet another group of haves vs. have-nots, because Internet access is effectively limited to those with
academic connections or plenty of money. Funds need to be appropriated to make every public library in
the U.S. an Internet node, so that people will have access to the rich resources available on the nets.
Carol Goodson West Georgia College Carrolton, Georgia
In order for our citizens to be productive and responsible our nation's diverse communities must be
able to exercise their right to access and use networked computing resources. It is through each
citizen's contributions in the electronic community that our larger social structures become a caring,
vital community. In the electronic community our social and economic structures are productively
integrated, and enterprise is rewarded and nurtured. Along with the right to access computing
resources, citizens must also have a right to education and knowledge about the technical and social uses
and responsibilities of networked computing.
Greg Anderson Librarian Cambridge, Massachusetts
"Information literacy" is being taught only at affluent schools, and practiced only in highly-evolved
institutions and businesses, but will increasingly (I think) define the difference between the capable
and incapable players in the economic/social game. Good government will seek ways to ensure that all
citizens have an opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to communicate with one another. On a
personal level, where would I be without my office computer, my office access to Internet, my office
access to computing assistance? The gap between what I know and what my neighbor does (who has none
of these) grows, and the effect is isolating: our environments are becoming rapidly more dissimilar. As
it has in fostering the mails and other communications media, government policy should encourage
broad access to instruments of literacy and communication.
Katherine Harting Travers Media Specialist School of Agricultural Sciences University of Maryland
Eastern Shore Princess Anne, Maryland
Computers (read: information) should be available to everyone in the country, not just those of us who
can afford to pay for one of our own. The government should do everything possible to promote public-
access terminals in every city and town. A serious tax credit for companies that donate equipment for
this purpose would be a good start.
Rob Donahue Software Specialist Babson College Wellesley, Massachusetts
Ben Franklin set the tone for a culturally and scientificalIy dynamic nation when he introduced the free
public library system.
As we start to re-invest in our infrastructure of free public access roads, we should re-think whether
access to educational computer networks should be restricted (as it is now) just to those with money or
The databanks connected to these computer networks will be the libraries of the future. To not make
these new libraries accessible to all would reduce the intellectual vigor of our nation since many good
minds would be left without up to date information or the chance to interact with knowledgeable others.
In a world market where competitiveness has less to do with raw materials, and more to do with rapid
innovation, putting toll booths on our access to knowledge would make a few dollars now, but would cost
us severely in the future.
Matthew V. Ellsworth Small business owner Texas
As our capability to manipulate information grows, we must insure that all people are provided with
the opportunity to participate in this growing pad of our economy. Basic education addresses part of the
need, but equitable access to information resources, such as networks and PCs, is also needed in the
schools. Investment tax credits for donating computer hardware and software to schools, coupled with
the national service of recent MIS and CS college graduates may be the vehicle to deliver this
opportunity to the next generation. Moving into the 21st century, we can insure that society does not
break into information haves and have-nots, as it seems to be doing with material wealth.
Scott Lucero Operations Research Analyst U.S. Army Operational Evaluation Command
The Clinton administration has a unique opportunity to publicly address what Macworld magazine
recently headlined as the emergence of America's technological underclass. When many are wanting for
the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, the problem of unequal access to basic technological
tools for daily living can be given visibility and help sharpen the nation's wider vision, its program for
education, and its research and development policy directions. A major statement on the primacy of
technology can help orient the general public and computers professionals to a common conversation.
Vice President Gore has been deeply involved with national technology development legislation and can
help set this discourse. Democratic access to technology has especially important implications for
education and social welfare. The new administration can help us recognize and nourish those
experiments which provide models and directions.
Peter Miller Community Computing Center Somerville, Massachusetts
All this talk about "Electronic Town Halls" during the Presidential campaign focused on revitalizing
public interest in the political process by using some kind of television talk show format, combined
with some kind of opinion polling. I have grave fears about both the vulnerability to manipulation of
this kind of "electronic democracy," and its shallowness in the face of the complex problems we are
facing. The way people at the grassroots are using small BBS systems, larger regional computer
conferencing systems like the WELL, and very large systems such as Internet and CompuServe, points
the way to a use of a public network as a tool for revitalizing the public sphere. Computer-mediated
communications, properly designed and widely accessible, could accomplish two functions: it could
enable citizens to talk with one another about issues, in depth, over a period of time, and to convey the
essence of those discussions to elected representatives; it could make factual information in instantly
available and easily searchable form, so that verification or debunking of claims by candidates or other
citizens could take place within the same medium where the conversations are occurring. A national
public network, with guaranteed freedom of expression, and very wide access, could help us keep
democracy healthy at a relatively low cost.
Howard Rheingold Editor The Whole Earth Review Sausalito, California
We have the technology to set up voting booths on virtually every corner, next to your local ATM, say.
Rather than holding sporadic elections of representatives, the government could respond to continuous
referendums. Issues up for vote could be presented on public television and radio, and citizens could
vote on as many or as few as they pleased, perhaps getting tax deductions for higher participation
Politicians would still be necessary to draw up the bills, but each issue could be kept intact rather than
tacked on to other concerns. Imagine the potential for creating an involved active democratic society if
we all had the option of voting daily. Social exchanges might revolve around issues rather than the
television shows the night before. Government would have to learn to respond rapidly. If we could trust
our citizenry to such an extent, maybe the rampant powerlessness feeding the alienation feeding the
crime rate could be channeled to more positive ends.
Stephanie Watts Doctoral candidate Boston University School of Management Boston, Massachusetts
Clinton can help the productivity of software development by working to eliminate patents from the
field of software. Until a few years ago, the software industry functioned without patents, with no lack
of investment and no lack of progress. Now even an innovative program uses dozens of known techniques
and features, each of which can be already patented by someone else. Each step in writing a program
may land on a patent and explode in a lawsuit. A large program probably infringes numerous patents.
Thus navigating the minefield of patents becomes harder than writing software. The issue requires
immediate attention because (thanks to the Bush administration) the proposed GATT treaty prohibits
most possible solutions.
Richard Stallman League for Programming Freedom Cambridge, Massachusetts
Software patents need to be abolished. Society is not getting any value for the monopoly it is granting
the patent holder. For the first time in our history, the patent system threatens to slow or halt
technological progress. Legislation is needed to make data collectors and distributors both civilly and
criminally liable for harm that result from inaccuracy they propagate. Never before in the history of
the world has accidental libel become a systemic problem. Cryptography must be made commonly
available to ensure individual privacy as well as the prevention of fraud. Secure private speech is the
basis of position formation prior to public dialog.
Russell Brand Computer security consultant Redwood City, California
I see a role for the "network" (however all-inclusive that term is these days) in guaranteeing
equivalent access for people with disabilities. The notion could be called "electronic curbcuts."
In practice, different document types (such as text, bit map, video) will need to come and go from
different terminals with different capabilities. Translation standards are needed that facilitate
transmission and reception by people with disabilities. For example, a deaf person may want to send a
document to a number of people. One recipient may not have a computer, only a fax machine. The
document needs to arrive as a bitmap of the text. A blind recipient may prefer to hear the text through a
speech synthesizer. Not a big problem. But if the original document is a fax, two translation steps are
needed: bitmap to text, then text to speech. Some standards are needed, at least to identify document (and
even document section) types that may require translation.
This translation function now typically resides in the user's terminal equipment. But there may also be
a network function is evolved.
If translations are performed in the network, the equipment requirements are reduced for the user.
That is, it's cheaper to time-share the translation capability than to go out and buy all the stuff you
may ever need. At least in theory.
James O. Bellcore Corporation
The number of people who are not able to read printed text is rapidly increasingÑblind and visually
impaired people, elderly people, people with physical disabilities. The computer age opens a chance to
compensate this disadvantage because practically every sheet of paper that is printed originates from
an electronic source. The government could serve this ever increasing group of people by compelling
publishers to pass the electronic sources of their products to them.
Bernhard Stoeger Computer scientist Johannes Kepler University Austria
Long ago, in one of the world's first economic summits, it is said that the French mercantilist minister
Colbert asked a group of businessmen what he could do for them. One of the men, Legendre, is supposed
to have replied, "Laissez nous fairer, meaning, "leave us alone." world is finally embracing the market
economy, having discovered that government's greatest talent is to destroy rather than create, but it
appears that this lesson has been lost on what was once the greatest economic power in the world. I
would ask the new administration nothing other than to stay out of the way. What can the Clinton
Administration do for us? It can leave us alone.
Perry Metzger Lehman Brothers New York, New York
It is often heard, but seldom explained, that the best policy is "laissez faire," or hands off. I agree
completely, and by way of explanation would suggest the following specifics: (1) remove existing
regulatory barriers on the export of encryption technology; (2) remove similar barriers which
prevent competition in the local telephone loop; (3) stop all efforts to develop or promote an
"industrial policy" in the electronics industry (no matter what it is called); (4) don't spend federal
(or other tax) funds on any "national data highway" but instead remove regulatory and other barriers
which prevent existing and future vendors from offering their own; (5) instruct the FCC to generally
allow any (non-interfering) use of the spectrum, including the various competing HDTV standards.
Robert Bickford Software Engineer Corte Madera, California
Everyone understands by now that software is a critical strategic and economic resource. But the young
programmers who will create tomorrow's software are generally treated by the media as misfits or
criminal "hackers" rather than as living national treasures.
A little bit of recognition and reward at the White House level wouId help to counteract such negative
stereotypes. Let's have an annual Presidential Award for Excellence in Computer Programming by
Americans under the age of eighteen. The selection process should particularly seek out noteworthy
achievements by girls, minorities and people challenged by physical handicaps. A medal and
Presidential photo-op would cost taxpayers almost nothing, but corporations in the computer industry
might be encouraged to offer grants of hardware, software and scholarships to the winners.
Contributing Editor MicroTimes magazine
I think that the Clinton Administration should fund projects that advance home computing as a means of
communication and information dissemination. Perhaps a joint State and Federal effort on providing
access points for review of Congressional issues, so that the regular people can send comments and
advice to their Senators and Representatives. Maybe we should back up and fund Congress or State
Governments to set up electronic environments from which people can acquire proposed bills, speeches
pertinent to those bills, etc. From there we might leap to electronic voting, perhaps a pilot project
could be initiated by Clinton's administration. Maybe they could wire the White House. Has that been
done? Well, do the next step: wire the country! Start special assistance programs for people to get their
own home computers, or for communities to set up community computer centers. Encourage the
building of homes to facilitate the installation of computer devices. Maybe the Clinton Administration
should convince the m edict to do periodic exposes of Laudable not Fraudable government-funded
"computing and the community" projects.
Jeanne M. Warpinski Computer Scientist Naval Undersea Warfare Center New London, Connecticut
Grand Challenge project: By the year 2000, require that all forms going between government agencies
go electronically. This is as hard as and as significant as the "man on the moon by the end of the decade."
Brewster Kahle President Wide Area Information Servers, Inc. Menlo Park, California
Increasingly, human lives depend upon the reliable operation of systems such as air traffic and high-
speed ground transportation control systems, military weapons delivery and defense systems, and
health care delivery and diagnostic systems... Systems developers must better recognize and address the
issues of reliability. The public has the right to require that systems are installed only after proper
steps have been taken to assure reasonable levels of reliability.
The issues and questions concerning reliability that must be addressed include: 1. What risks and
consequences are involved when the computer system fails? 2. What is the reasonable and practical
level of reliability to require of the system, and does the system meet this level?3. What techniques
were used to estimate and verify the level of reliability? 4. Were the estimators and verifiers
independent of each other and of those with vested interests in the system?
James Jay Horning Senior Consultant Software Engineer Digital Equipment Corporation Palo A/to,
I believe the most important thing the new administration can do is to continue to reinforce the fact
that, whatever the issueÑjobs, health care, education, etc.Ñwe are all in this together. All of our
problems and their solutions are interdependent and we will only succeed in solving any one of them by
solving all of them at the same time and working together. The first response to any idea from a person
or organization should be, "who else has a stake in this and what do they think?" This is not to say
President Clinton should not exercise leadership or that no action can be taken that is not a matter of
complete consensus. It is just the opposite: the strongest possible leadership is required to insist on
inclusion, and the administration must be proactive in seeking broad input and participation. The
fundamental precept here is community. Computing and communications technology, configured into
local but interconnected community networks, can effectively support this precept and these goals. I
urge the administration to encourage the many community networking projects that have already begun
around the country, and whoever should get the ear of President Clinton hopefully will her back, "Who
else has a stake in this and what do they think?"
Michael J. Strait Annenberg/CPB Project Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Telecommunications Privacy Guidelines
The following guidelines were presented by CPSP Washington Director Marc Rotenberg to the National
Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) at an open hearing in July, 1992. The
guidelines were later incorporated into the NCLIS report delivered to the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy.
¥ The confidentiality of telecommunications should be protected.
The primary purpose of a communication network is to ensure that information can travel between two
points without alteration, interception, or disclosure. A network that fails to achieve this goal will not
serve as a reliable conduit for information. Therefore a central goal of network policy should be to
guarantee the confidentiality of electronic communications.
¥ Privacy considerations must be recognized explicitly In the provision, use and regulation of
The addition of new services to a communications infrastructure will necessarily raise privacy
concerns. Users should be fully informed about the privacy implications of these services so that they
are able to make appropriate decisions about abuses.
¥ The collection of personal data for telecommunication services should be limited to the extent
necessary to provide the service.
Users should not be required to disclose personal data which is not necessary for the rendering of
services. Data should be used for purposes consistent with the offering of the service. The use of the
Social Security number for network services should be prohibited.
¥ Service providers should not disclose information without the explicit consent of service users.
Service providers should be required to make known their data collection practices to service users.
Service providers have a responsibility to inform users about the collection of personal information
and to protect the information against unlawful disclosure. Personally identifiable information should
not be disclosed without the affirmative consent of the user.
¥ Users should not be required to pay for routine privacy protection. Additional costs for privacy
should only be imposed for extraordinary protection.
The premise of the federal wiretap statue is that all users of the public network are entitled to the same
degree of legal protection against the unlawful disclosure of electronic communications. This principle
should be carried forward into the emerging network environment. Segmented levels of privacy
protection are also likely to introduce new transaction costs and create inefficiencies. Where special
charges are imposed for privacy, it should be fee for service.
¥ Service providers should be encouraged to explore technical means to protect privacy.
Service providers should pursue technical means to protect privacy, particularly where such means
may improve the delivery of service and reduce the risk of privacy loss.
¥ Appropriate security polices should be developed to protect network communications.
Security is an element of privacy protection but it is not synonymous with privacy. Appropriate
security policies should be put in place to protect privacy. However, it should be recognized that some
security measures may compromise privacy protection. Network monitoring, for example, or the
collection of detailed audit trail information will raise substantial privacy concerns. Therefore,
security policies should be designed to serve the larger goal of privacy protection.
¥ A mechanism should be established to ensure the observance of these principles.
Good principles without appropriate oversight and enforcement are insufficient to protect privacy. This
has been the experience of the United States with the Privacy Act of 1 974 and of the European
countries with the 1981 Privacy Guidelines. In both instances, fine principles lacked sufficient
oversight and enforcement mechanisms.
CPSR Freedom of Information Act Cases
The CPSR Washington office uses the Freedom of Information Act to obtain government records about
technology policy issues. The FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose information upon request and
provides an important means of public oversight. The FOIA has become a particularly important tool for
exploring policies surrounding technology and civil liberties.
In April 1992, CPSR obtained a copy of National Security Directive 42 ( NS D-42), a secret policy on
computer security authority. This was the first National Security Directive of the Bush administration
to be made public. It reveled that the Bush administration sought to transfer authority for computer
security to the intelligence community, even after Congress passed the 1987 Computer Security Act to
ensure that decisions about security and technical standard setting would be made by a civilian agency.
CPSR FOIA litigation also forced the disclosure of information about the National Security Agency's role
in developing the Digital Signature Standard, a technical standard for computer networks that affects
the level of privacy available to computer users. CPSR's FOIA efforts also led to the
disclosure of a government memo, prepared by the General Services Administration, highly critical of
the FBI's wiretap plan. CPSR has several FOIA cases now pending in federal courts.
CPSR v. FBI 1: FBI monitoring of computer networks and bulletin boards used by political and advocacy
CPSP v. FBI 11: Basis for FBI's proposal to facilitate wire surveillance in the United States and
whether alternative schemes have been explored.
CPSR v. National Institute of Standards and Technology: Role of NIST and National Security Agency in
development of civilian computer privacy standards.
CPSR v. Department of Commerce: Export of computer systems used by foreign governments for
CPSR v. United States Secret Service and Department of Treasury: Scope and purpose of computer crime
Operation Sun Devil.
CPSR FOIA requests are currently pending on cryptography policy, electronic surveillance, genetic
privacy, the NASA Ames investigation, and the INSLAW investigation.
GSA Opposes FBI Wiretap Plan
The following document was prepared by the General Services Administration in response to a request
from the Office of Management and Budget for an assessment of the FBI's wiretap proposal. The
document was disclosed to CPSP as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request.
The proposed legislation could have a widespread impact on the government's ability to acquire new
telecommunications equipment and provide electronic communications services.
Existing federal government telecommunications resources will be affected by the proposed new
technology techniques and equipment. An incompatibility and interoperability of existing federal
government telecommunications system, and resources would result due to the new technological
The federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been removed from the legislation, but the Justice
implementation may require modifications to the "Communications Act of 1934," and other FCC policies
and regulations to remove inconsistencies. This could also cause an unknown effect on the wire and
electronic communications systems operations, services, equipment, and regulations within the federal
government. Further, to change a major portion of the United States telecommunications infrastructure
(the public switched network within eighteen months and others within three years) seems very
optimistic, no matter how trivial or minimal the proposed modifications are to implement.
In the proposed legislation the Attorney General has sole, unilateral, exclusive authority to enforce,
grant exceptions or waive the provisions of any resultant law and enforce it in federal District Courts.
The Attorney General would, as e, only "consult" with the FCC, Department of al would, as Commerce,
or Small Business Administration. The Attorney General has exclusive authority in Section 2 of the
legislation; it appears the Attorney General has taken over several FCC functions and placed the FCC in a
mere consulting capacity.
The proposed legislation would apply to all forms of wire and electronic communications to include
computer data bases, facsimile, imagery etc., as well as voice transmissions.
The proposed legislation would assist eavesdropping by law enforcement, but it would also apply to
users who acquire the technology capability and make it easier for criminals, terrorists, foreign
intelligence (spies) and computer hackers to electronically penetrate the public network and pry into
areas previously not open to snooping. This situation of easier access due to new technology changes
could therefore affect national security.
The proposed legislation does not address standards and specifications for telecommunications
equipment nor security considerations. These issues must be addressed as they effect both the
government and private industry. There are also civil liberty implications and the public's
constitutional rights to privacy which are not mentioned.
it must be noted that equipment already exists that can be used to wiretap the digital communications
lines and support court- authorized wiretaps, criminal investigations and probes of voice
communications. The total number of interception applications authorized within the United States
(federal and state) has been averaging under nine hundred per year. There is concern that the proposed
changes are not cost effective and worth the effort to revamp all the existing and new
The proposed bill would have to have the FCC or another agency approve or reject new telephone
equipment mainly on the basis of whether the FBI has the capability to wiretap H. The federalapproval
process is normally lengthy and the United States may not be able to keep pace with foreign industries
to develop new technology and install secure communications.. As a matter of interest, the proposed
restrictive new technology could impede the United States' ability to compete in digital telephony and
participate in the international trade arena.
Finally, there will be unknown associated costs to implement the proposed new technological
procedures and equipment. These costs would be borne by the federal government, consumers, and all
other communications ratepayers to finance the effort. Both the federal government and private
industry communications regular phone service, data transmissions, satellite and microwave
transmissions, and encrypted communications could be effected at increased Costs.
CPSR Network Archive Includes Clinton Speeches
There is a new CPSR information server on the Internet. It contains all of the documents that are
archived at the CPSR Listserv at gwuvm.gwu.edu, plus many others. Its Internet address is cpsr.org,
and documents are available via ftp at ftp.cpsr.org, via gopher at gopher.cpsr.org, and via WAIS at
wais.cpsr.org. They also are available via the UNIX Listserv program. Send electronic mail to
firstname.lastname@example.org with one line with one word in the body of your message: help. The automatic
response will point you to more information on ftp, gopher and WAIS. If you need any more information
about obtaining them via anonymous ftp, please ask your system administrator, as commands vary by
system. If you have any other questions regarding these resources, send e-mail to listserv-
The files available include several of President Clinton's speeches, including his speech on technology
policy delivered at Silicon Graphics in Mountain View, California. There is also a complete copy of a
diskette that was distributed by the White House with the full text of the Clinton economic plan,
The directory cpsr/clinton/message contains several hundred responses to our call for e-mail
messages to the President on information technology and the public interest, in several files grouped by
cpsr/clinton/econplan has the contents of a diskette that was distributed containing the entire Clinton
economic plan, including several charts, and accompanied by supporting documentation. See the file
These are just a few of the hundreds of files archived at cpsr.org. They are offered as a public service
by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
Statement of the Computer Systems Policy Project
On January 12, the Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP), an affiliation of the CEOs of thirteen
U.S. computer systems companies, released a report entitled, "Perspectives on the National Information
Infrastructure: CSPP's Vision and Recommendations for Action." The following is excerpted from the
report. For copies, call Pam Fandel at 202-628-1700 or e-mail a request to CSPP@mcimail.com.
The infrastructure of the future is a nation-wide system that integrates four essential elements
communications networks, computers, information resources and peopleÑin a wide variety of
technologies to create a whole new way of learning, working, and interacting with others, allowing all
Americans to take advantage of our rich resources in information, communications, and computing
technologies. It will link together institutions and resources, from schools and businesses to libraries
and laboratories. More important, it will link together individuals, from senior citizens and students to
health care professionals, manufacturing managers, and business people. It will revolutionize the way
individuals relate with one another by enabling us to work together, collaborate, and access and
generate information without regard to geographical boundaries. It will enable fundamental changes in
the way we educate our children, train and retrain our workers, earn a living, manufacture products,
deliver services of all kinds, and interact with family and friends. Such an infrastructure will enable
us to address more effectively many societal problems, including challenges in the areas of health care,
education, and manufacturing, which are becoming increasingly dependent on rapid access to
Recommendations for Action
Creating a national information infrastructure of the future will require improving upon and linking
together current communications, computing, information, and human resource capabilities. More
important, it will require developing new capabilities to enable broad access by millions of Americans
to public and private information resources and to enable people to receive text, images, and video
anywhere, at any time.
Before the comprehensive information infrastructure of the future can be realized, a broad cross-
section of American industries, academic and research institutions, and the federal government need to
agree on a common vision for the effort. With a common vision in place, the private and public sectors
can make a commitment to make the vision a reality. While the private sector has primary
responsibility for developing and making available the services, products, networks, and applications
to make the infrastructure possible, the federal government has an important role as a catalyst in
stimulating the effort and creating a regulatory environment that will encourage private sector
investment and implementation.
To accelerate the development and deployment of a national information infrastructure, CSPP
recommends that the administration, Congress, and the private sector begin a joint effort to take the
1. Make the national information infrastructure (Nil) a National Technology Challenge.
2. Establish a National Information Infrastructure Council.
3. Establish an NII Implementation Entity.
4. Invest in Research for an Nll.
5 Fund Pilot Projects to Demonstrate Technologies.
6. Develop a Public Education Program.
7. Make Government Information Easily Accessible.
1. Authorize a National Information Infrastructure Council and Appropriate Funds for its Operation.
2. Authorize and Appropriate Funds for Research and Technology Demonstration Projects.
1. Continue Investments to Develop and Deploy an Nll.
2. Continue to Invest in Research and Development of Applications.
3. Reach Out to Other Industries.
4. Promote NII and Participate in Pilot Projects.
5. Develop NII Goals and Milestones.
In addition, CSPP has identified a set of public policy principles that will have to be addressed jointly
by the public and private sectors before the information infrastructure can become a reality,
including, for example, access by all individuals; privacy; security; and interoperability.
IEEE Computer Society Addresses President Clinton
Dear Mr. President:
Over the past year, the computer science and engineering community has been listening intently to what
you've had to say about computer technology and our communications infrastructure. Many of us have
been heartened by your personal awareness of our technology's bearing on our economy, our society,
and the world. We've been particularly encouraged by the obvious importance you attach to the subject,
as demonstrated by your planned creation of the Technology Council and your appointment of Vice
President Gore to head it. We are likewise impressed by your understanding that building a global
information infrastructure is as critical to growth and prosperity as rebuilding our roads and bridges,
and that enhanced global collaboration on technical issues can benefit all the nations and peoples of the
Achieving the robust technological growth that will fuel a revitalized, competitive economy will
require, among other things, substantial increases in both basic and applied research. Much of the
needed R&D investment must continue to be made in the private sector, but government has a crucial
role to play as well. Government can provide the incentives to lift the business planning horizon from
quarterly earnings to the long-term investments we need. For cutting-edge technologies, continued and
expanded direct federal funding of R&D work is essential. And yet, the federal budget deficit makes the
likelihood of sufficient increases in R&D spending problematic at best. Thus, the federal R&D budget
must be applied in the most effective manner possible. Two immediate means of improving that
effectiveness are addressed here.
The first is the line-item vetoÑa measure for which we have previously expressed support. No other
single act could do as much to end the frittering away of critical R&D resources on poorly conceived,
even frivolous, projects. Congress will not easily give up its power to earmark money for local
projects, and the opposition to the line-item veto has already attempted to take the high ground by
casting the issue as a power struggle between the executive and legislative branches. You will be
immensely pressured to abandon this change as the price of Congressional cooperation on other
important initiatives. I hope you will resist these pressures. We need better science than can be
generated by lobbyists. I believe the people will support you, and I'm certain that the responsible
scientific community will do so.
Second, new priorities must be established for committing R&D resources. All knowledge is valuable,
and our thirst for it is insatiable. But not all knowledge is of equal value in the context of public policy.
The federal R&D budget has been divided among too many competing disciplines on the basis of
gentlemen's agreements to respect each other's territory. Priority-setting must be done. No scientist
takes lightly the importance of the advancement of knowledge in any discipline, and we can all look
forward to a day when we can afford an R&D pie that will accommodate the needs of all fields. But for
now, as you try to re-establish the place of the United States among the world's technology leaders, it is
imperative to address the relative sizes of the slices of the pie. Setting priorities that have some
reasonable expectation of practical payoff in the near termÑincluding both advances in knowledge
through basic research as well as applied research leading to applications of technology and productsÑ
will require a radical change in the behavior of the federal agencies that fund R&D work: NSF, NIH,
DoE, DoD, and others. That, in turn, will require firm resolve at the top of the administration, as well
as enlightened leadership by your appointees throughout the government, to achieve the necessary
Mr. President, you begin your administration with more widespread hope and anticipation in the
population than has been seen in decades. The country and the world are eager for your leadership and
change. None of this will make the awesome tasks facing you easy, but with your leadership and vision,
combined with the enormous resources of talent, support, and enthusiasm you command in our country,
a goodly share of those tasks are doable. You have my continued full and fervent support in that effort.
T. Michael Elliott Executive Director IEEE Computer Society
Dear Mr. President:
As a professor of computer engineering at a leading research university and president of the world's
largest society of computer engineers and scientists, I have been encouraged by your understanding of
how federal technology policy affects the economy and by your commitment to the country's research
and development needs by your appointment of Vice President Gore to head a new Technology Council. It
is my hope that you will continue to take positive steps and play a major leadership role in reshaping
our federal technology policy to promote partnerships between academia, industry and government, and
increased investment in science and technology.
Your and Vice President Gore's leadership is desperately needed to foster increased cooperation in the
technology arena where federal agencies involved in hightech activities often compete with one another
for limited research dollars. Setting a coherent, cohesive technology policy will not be easy, with the
real danger of political fallout from emphasizing some research areas over others. Never the less, it is
crucial to our economy, society and the world that choices be made in order for the United States to
regain its world leadership role.
In addition, we ways to strengthen and create new partnerships between America's research
universities and industry. Far too many good ideas are falling into the void between industry and
universities, failing to get from the laboratory to the marketplace. This gap will continue if federal
agencies are only comfortable funding university research centers and basic research and are leery of
any research driven by industrial needs. White basic research should not be abandoned, technology
transfer also should not be shunned.
Incentives are also needed to get our high-tech industries, and our economy, more conducive to
investment. I would urge you to include reinstatement of the investment tax credit and making the R&D
tax credit permanent as part of your economic recovery package. In addition, we must begin to more
proactively protect the intellectual property rights of our entrepreneurs if we have any hope of
stimulating increased research and development.
It is with great hope and expectation that we enter the new year in anticipation of your administration
taking office. The challenges you face will be numerous, the choices often difficult. You will have my
support in making the difficult choices necessary to strengthen the high-tech community and our
economic and industrial growth and development.
James H. Aylor 1993 President IEEE Computer Society
MacArthur Foundation Assembles Conversion Group
The folio wing statement was drafted by a working group on defense conversion assembled by the John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in the foundation's offices in Chicago on December 1, 1992.
The statement was sent to the Clinton-Gore transition team on December 3rd. One of the members of the
group, Professor Ann Markusen of Rutgers UniversityÑalso a member of the National Advisory Board
of CPSR's 21st Century ProjectÑdelivered the main points of this statement as a speaker at the Clinton
"economic summit" in Little Rock.
To tree up resources for the larger Clinton investment and industrial revitalization effort, a workable
defense conversion program is essential. Since there will be opposition to speeding up and efficiently
managing defense cuts, it is important for Clinton to tackle the conversion problem forcefully and head
The challenge is formidable because conversion policy has two not necessarily compatible goals. For
one, it should attempt to keep as many people working in existing communities as possible. This will
diminish opposition to defense cuts and minimize the personal and social costs of displacement. On the
other hand, Clinton will want to move resources enhancing investments as fast as possible. The
following initiatives are designed to address both these goals simultaneously.
The key to a coherent conversion effort would be a modestly-sized Office of Economic Conversion, small
and self-liquidating, and accountable directly to the Economic Security Council. The Office would have a
Director who sits on the Council and who is responsible for integrating economic conversion strategy
with the national larger economic policies charted by the Council. The Office would have an advisory
board including Secretaries of Labor, Commerce, Defense and Energy, all of whose departments
currently have conversion programs. The structure proposed here is akin to that pioneered by the
FCCSET (Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology) for the coordination of
science and technology policy. The OEC should also have an advisory council made up of individuals
representing the various constituencies confronting the need to convert.
A major task of the OEC would be the packaging of resources and assistance to local and regional agencies
in a "one stop shopping" mode. Portions of the DoL, DoC and DoD should be pooled in a pot over which the
Director of the OEC has discretionary control, and the OEC would then package the appropriate worker
retraining, community development planning and company planning assistance in response to a single
comprehensive request from a state or locality.
Currently, communities, firms and workers who need conversion assistance confront a plethora of
confusing agencies, regulations and requirements. This past year, for the Massachusetts Industrial
Services Program wrote eight different funding proposals to five different federal agencies for defense-
related adjustment assistance. Our state and local practitioners, who represent best practice in the U.
S., are adamant that this type of change is essential to make conversion work efficiently.
The OEC would also act as an "agency of first resort" for any firm, community or group of workers
facing military cuts. A phone call to Washington will set in motion a process of identifying the
appropriate resources and institutions ready to address the unique problems faced by the caller.
The OEC should not be a service delivery organization, but rather a coordinating and streamlining body.
Community based and local/regional efforts are already well-developed and in place in a number
defense-dependent areas, and their efforts should be strengthened and showcased by the OEC. Where
state and local economic development capabilities are not well developed for pursuing and managing
conversion projects, the OEC will help build that capability through technical assistance to state and
local governments. Assistance to companies, workers and communities will continue to be provided by
existing federal, state and local agencies. The point of the Office is to build and enhance that capability.
The OEC would collate existing data from the many relevant federal offices (BLS, DoC's Bureau of
Industrial Economics, DoD's OEA) on the extent of defense dependency and suggest improvements in the
federal data gathering and dissemination efforts. It would also forecast the micro-level impacts of
future defense cuts and operate an early warning system for states, localities, unions, and firms. In
addition, it would run a modestly-sized research program to evaluate past and present conversion
The OEC would run a series of task forces, comprised of all parties with a stake in the peace dividend
and its reallocation, to advise the President on effective solutions. An OEC task force should tackle the
defense data and information inadequacy problem. Another would evaluate the record to date of federal
efforts to facilitate conversion in cases of military base and plant closings and develop a research
agenda on conversion for the Office. Another comprised of contractors, workers, and community, state,
and local representatives would address the complex problem of how to undertake advance planning at
the company and community level, including how to involve all interested parties in such planning.
Another would focus on existing state and local capability to request and deliver conversion services and
how that capability might be strengthened and streamlined.
Another task force would investigate the relationship between defense adjustment programs and new
economic initiatives in the areas of technology, infrastructure, and new frontiers in environment,
energy, transportation, housing, health and education. This task force would tackle the knotty problem
of the targeting of economic development moneysÑshould defense-dependent communities and workers
and firms have priority in new funding, or should all comers, including those shut out of defense
production in the last decade, be permitted to bid on new projects?
The OEC is designed to be a public entrepreneur in the conversion area. All its activities would be
innovations in structure and practice which, if proved useful in the longer run, could be passed on to
appropriate line agencies when it phases out of existence. However, currently, the diffuse
responsibility among several agencies for conversion has proved ineffectiveÑeven coordinating efforts
like the Economic Adjustment Council have not succeeded in delivering services quickly and efficiently.
The OEC is designed to replace the existing cumbersome apparatus that developed during the Reagan and
Bush years and was acceded to by a Congress hamstrung by the budget walls. Clinton should not continue
this arrangement. It is not appropriate for the Pentagon to play the lead role in conversion. Its job is to
defense industrial base; it has no expertise in civilian production and would have a clear conflict of
interest in pursuing successful conversion to non-military uses. The poor record of the DoD in
disbursing the $200 million 1991 adjustment package demonstrates the problem. Except for programs
addressing the demobilization of the armed forces, all conversion programs, including community firm
assistance and dual-use technology programs should be shifted from the DoD to this newly recommended
The Office of Economic Adjustment in the Pentagon, until recently a small, fifteen-staffer operation
which has principally managed conversion cases of military base and plant closings, should be shifted to
the OEC. Their expertise would be invaluable in the conversion effort, and they would benefit from the
superior data collection effort, the evaluative endeavor, and the ability to have their services packaged
with those of the line agencies. Control of new economic development implementation funding, like that
for the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, and of labor retraining funds recently installed in the Pentagon,
should be shifted to the Department of Commerce and Department of Labor respectively.
In addition to the OEC, Clinton should consider taking the bold step of immediately adopting
administrative regulations which would encourage advance planning on the part of defense firms and
military-dependent communities. Through a combination of carrots and sticks, alternative use planning
at the firm or facility (in the case of military bases) level is an excellent way to facilitate conversion.
The sticks would be requirements, in DoD and DoE contracts, that defense contractors set up alternative
use committees, with labor and perhaps community participation, to study and draw up business plans
for new civilian products if and when their defense contracts end. The carrots would include generous
investment tax credits for new civilian investments by contractors. The general investment tax credit
plan proposed by Clinton will have to be modified for defense contractors, whose defense-related and
dual-use investments are already subsidized by taxpayers. To avoid the double subsidy problem and to
encourage re-orientation of firms, the ITC should apply only to investments in plant and equipment for
On the R&D conversion front, Clinton should forcefully move to redirect R&D resources to new civilian
endeavors. The DoD's basic and generic, or "dual-use," programs should be phased out over time (to
avoid unnecessarily undercutting important on-going research efforts) and moved over to the
appropriate civilian agencies. A strengthened National Institute for Standards and Technology and
National Science Foundation would be the best candidates for absorbing and managing "dual-use"
technology efforts now under DARPA's auspices. Clinton can then expand R&D funding for more applied
technologies within line agencies where they are linked to programmatic initiatives. For instance,
alternative fuel vehicle R&D funding is lodged in the Department of Transportation where it is part of
the larger transportation initiative.
Conversion experience to date also suggests Clinton actions in several areas which might apply to
defense as well as non-defense structural adjustment situations. A large share of displacement in the
1990s is bound to come from defense-related cuts in both armed services and procurement, so the calls
for these structures will likely emanate from this type of community. Conversion policy could
encourage a community to fashion and experiment with these economic development institutions. First,
the establishment of Transition Centers for workers, including scientists and engineers, is a very
effective means of overcoming isolation, lethargy and pooling resources and service delivery. These
should be set up well in advance of military-related closings and provide job search and counseling
services to people before they become unemployed.
Second, new educational programs should be set up which help defense managers, engineers and blue
collar workers overcome the particular problems that have developed from the narrow specialization
and absence of commercial marketing and production development and cost control demands of the
civilian sectors. For managers, a university-based program of re-education in marketing and product
design would be appropriate. For workers, the community college curriculum to emphasize more
generic skills that will be appropriate for the new job market is needed.
Third, an expansion of existing manufacturing extension services should be undertaken, with
specialists who understand the dilemmas of defense contractors in facing the conversion challenge.
Fourth, an Enterprise Development Bank, funded at the level of at least $5 billion initially and
complementing existing state and local public lending institutions, should be set up to provide the
necessary capital for retooling plants and base facilities for commercial markets. The bank should not
fully fund projects, except in exceptional cases, but leverage private financial resources in cases
where banks are unwilling themselves to fully finance projects. A range of technical support services
should accompany loan-making to ensure that contractors are directed to appropriate service delivery
agencies, for instance the manufacturing extension services, to receive the technical assistance they
A conversion program that includes these elements will permit the Clinton administration to rapidly
make substantial defense cuts. We think these could be on the order of $30 billion a year, achieving a
50% cut from the 1980s peak within five years. These cuts would free up enormous resources for the
various items on the Clinton agenda. For conversion per se, about half of each year's cut should be
dedicated directly to adjustment assistance and compensating investments, and most of the rest to new
long term investments in the economy. For instance, about $2.5 billion will be required for worker
adjustment and retraining and community economic development. Several billions more could be
directed to interim income maintenance, health coverage and education investments. The Enterprise
Development Bank would require at least $5 billion for capitalization. Major new initiatives in
transportation and the environment should be showcased as the missions of the 1990s, around which
new industrial sectors will be engendered. Before these long-term investments can bear fruit in terms
of jobs, the Clinton administration should use public works and infrastructure investments to bridge
the gap for defense workers and communities.
There will be a downside for Clinton in taking such bold stepsÑwe can expect that some of the big
defense contractors and some politicians and DoD officials with a stake in the status quo will oppose
these changes. Pressures on the new administration to slow defense cuts and promote arms sales abroad
will be intense. But foreign arms sales and more B-2 bombers and Seawolf submarines are no
substitute for movement toward civilian production. Federal policy to secure alternative employment
for defense workers is a critical means of limiting world arms proliferation and hastening the economic
recovery at home. In otherwords, the business as usual route just won't work.
On the other hand, if Clinton bites the bullet and takes these steps, he will receive widespread popular
support from the unions, conversion groups, mayors and other state and local officials. He can also
expect very favorable press coverage for tackling the conversion problem head on. In conclusion, the
time to move on conversion is now. When President-elect Clinton adopts the proposals outlined above,
he will be making a clear statement that he is charting a new course for our country and building a
healthy economy for the 21st century.
Members of the Economic Conversion Working Group:
Marc Baldwin, United Auto Workers
Greg Bischak, National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament
Elyse Cann, Machine Action Project Gary Chapman, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Michael Closson, Center for Economic Conversion Janet Groat, Minnesota Jobs with Peace
Catherine Hill, Project on Regional and Industrial Economics, Rutgers University
Candace Howes, Department of Economics, Notre Dame University
Paul Knox, Washington State Community Diversification Program
Ann Markusen, Project on Regional and Industrial Economics, Rutgers University
Mary Ann McGivern, St. Louis Economic Conversion Project Susan Schweppe, Maine Economic
Suzanne Teagarden, Massachusetts Industrial Services Program
Joel Yudken, Project on Regional and Industrial Economics, Rutgers University
Pat Ziska, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Computing Research Association Sends a Message to the President
Take Action to Increase the Nation's Investment in Developing Critical Computing Technologies.
¥ Improve incentives for university/industry/government interactions and technology transfer
¥ Improve research funding for technologies with high impact on the nation
¥ Improve funding of studies on fundamental policy issues and related technology
Take Action to Improve the Nation's Human Resources in Computing.
¥ Provide incentives to place computing knowledge on par with other science and technical subjects in
the K-12 schools.
¥ Provide resources to improve and maintain the educational infrastructure for computing at all levels
¥ Provide funding to increase the number of college and postgraduate trained computer scientists.
Take Action to Clarify Critical Policy Issues for Electronic Information.
¥ Freedom of Communication
¥ Intellectual Property Rights
Create a National Information Infrastructure Program
¥ Establish a National Thrust and Oversight Body
¥ Invest in research on hardware, software, and policy
¥ Promote standards and industry/university/government collaboration
¥ Promote industry investment in pilot projects
Expand the Research Agenda of the High Performance Computing and Communication Program.
¥ Provide the foundation for the future
¥ Encourage the development of applications to health care, education, and manufacturing
¥ Invest in collaborative industry/university/government pilot projects
The Computing Research Association represents Ph.D.-granting departments of computer science in
American universities, as well as professional and technical societies and corporations interested in
computer science research. CRA has a Washington, D.C., office headed by Dr. Frederick Weingarten,
who can be reached at 1625 Massachusetts Ave., N. W., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20036; telephone:
The CPSR Newsletter is published quarterly by:
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility P.O. Box 717 Palo Alto, CA 94302-0717 (415)
322-3778 (415) 322-3798 Internet address: email@example.com u
Also located at:
CPSR 666 Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 303 Washington, D.C. 20003 (202) 544-9240
This news/ester was produced on an Apple Macintosh II using the desktop publishing software
Pagemaker 4.2, as well as Microsoft Word 5.0. The hardware and softtware were donated by the Apple,
Aldus, and Microsoft corporations.
If you have access to the Internet...
CPSR maintains an electronic archive of its most
important publications, including excerpts from The CPSR Newsletter, white papers, press releases,
legislative testimony, and membership information.
To find out how to access this message via the Internet computer network, see the instructions on page
CPSR Annual Meeting in Seattle
October 16-17, 1993
This year the CPSR Annual Meeting will be held October 1 6th and 17th at the University of Washington
in Seattle. The focus of the Saturday meeting will be the Clinton administration's "data highways"
initiative and local civic networks. Please make plans to attend.
If you move...
Please make sure to notify the national office, at CPSR P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94302, or call
(415) 322-3778. The CPSR Newsletter is mailed bulk rate, and the Postal Service will not forward
Created before October 2004