Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 10:59:51 PDT
From: jwarren@AUTODESK.COM(Jim Warren)
Subject: File 3--Major Congressional Candidates Commit to Elec. Civil Liberties

Five Leading San Francisco Peninsula Congressional Candidates Sign
Explicit Commitments to Protect "Electronic Civil Liberties"

All but one of the six leading candidates for California's 14th
Congressional District have formally committed to protect traditional
constitutional liberties against technological threats.  All three
Republican candidates and two of the three leading Democratic
candidates signed formal commitments.

The 14th District covers northern "Silicon Valley" and the southern
half of the San Francisco Peninsula.

This is believed to be the first time that major-party congressional
candidates have ever committed to explicit action to protect
technology-related civil liberties.

The candidates' signed statements that were much more than
nice-sounding, equivocating "God, mother and apple-pie" principles.
They made explicit commitments to take explicit action in their
first/next term in Congress.

Those 14th Dist candidates who signed the formal statement (below)
included:
Dixon Arnett (R),      Tom Huening (R),        Ted Lempert (D),
Tom Nolan (D),         Mike Maibach (R) and    Chuck Olson (L).

Gerry Andeen (D) sent a statement about the issues, but made NO
COMMITMENTS.

Anna Eshoo (D) FAILED TO RESPOND AFTER FOUR REQUESTS, as did
then-candidate James Blackman (D), after three requests.  The multiple
requests were faxed and mailed to the candidates between Apr. 4th and
Apr. 13th, along with an explanatory cover letter.

Lempert was the first to respond -- apparently by return mail -- and
added a two-page statement regarding technological threats to personal
privacy and his commitment to seek protection against them, as well.

  Arnett's response also noted that he was one of the cosponsors of
the Privacy Section that was added to the California Constitution
during his tenure in the state Assembly.

In addition, ten other Libertarian candidates signed the formal
statement, apparently circulated by Libertarian activists, primarily
using the computer nets.  Those signing included:
Alan F. Barksdale (U.S. Senate from Alabama),
Richard Boddie (U.S. Senate from California),
James Elwood (8th House Dist from California),
June R. Genis (U.S. Senate from California),
Robert D. Goodwyn (22nd California State Assembly Dist),
Chuck Hammill (47th California State Assembly Dist),
James J. Ludemann (California State Assembly),
George L. O'Brien (12th House Dist from California),
Anton Sherwood (12th California State Assembly Dist),
Mark Valverde (13th California State Assembly Dist) and
Will Wohler (3rd California State Senate Dist).

  Note:  This Libertarian sign-up resulted entirely from one copy
being sent by electronic-mail to June Genis (San Mateo County) and one
to Mark Hinkle (Santa Clara County activist).

Several others responded without committing to action:

  U.S. Senate candidate Tom Campbell (R) also sent a statement about
the issues, but offered NO COMMITMENTS TO EXPLICIT ACTION, as did
Glenn Tenney (D, 12th House).

  This effort was an outcome of disclosures before and during the
First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, held near San
Francisco International Airport in March, 1991.  It drew over eighty
pages of public and trade press coverage, internationally.

This is the statement that was signed by the indicated candidates:

           Guaranteeing Constitutional Freedoms into the 21st Century

Preface

    Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe, one of the nation's
leading Constitutional scholars, views technological threats to our
traditional constitutional freedoms and protections as so serious that --
for the first time in his career -- he has proposed a Constitutional
Amendment:

    "This Constitution's protections for the freedoms of speech,
press, petition and assembly, and its protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures and the deprivation of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, should be construed as fully applicable
without regard to the technological method or medium through which
information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted or
controlled."

    -- First Conf. on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, 3/27/91, Burlingame CA

    In the absence of such a constitutional clarification, legislation
and regulation are the only alternatives to assure that citizens are
protected from technological threats against their constitutional
rights and freedoms.


                    Candidate's Commitment to Action

    Preface:  It has been over two centuries since our Constitution
and Bill of Rights were adopted.  The great technological changes in
the interim --especially in computing, telecommunications and
electronics -- now pose a clear and present danger to the rights and
protections guaranteed in those great documents.  Therefore:

    Commitment:  In the first legislative session after I am
[re]elected, I will author or co-author legislation reflecting the
following specifics, and I will actively support and testify in favor
of any similar legislation as may be introduced by others.  Further, I
will actively seek to include in such legislation, explicit personal
civil and/or criminal penalties against any agent, employee or
official of the government who violates any of these statutes.  And
finally, I will keep all citizens who express interest in legislative
progress on these matters fully and timely informed.

    The protections guaranteed in the Constitution and its Amendments
shall be fully applicable regardless of the current technology of the
time. This particularly includes, but is not limited to:

    Speech:  Freedom of speech shall be equally protected, whether by
voice or in written form as in the 18th Century, or by electronic
transmission or computer communication as in the 20th Century and
thereafter.

    Press:  Freedom of the press shall be equally protected, whether
its information is distributed by print as in the 18th Century, or by
networked computers or other electronic forms, as in the 20th Century
and thereafter.  Liability for content:  Just as a printer is not
liable for content of leaflets printed for a customer, so also shall
the owner or operator of a computer or electronic or
telecommunications facility be held harmless for the content of
information distributed by users of that facility, except as the owner
or operator may, by contract, control information content.  Those who
author statements and those who have contractual authority to control
content shall be the parties singularly responsible for such content.

    Assembly:  Freedom of assembly shall be equally protected, whether
by face-to-face meeting as in the 18th Century, or by computer-based
electronic-conference or other teleconference as in the 20th Century
and thereafter.  The right to hold confidential meetings shall be
equally protected, whether they be by personal meeting in private
chambers, or by computer-assisted or electronic-based means.

    Self-defense:  The right of the people to keep and use computers
and communications connections shall not be abridged by the
government.

    Search & seizure:  The right of the people to be secure in their
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
be fully applicable to their electronic mail, computerized information
and personal computer systems.

Warrants:  No warrants for search or seizure shall issue for
computerized information, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the computer system to be
searched and the specific information to be seized.

Secure information vaults:  Just as search and seizure of letters in a
post-office, and papers in a bank-vault lock-box, and surveillance of
telephone conversations by wire-tap, each require a separate warrant
for each postal address, lock-box and telephone line, so also shall a
separate warrant be required for each electronic-mail address and/or
computer files of each suspect, when stored in a computer facility or
archive shared by others.  And further, computer files stored in a
shared facility or archive by or for a citizen who is neither named in
a warrant nor associated with a suspect so-named, may not be used
against that un-named citizen, if seized or discovered during legal
search of or for files of a suspect.

    Self-incrimination:  No person shall be compelled in any civil or
criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, nor be
compelled to provide information retained only in their mind, nor
otherwise be compelled to assist the translation or decoding of
information that he or she believes may be self-incriminating.

    Property: Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation, nor shall such property be used nor sold by any
government agency for less than fair market value, in which case all such
proceeds shall promptly derive singularly to its last owner prior to
government seizure.

    Speedy release:  Anyone not accused of a crime shall enjoy the
right to a speedy release and return of all of their property, as may
be seized under any warrant, particularly including their computerized
information.  The government shall be fully liable for any damage
befalling property or information they have seized.


[ Additional copies of this model candidate's position commitment are
available from:
  Jim Warren, Electronic Democracy Initiatives,
  345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062; (415)851-7075, fax/(415)851-2814;
  electronic-mail/  jwarren@autodesk.com  -or-  jwarren@well.sf.ca.us
For identification purposes, only:  organized and chaired the First
Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (3/91), received one of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation's first Pioneer Awards (3/92), is a
"futures" columnist for MicroTimes, an Autodesk Board member, the founder
of InfoWorld, PBS-TV "Computer Chronicles" founding host, etc. ]

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253