
                   -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

                   COMMUNICATIONS POLICY FORUM

          CPF Airs Issues for K-12 Access to the Internet
                        by Andrew Blau

      The Communications Policy Forum (CPF), a non-partisan project
of the EFF that brings stakeholders together to discuss
communications policy issues, recently convened a roundtable to
explore some of the legal questions that arise when K-12 schools
provide Internet access to their students.  Approximately 15 people,
representing carriers who provide connections to the Internet,
schools or school systems who are connected to the Internet, and
legal experts with expertise in this and related areas, met to discuss
issues of legal liability as this new medium enters an educational
setting for minors.
      A key concern is that students may be exposed to material that
parents or teachers find inappropriate for children.  In other
electronic media, such as broadcast television, cable TV, and
audiotext, legal restrictions have been imposed to protect children
from RharmfulS or RindecentS material, and liability has been
assigned.  No such framework exists for the Internet.  Moreover, the
very strengths of the Internet P its decentralized, unhierarchical, and
essentially uncontrolled flow of traffic P offer distinct challenges to
those who would seek to control it in the interest of protecting
children.  Finally, the tools available in other media P safe harbors,
lockboxes, or subscription schemes P donUt fit in this environment.
Issues and Suggestions
      Following a brief summary of the Internet and how it operates
and a review of how it is being used by a handful of K-12
institutions, participants identified specific problems and policy
issues and considered existing statutes and case law for guidance.
The group also considered the potential effects of Rharmful to
minorsS or Robscene as to minorsS statutes, which are on the books in
41 states.  Although they are often vague or broad, the Supreme
Court has agreed that it is constitutional to have such laws which
prohibit the dissemination to minors of material that is protected by
the First Amendment and would be constitutional for adults, to
minors.
      Discussion then turned to various practical measures that carriers
and schools might take in light of what had been described.  One
suggestion was that carriers work with school systems to provide a
recommended set of features or services.  In order to protect
themselves, carriers could ensure that the school put in place a set of
policies, identify for students their responsibilities, and place a
teacher or other adult in control of what students access through the
schoolUs connection.
      It was also suggested that carriers could develop a contract that
only connects schools that agree to indemnify the provider.
Moreover, the carrier could require assurance that when access is
provided to minors, the school will use some formal agreement with
the minorUs parent that includes provisions that hold the network
provider harmless from liability.
      As an alternative, it was suggested that carriers could offer a
simple warning to schools that alerts them that Internet access may
enable access to materials inappropriate for minors, and that local
discretion is advised.  Schools could also offer disclaimers to parents
modelled on those that parents are given before a field trip.
      A handful of technical solutions were suggested throughout the
course of the meeting, and many elicited substantial interest.  For
example, various participants suggested using encryption, programs
that flag key words or phrases and route them for human
intervention, and mandatory password protection for all purveyors
of certain kinds of information.
      Many participants seemed intrigued by a proposal to develop an
addressing standard under which someone who gets access by virtue
of his/her status as a K-12 student could get an address tag that
identifies the student as such for various purposes.  One example
would be to press for the creation of an additional domain of R.stuS
for K-12 students.  The appearance of the R.stuS tag would function
like any other identification stamp for access to certain materials.
      Statutory immunity for carriers was also seen by almost all
participants as highly desirable and worth pursuing.  Developing a
legislative strategy may also highlight how these issues in the K-12
setting are linked to and can be addressed in partnership with other
issues and other sectors of the communications field.
      It was also noted that all those interested in K-12 networking
need to educate the new Administration as it considers Rinformation
highways,S a new Federal Communications Commission, the
implementation of the NREN, and other programs.  According to this
approach, a critical first step is to educate as many new players as
possible, including Congressional staff and the new administration,
that addressing these liability issues is part of the package of
building the networks of tomorrow.
Conclusion
      By the end of the session, most participants agreed that there are
no easy answers to the issues raised.
      Yet participants also agreed that if the community of interested
educators, carriers, and public interest groups could establish
workable models and promote a positive agenda with lawmakers,
instead of waiting for problems to arise, the resulting legislative and
regulatory framework would be far more likely to cultivate
educational access, as well as to provide a model for broadband
policy as a whole.
      The value of the Internet as an educational resource is clear.  As
one educator pointed out, our schools lose both students and teachers
because of inadequate access to resources; the Internet can enrich
the resources available to both teachers and students and is not
something that only universities should enjoy.  The challenge is to
articulate a policy framework that can enable that potential to be
realized and then to work to see that framework constructed.

                -==-==-==-<>-==-==-==-
