Information Policy Online v1n04 (June 1994) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/ipo/ipo-v1n04 iiiiii iiiiii a INFORMATION POLICY ONLINE ii ii aaa ii ii aaa An Internet Newsletter ii ii aaa published by the ii ii aaaaaaaaa Information Industry Association ii ii aaa 555 New Jersey Ave., N.W. ii ii aaa Washington, DC 20001 ii ii aaa Internet: iiiiii iiiiii aaaaaaa Volume 1, Number 4, June 1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************** IN THIS ISSUE: [1] U.S. DATA PROTECTION: SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH A BODY TO REGULATE HOW THE PRIVATE SECTOR USES INFORMATION? [2] FEDERAL WORKING GROUP UNVEILS PRIVACY PRINCIPLES FOR PRIVATE SECTOR [3] OFF-THE-RECORD COLLOQUY ON LEGAL INFORMATION DISSEMINATION [4] SENATE COMMITTEE MOVES TO REAUTHORIZE THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT [5] THE CREATIVE INCENTIVES COALITION: "IT'S THE INFORMATION, STUPID!" [6] FROM WASHINGTON TO BRUSSELS TO TOKYO..... QUICK TAKES ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FRONT [7] ABOUT INFORMATION POLICY ONLINE AND THE INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ***************************************************************** [1] U.S. DATA PROTECTION: SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH A BODY TO REGULATE HOW THE PRIVATE SECTOR USES INFORMATION? Recent actions in Congress and the Administration to establish a United States Data Protection Commission have taken on a new urgency and importance. Senator Paul Simon (D-IL), the primary sponsor of legislation (S. 1735) to create a U.S. Data Protection Commission, has tried on two occasions over the last several months to attach his legislation to bills being considered by the full Senate. The most recent attempt on May 4, was tabled by a vote of 77 to 21, but it is likely that the idea will be considered again -- either by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over the legislation, or by the full Senate. One event that could give new life to Senator Simon's legislation is a recommendation by the Working Group on Privacy of the Administration's National Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF). The Privacy Working Group (see related story below) recently released a set of privacy principles and is expected to make a recommendation about a privacy protection organization in the near future. The information industry has questioned the need for a new commission. Many of the functions listed for the commission in S. 1735 are already assigned to Federal agencies under the 1974 Privacy Act. Why can't agencies simply "beef up" their enforcement of current law? Industry also believes existing means of complaint and action before specialized federal agencies are adequate to handle commercial sector violations of privacy; creating a new commission would be a duplication of effort. The final area of responsibility outlined by Senator Simon's legislation is coordination with international organizations and governments on privacy protection issues. Here again, industry argues that these functions -- where needed at all - could be performed by an existing federal agency. When the Privacy Working Group of the IITF releases its recommendations for a privacy protection organization, this issue could come to the forefront of public debate. Although the structure of the privacy protection organization recommended may be different from the one established in S. 1735, the functions performed most likely will be similar. ***************************************************************** [2] FEDERAL WORKING GROUP UNVEILS PRIVACY PRINCIPLES FOR PRIVATE SECTOR Twenty years ago, the federal government adopted a code of fair information practices for how government agencies collect, use and distribute information. Today, the code is back, in the form of a draft update, entitled "Principles for Providing and Using Personal Information." But there's one twist that makes this new draft far more than an update: the principles are "intended to be equally applicable to public and private entities that collect and use personal information." In other words, a federal interagency group has just announced proposed principles for how private companies handle information about identified individuals. In the information industry's view, that action of itself has significant First Amendment implications. The draft principles take a somewhat innovative approach to information privacy issues. They "acknowledge that all members of our society (government, industry, and individual citizens) share responsibility for ensuring the fair treatment of individuals in the use of personal information." The draft's stress on individual responsibility, and on the importance of public education about how information is collected and used, parallels in some important respects the Fair Information Practices guidelines that the Information Industry Association recently adopted and published (see Information Policy Online, May 1994). The Privacy Working Group document consists of nine principles, some addressed specifically to information collectors, users, and individuals, and includes extensive commentary. The document may be downloaded from the IITF BBS (202/501-1920) or via Internet by pointing your Gopher client to iitf.doc.gov. ***************************************************************** [3] OFF-THE-RECORD COLLOQUY ON LEGAL INFORMATION DISSEMINATION A diverse group of nearly 30 government, library and public interest representatives gathered in Washington on May 16 for a wide-ranging discussion on policy issues in the dissemination of legal information. The closed-door, not-for-attribution meeting was sponsored by the Government Information Working Group (GIWG) of the Administration's Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF), along with the Library of Congress, Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, and National Center for State Courts. Representatives from a number of major U.S. information industry companies were among the participants. Invitations issued by GIWG chair Bruce McConnell of the Office of Management and Budget identified three issues: - Whether the judicial and legislative branches should announce information dissemination policies, to cover such issues as fees and avoiding restrictions on use of public information; - Whether new caselaw citation systems are needed in the electronic environment and, if so, how to develop them; and - Cooperation among executive, legislative and judicial branches in legal information dissemination. The discussion on May 16, moderated by Professor Henry Perritt of Villanova University Law School, reflected considerable agreement on some basic principles that should govern dissemination of legal information, including an avoidance of government claims of copyright in such information, and the importance of equal and timely access by the public, including redisseminators. Clearly, however, any formal effort to standardize policies would encounter many obstacles, not least the importance of maintaining judicial independence. While some participants urged greater centralization of government legal information resources, others, including private sector representatives, warned of the dangers of delay or even censorship that could accompany such a such a project. The electronic citation issue provoked lively discussion, with considerable (although far from unanimous) support for a standardized electronic citation system, and considerable disagreement about how best to achieve it. Several participants described initiatives underway to study the issue, and recalled that, at least as to federal courts, a proposal was recently rejected by the Judicial Conference. While the interbranch cooperation issue was not explicitly addressed, the varying perspectives offered by executive, legislative and judicial representatives, and by state court officials, underscored the dimensions of such an objective. The group reached no formal consensus on any issue, nor did it specify any particular follow-up activities. ***************************************************************** [4] SENATE COMMITTEE MOVES TO REAUTHORIZE THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) was first adopted in 1980 to reduce paperwork burdens on the public, and to minimize Federal costs of regulatory issuance. Of importance to the information industry, the Act sought to maximize the usefulness of information collected by the government, coordinate Federal information policies, promote the use of information technology, and increase the availability and accuracy of agency information. To oversee these functions the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was created. To implement its information dissemination and collection oversight responsibilities, OIRA issued OMB Circular A-130 which outlines the responsibilities of Federal agencies in these areas. Last year, a revised version of the Circular was issued. It represented a compromise between the various groups interested in obtaining Federal government information. Those provisions included strong language about using a diversity of sources including the private sector to fulfill information dissemination responsibilities, and not placing restrictions on downstream use of data. For a number of years, there have been attempts by Congress to strengthen OIRA's statutory authority to carry out the information collection and dissemination oversight functions that are outlined in Circular A-130 by adopting legislation which enumerates the functions. However, because of controversy surrounding OIRA's regulatory review functions, Congress has not been able to reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act since 1989. Two bills to reauthorize the PRA have been introduced during the 103rd Congress. The bills, S. 560 and S. 681, introduced by Senators Nunn and Glenn respectively, both strengthen OIRA's authority to enforce Circular A-130 although there are some important differences between the bills. The main differences, however, deal with regulatory review issues. Earlier in the year, Senator Nunn threatened to attach his version S. 560 to a bill being considered by the full Senate. To avoid this action, Senator Glenn, whose Governmental Affairs Committee has jurisdiction over the bills, agreed to hold hearings and to continue efforts to reach a compromise on the approaches to reauthorizing the PRA. This process was begun on May 19, with a hearing to take comments regarding a Governmental Affairs Committee draft compromise bill. Sally Katzen, the Administrator of OIRA, testified during that hearing that the Administration was more supportive of the compromise because S. 681 and S. 560 both "go beyond a statement of general principles and policies, and include in some sections very detailed provisions for implementation that are more properly left to the discretion of the agencies and OIRA." In other words, the Administration supports broad legislative authority to enforce the information collection and dissemination functions of the Federal agencies, not specifically outlined responsibilities. The draft compromise bill does contain provisions which would prohibit federal agencies from placing downstream use restrictions on data and which would encourage agencies to look to a diversity of sources for dissemination of information. The compromise bill also gives statutory authority to the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) -- an electronic locator of Federal government information. It is highly likely that the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will adopt legislation reauthorizing the PRA this year and the full Senate will consider it. ***************************************************************** [5] THE CREATIVE INCENTIVES COALITION: "IT'S THE INFORMATION, STUPID!" Without information, the information superhighway will be useless and without strong, clear copyright protection, the development of innovative new information products and services will be seriously inhibited. This message, summed up perhaps in the phrase, "It's the Information, Stupid!" has just been dramatically amplified. In early May, several trade associations, including the Information Industry Association, and a number of individual companies announced the formation of the Creative Incentives Coalition (CIC), a major initiative to raise the profile of copyright protection issues in the debate over the National Information Infrastructure (NII). As CIC's one-page statement of purpose puts it, "the NII promises to be a powerful pipeline for the delivery of electronic information and entertainment in all of its forms. But if the pipeline leaks -- if copyrighted information is not secure -- the creative environment could be destroyed." CIC's main focus is on monitoring activities of the Administration's Information Infrastructure Task Force and other NII policy activities. CIC is expected to play a major role in communicating industry reactions to the report of the IITF Intellectual Property Working Group, which is now expected to be released in June. CIC charter members include trade associations representing newspaper, book and magazine publishers, motion picture studios, and independent television stations. ***************************************************************** [6] FROM WASHINGTON TO BRUSSELS TO TOKYO..... QUICK TAKES ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FRONT WASHINGTON: Victory on Federal Copyright Claims Heeding pressure from a coalition of software, press, library and civil liberties interests, as well as information companies, two Senate committees have dropped legislation to allow the government to claim copyright in computer software developed by federal employees. The proposal, tucked away in a mammoth procurement reform bill, would have reversed a century-old ban on government copyright. One factor in the victory: a shift in position by the Copyright Office, which supported earlier versions of the legislation, but now stands neutral, urging that any such proposal be carefully studied. WASHINGTON: Justice Department Eyes Antitrust Changes In an April speech to a bar association group, Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman discussed circumstances under which licensing of intellectual property (including copyrighted material) might violate the antitrust laws, and noted in passing that the Justice Department plans to revise its guidelines on this subject. Industry is urging Justice to pay careful attention to copyright concerns in its revision effort, noting that an intellectual property license will be the principal legal mechanism through which users of an advanced National Information Infrastructure obtain access to the real value of the system: information resources. TOKYO: MITI Mulls Multimedia In February, an institute commissioned by Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) proposed intellectual property law changes intended to address the problems of developing multimedia products. The proposal calls for establishment of a Digital Information Center, in effect a collective licensing clearinghouse through which multimedia developers could obtain rights to copyrighted works under pre-set royalty arrangements. Participation in the clearinghouse would be voluntary, but incentives could be employed to encourage registration with the center. U.S. companies will raise questions about the relationship of this proposal to widespread private sector efforts underway to facilitate licensing of rights in this and other contexts. BRUSSELS: EU to Hear From U.S. Company on Databases Joseph Bremner, President of Database Development in Milwaukee, has completed work on a comprehensive paper analyzing the pending European Union s proposed directive on legal protection of databases. The proposal, which creates a two-tiered system for protection of databases throughout the 12 member states of the EU (a number that may soon increase to 16), raises serious questions about the scope and strength of protection, and about its availability to databases originating outside the EU. Bremner's paper will be presented to the European Union. ***************************************************************** [7] ABOUT "INFORMATION POLICY ONLINE" INFORMATION POLICY ONLINE (IIA-IPO) is an online newsletter published on the Internet by the Information Industry Association and distributed free of charge. The purpose of the Newsletter is to inform readers of events and activities affecting information policy, and to present an information industry viewpoint concerning these events and activities. IIA-IPO is copyrighted by the Information Industry Association; however, IIA-IPO is distributed without charge and may be freely reproduced and redistributed. Please acknowledge IIA-IPO as the source of the information when quoting or redistributing the newsletter. TO SUBSCRIBE TO IIA-IPO: Send the message "subscribe" to . ARCHIVES. IIA-IPO is archived. To get archived copies, ftp to with the message "GET FILENAME." Individual monthly issues are archived with file names "iia0394.zip" for March 1994, "iia0494.zip" for April 1994, etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THE INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION THE INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION represents leading organizations involved in the generation, processing, distribution and use of information. IIA is home base for businesses offering the innovative products and services that make up the information marketplace. IIA fosters a responsive and responsible forum for promoting a competitive and growing information marketplace. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- President of the IIA: Kenneth B. Allen Editor of Information Policy Online: Steven J. Metalitz, IIA Vice President and General Counsel Consulting Editor: J. Timothy Sprehe, Sprehe Information Management Associates For messages to IIA-IPO: Voice: (202) 639-8262. Fax: (202) 638-4403. ----------------------------------------------------------------- *****************************************************************