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: <iia.ipo@his.com>
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 <iiaipo-request@his.com>.

ARCHIVES. IIA-IPO is archived. To get archived copies, ftp to
<ftpmail@his.com> 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:  <iia.ipo@his.com>
Voice:  (202) 639-8262.  Fax:  (202) 638-4403.
*****************************************************************

 ============================================================
 From the  'New Product Information'  Electronic News Service
 ============================================================
 This information was processed from data provided by the
 above mentioned company. For additional details, contact 
 the company at the address or telephone number indicated.
 OmniPage Pro is now used for converting all printed input! 
 ============================================================
 All submissions for this service should be addressed to:
 BAKER ENTERPRISES,  20 Ferro Dr,  Sewell, NJ  08080  U.S.A.
 Email: RBakerPC (AOL/Delphi), rbakerpc@delphi.com (Internet)
 ============================================================
