LICENSING/CERTIFICATION

Ken Adams has been tracking the issue of the licensing or mandatory certification of software engineers. The impetus for this was the ongoing effort of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers to prohibit people in our industry from calling themselves software engineers unless they were in fact a licensed engineer. As part of that effort, ACM and IEEE agreed to a joint effort to determine if some body of knowledge could be identified which would serve as the pretext for mandatory licensing in our industry.

In July, ACM withdrew from that effort and published a strongly worded policy statement opposing any effort to license software engineers. They said in part "ACM's position is that our state of knowledge and practice in software engineering is too immature to warrant licensing. Moreover, Council felt licensing would be ineffective in providing assurances about software quality and reliability.

At its meeting in May 2000, the Council further concluded that the framework of a licensed professional engineer, originally developed for civil engineers, does not match the professional industrial practice of software engineering. Such licensing practices would give false assurances of competence even if the body of knowledge were mature; and would preclude many of the most qualified software engineers from becoming licensed."

As the son of a 'real' engineer, I must express some sympathy for the Texas BPOE's position, especially when people started throwing around titles such as 'Sales Engineer'. However, both Ken and I agree that we should take a stand similar to that taken by ACM. To that end, I will be submitting a motion for ABOD action at the October meeting that will follow substantially along the lines of the ACM position.

Their full policy is at <http://www.acm.org/serving/se_policy/selep_main.html>

INTERNATIONAL

In July, the European Parliament rejected the "safe harbor" agreement which the US negotiated with the European Commission in May, feeling that the agreement did not adequately protect the privacy rights of EU citizens. The vote was very lopsided, suggesting that American businesses may be facing some difficult times ahead when trading with Europe. I do not have more recent information of what the next step will be, since the two sides appear to be at loggerheads with no fresh ideas for reaching a middle ground.

Meanwhile, the annual debate over the increase of H1B visas has again been joined. These are visas given to skilled workers for a limited time permitting them to work in the US. This is a popular way in particular to recruit temporary I.T. staffing assistance. HR3983 would increase the number of visas issued each year and change some of the procedures used to award them. As of Sept 9 it remains stalled in committee. No one on the Legislative Committee has expressed an interest in working on this issue. However, IEEE has taken a stand against increasing the number of visas. We'd appreciate any feedback from the ABOD as to how important you may view our participation on this issue to be.

ENCRYPTION

I am pleased to report a victory on two fronts. AITP has consistently supported a relaxation of the previously illogical export controls which served only to hamstring American businesses. Those controls were substantially relaxed by the federal government early this year, to the point where this need no longer be a priority legislative issue for us. That is not to say that the new regulations are perfect. However, they have served to blunt the drive for Congressional action on the SAFE bill which we previously supported.

Part of the reason for this relaxation was victory in two court cases, the Bernstein case in California and the Junger case in Ohio. In the Junger case, AITP had joined an amicus brief to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that was drafted under the leadership of EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center), seeking to overturn an unfavorable lower court ruling which limited the ability of Professor Junger to post his work on the Internet. That Appeals Court reversed the district judge and remanded the case, substantially siding with Professor Junger and the amicae. Meanwhile, Bernstein had previously won at the district level in California, then won an appeal in front of a three judge panel, and the government asked the full Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to hear the case. However, in March, the government and Bernstein both requested that the case be remanded to the lower court due to the January modifications to encryption export regulations.

PRIVACY

The Pew Internet & American Life Project has released a report, "Trust and privacy online: Why Americans want to rewrite the rules". Two major points of consistency were that Internet users want a guarantee of privacy when they go online and many consumers are unaware of how privacy invasions take place and are consequently unable to take advantage of available privacy-enhancing technologies. They also reported that 86% of Internet users surveyed support an opt-in standard for the collection of personal information, at odds with the opt-out favored by industry groups and endorsed by the Federal Trade Commission.

We should anticipate in the next year that consumer privacy will be a major issue which must be addressed by either acceptable industry standards or legislation. However, consumers in general do not have a very high confidence level that industry self regulation will be adequate to meet the task.

SPAM

On the legislative front, HR3113 passed the US House of Representatives with only one dissenting vote. However, it is now in committee in the US Senate with no hearings or votes scheduled, and the Congress is expected to adjourn on Oct 6. My best guess is that unless it is attached as a rider on a more important bill, this legislation will die in the Senate committee with no further action, and will need to start over again next year. However, the legislation will have little value in fighting spam, with one exception.

In recent weeks, two organizations listed as spammers sued the listing body, the Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS). MAPS is used by a fair number of ISPs as set of a queryable tools to determine whether a particular piece of email has a high likelihood of being spam, and as a result may choose to block that mail from delivery. One of the spammers (yesmail) agreed to modify their practices to come into compliance with MAPS' guidelines, and they were removed from the table and dropped the suit. Harris Interactive, the company which does the Harris Polls, took a different course, suing not just MAPS but all of the ISPs who use it, either by name or as John Does (conflict disclaimer - I am an ISP under Colorado law, use MAPS, and therefor was technically a John Doe party to the suit). Some of the ISPs who were sued by name, such as Juno, Microsoft, and AOL, agreed to let Harris's spam through. As a result, Harris is now seeking to dismiss the suit as moot. However, some of the respondents are currently discussing a counter claim under NY's anti-SLAPP statute. A SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit is a meritless but expensive suit aimed at silencing critics, in this case aimed at silencing MAPS' criticism of Harris. To date, the judge has sided with the right of MAPS to express their opinion, and been unsympathetic to Harris's case.

UCITA

The legislative committee continues to track the activity on UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, which has the potential to substantially impact the way that we buy, sell, and use software. UCITA is a set of model language to be used in each state, designed to provide uniformity in such transactions. As such, it must be passed state-by-state. Currently, UCITA has been passed into law in two states: Virginia and Maryland. Virginia has taken a somewhat deliberative approach, asking a special commission to provide a report to the legislature and governor by the end of this year, prior to the law taking effect on July 1, 2001. However, in Maryland, the law becomes effective on Oct. 1, 2000.

UCITA was introduced this year in several other states (Hawaii, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Delaware), but these states have postponed action on it until next year. California and Maine decided not to introduce bills on the subject this year. New Jersey and the District of Columbia have introduced UCITA legislation this year, but have not proceeded far with it. Finally, Iowa’s legislature passed a "bomb-shelter" law to protect Iowa residents and businesses from passage of UCITA in other states. The bill would allow Iowa law to pre-empt jurisdiction for a contract if another state’s UCITA law would otherwise apply.

UCITA is largely supported by vendor groups, such as the BSA (Business Software Alliance), the ITAA (Information Technology Association of America), and the SIAA (Software and Information Industry Association). It is opposed by many consumer-oriented groups, and by groups who desire to maintain the status quo for intellectual property usage, such as library associations. In the I.T. industry, UCITA is generally opposed by groups made up of consumers of software and services, such as the SIM (Society for Information Management), the ACM (Assoc. for Computing Machinery), and the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). In fact, the IEEE has recently developed a "grass-roots lobbying kit", to assist its members in lobbying against passage of UCITA in their states.

AITP continues to encourage its members to investigate the issue, to follow its progress in their states, and to lobby against its passage.

MISCELLANEOUS

FEC

In the early part of this year the Federal Election Commission requested comment on a proposed relaxation of election campaign rules as they apply to the use of the internet for communication. I filed commentary which can be found on the legislative committee web site, which in general suggested that the FEC was trying to lock the barn door after the horse was gone, and suggested that the minimal cost of electronic communications made any extensive effort at regulation rather pointless.

ICANN

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is the new international body which more or less rules the internet, assigning top level domains (tld's), setting up dispute resolution processes for trademark disputes, etc. Currently, ICANN is in the middle of electing its at large members. Seven people, including past ACM president Barbara Simons, are seeking to be elected as the single at large delegate from North America. By the time we meet in Appleton, that election will be over and we should know who has won.

Respectfully submitted,

Charles Oriez