EPIC logo
CDA Trial Transcript 4/12/96 (afternoon)


   	THE CLERK:  All rise.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Good afternoon.  
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Good afternoon.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  I hope you are virtually, if not actually 
   	MR. MORRIS:  Good afternoon, your Honor, I'm John Morris, 
   counsel for the ALA plaintiffs and somewhat out of turn, we are 
   presenting Dr. Albert Vezza as our next witness, he -- next and 
   final witness in this portion of the proceeding. 
   	ALBERT VEZZA, Plaintiffs' Witness, Sworn.
   	THE CLERK:  Please state and spell your name.
   	THE WITNESS:  My name is Albert Vezza, V-E-Z-Z-A.
   	MR. MORRIS:  Plaintiffs would at this time move that Mr. 
   Vezza's declaration, signed and submitted to the Court on April 
   9th, be accepted as his direct testimony in this case.
   	MR. BARON:  Your Honors, good afternoon.  Jason R. Baron for 
   the Justice Department.  We do not object to Mr. Vezza's 
   declaration being put into evidence, subject to the caveat that I 
   will be asking Mr. Vezza questions regarding his technical 
   expertise on PICs, as opposed to his general familiarity with 
   PICs, during the course of my 
cross-examination and his declaration will be submitted subject 
   to his expertise as an expert on the areas that I question him 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Fine.  Our rulings have been consistent on 
   this matter.
   	MR. MORRIS:  He is now available for examination by 
   defendants and the Court.
   Q   Good afternoon, Mr. Vezza.
   A   Good afternoon, Mr. Baron.
   Q   Would you please tell the Court what the W-3 Consortium is?
   A   The W-3C or W-3 Consortium is a consortium of about 130-135 
   companies worldwide that have joined the consortium and the goal 
   of the consortium is to further the protocols in the standards -- 
   the de facto standards, if you would.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Speak up, please.
   	THE WITNESS:  The de facto standards of the Worldwide WEB.
   Q   And your declaration indicates that you are chairman of the 
   Worldwide WEB Consortium?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   The consortium is comprised of a number of companies, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And Microsoft is part of it?
   A   Microsoft is a member of the consortium.
   Q   Netscape?
   A   Netscape is a member of the consortium.
   Q   America On Line?
   A   America On Line is a member of the consortium.
   Q   CompuServe?
   A   CompuServe is a member of the consortium.
   Q   Prodigy?
   A   Prodigy is a member of the consortium.
   Q   Could you look at Exhibit 167 in the binder that I've provided 
   to you and I believe binders have been provided to the Court, as 
   well, of defendants' exhibits, starting at 167.  
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Did you say 167?
   	MR. BARON:  Yes, it's a smaller black binder, your Honors.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Here it is, the black.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Sorry, I had it upside down.
Go ahead.
   Q   At the back of Exhibit 167, there's a listing titled members 
   of the W-3 Consortium, it's the last three pages of the exhibit, 
   do you see that listing?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And you testified at your deposition last Friday that this was 
   a "pretty good list in terms of accuracy", correct?
   A   I said that it was, as of that date it was a pretty good list.  
   We try and keep it up to date.  I can't tell you today whether 
   this list is accurate or not.
   Q   Okay.  Now, you would agree, would you not, that there are 
   benefits to companies in joining the consortium, correct?
   A   There is one benefit.
   Q   And what is that?
   A   You get to sit at the table and argue about what and how the 
   Worldwide WEB standards should evolve. But in point of fact, we 
   give everything away to non-members also.
   Q   In fact, at your deposition last Friday, you said that the 
   benefit was and I quote, that's Page 18, Line 22, I'll just read 
   it to you, Mr. Vezza, if it's okay.  "You get to sit at the table 
   and discuss with all of the other members, the evolution of the 
   protocols of the Worldwide WEB", correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   There are conferences and advisory meetings and workshops on 
   the evolution of standards and protocols, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   Some of the workshop topics have included security and payment 
   issues, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And PICs, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   We'll get to PICs in a few minutes.  You've had a number of 
   payment workshops, including one in which VISA, MasterCard and 
   Microsoft attended to discuss various ideas on payment mechanisms 
   for credit cards, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   In fact, on that specific topic, you told me at your 
   deposition, that there are anticipated other ways of making 
   payment on the net, including CyberCash, DigitCash and debit 
   cards, correct?
   A   There will likely be such ways of making payment on the WEB.
   Q   And work on protocols to enable those to occur is ongoing, 
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And the W-3 Consortium has frequently taken the lead and/or 
   has made recommendations for the way certain protocols have 
   evolved on the WEB, correct?
   A   Sometimes we lead, sometimes we follow.
   Q   And sometimes you make recommendations?
   A   And sometimes we make recommendations, that is correct.
   Q   The W-3 Consortium is currently working on furtherance of 
   HTTP, the HyperText Transport Protocol, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And W-3C is working on HTML, specifically how to put in 
   mathematical formulas into HTML documents, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And as I indicated before, W-3C has taken the lead on PICs, 
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Just as a preliminary matter, you agree, Mr. Vezza, with the 
   proposition that standards are at the heart of the Internet, 
   A   Yes, they -- without standards we wouldn't have any 
   Q   With respect to the Internet, if you don't have 
   predictability, if you don't have a standard, then everything 
   fragments, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And as a general statement subject to exceptions, you would 
   agree that for the Internet, you have to have a protocol that 
   suppliers and vendors, platforms and communication providers 
   adhere to, so that there can be intercommunication on the Internet 
   A   Yes.
   Q   -- correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   It's also true, is it not, that the U.S. Government was 
   heavily involved in the creation of the Internet, correct?
   A   Well, let's back up a minute.  I'm not sure that that's 
-- they were involved, but all the people involved were technical 
   people.  The fact of the matter is the Government funded lots of 
   the work, early work on the ARPA net.  But it was the technical 
   people in the university community and in the laboratories that 
   did all the work of ironing out all the standards, okay.  The 
   Government supplied the money, it did not mandate, do it this way.  
   Q   You're familiar with the Advanced Research Project Agency?
   A   I am very familiar with the Advanced Research Project Agency.
   Q   And the acronym for that is ARPA?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And ARPA funded the development of the ARPA net through the 
   70s and 80s, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And the U.S. Government has funded the IETF, correct?
   A   They have provided some funding to that, I believe, yes.
   Q   And the U.S. Government has funded the creation of the 
   Internet Society, correct?
   A   That is correct, although lots of funding for the Internet 
   Society now comes from private sources.
   Q   And the U.S. Government through the National Science 
   Foundation, NASA and DOD continues to fund lots of work today, 
   correct, on the Internet?
   A   It funds work associated with the Internet.
   Q   Indeed, the U.S. Government also supplied seed money to the W-
   3 Consortium itself, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   ARPA gave 1.5 million for research to M.I.T., of which 50 to 
   $100,000 went to the consortium, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   Now, your role at W-3C is that of chairman, right?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And what are your duties?
   A   My duties basically are to make sure that we behave in the 
   manner that doesn't get us into trouble with our members.  Okay.  
   It's very easy to do that.  We are -- we -- develop 
pre-competitive standards software and we try and remain neutral 
   to the industrial community at large.  And doing that requires 
   some sophistication, both technically and managerially and 
   executive-wise.  And that's my role.
   Q   You said at your deposition that your responsibilities would 
   be for what "most people would call marketing", that is, your 
   responsible for going out and explaining to people what W-3C does, 
   A   That's one of the responsibilities, yes.
   Q   You have a technical staff at W-3C that works on PICs, right?
   A   Yes, I do.  Not only at W-3C, but at other companies, also, 
   have contributed heavily to PICs.
   Q   And Timothy Burners Lee (ph) runs the team that does all the 
   technical work, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   You don't consider yourself one of the technical experts on 
   the minute details of PICs, correct?
   A   That is true.
   Q   And you don't purport to having designed any of the exact 
   structures, of labels or exact structures of the syntax for 
   servers that's used on PICs, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And you don't claim that you could -- you could design these 
   structures, correct?
   A   I don't claim that I -- I have better staff that can do it 
   better than I.  I use them to do that.
   Q   In fact, you haven't designed any software related to PICs, 
   that's not your function, correct?
   A   That is not my function.
   Q   And you haven't designed or constructed any software for the 
   purpose of labeling documents on the Worldwide WEB or the 
   Internet, apart from the PICs project, correct?
   A   Say that again, I'm sorry.
   Q   You haven't designed or constructed any software for the 
   purpose of labeling documents on the Worldwide WEB or the 
   Internet, apart from the PICs project?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Out of all the documents that appear on the WEB site for PICs, 
   involving technical specifications, you have authored only some 
   "presentations", correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Would Defendants' Exhibit 174 be an example of one of these 
   presentations.  If you turn to that?
   A   Let me clarify that.  This presentation, the graphics was done 
   by someone at Netscape.  I crafted most of the language that went 
   with it, with some help from the technical staff.  
   Q   You had some input into this?
   A   Had a lot of input into it.
   Q   Now, you informed me at your deposition that the idea for PICs 
   came up at an early advisory committee meeting of the W-3 
   Consortium around December 14, 1994, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And the idea was broached at that meeting about a rating 
   system like the movie rating system, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And thereafter, in July of 1995, there was an article about 
   pornography on the Internet and many of the W-3C members started 
   calling up and inquiring about the idea of putting labels on 
   content, correct?
   A   That's correct, but we were working on it before that, because 
   we had a different idea about labeling.  I mean, the PICs labeling 
   scheme is a general scheme.  
   Q   You told me that, "we've had it in the hopper as some 
   activity", that was the statement you made at the time, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And there was a workshop in August, '95 where members of the 
   W-3C set out in earnest to work out on developing the PIC standard 
   platform for labeling content?
   A   Slight correction to that.  There were members of the W-3C 
   team there, but there were also a number of representatives from 
   companies who were not members.  And the reason they were there 
   was because we felt that they were a necessary ingredient in this 
   activity.  That is, the content -- many of the content providers.
   Q   And it's your testimony, Mr. Vezza, is it not, that the issue 
   of pornography on the Internet was and I quote, "one of the major 
   reasons for going forward", with the PICs project, correct?
   A   It was one of the major reasons why our companies thought we 
   should go forward with it, not the reasons why we thought we 
   should go forward with it.
   Q   And you were going forward with it whether or not the July, 
   '95 article came out, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   But the article had the effect of speeding up the time frame, 
   correct, for going forward?
   A   That's true.
   Q   The July article gave you a strong reason for accelerating 
   PICs development, correct?
   A   It gave us a strong reason for -- it gave the companies a 
   strong reason for asking us to accelerate.
   Q   Given the article, W-3C member companies that it would be a 
   good idea for the industry to come together with a labeling 
   scheme, correct?
   A   I would say that's a fair statement.  
   Q   I'd like to turn to Page 56 of your deposition, which I've 
   given you.  Let me read a statement from your deposition about 
   what PICs is and ask you whether you agree with it.  It's Page 56, 
   Line 6.  I will read the text in the six lines.  "PICs is a set of 
   protocols which" -- this is your testimony.  "PICs is a set of 
   protocols which allow a label -- a service to describe its 
   labeling system -- that's one aspect of it -- to a client or to 
   the recipient of a communication.  It is a method by which, if all 
   of the vendors adhere to the PIC standard, then all of the 
   browsers that they develop will be able to understand a labeling 
   system or rating system, if you will."  Was that your testimony?
   A   It goes on further, but I believe that that's the intent of 
   Q   But that statement is accurate?
   A   Mm-hmm.
   Q   And if you turn to Page 58, Line 9, you were talking about the 
   mission of PICs in your deposition and let me quote a statement 
   and see if you agree with it.  You said, "If you're going to label 
   something and you want a piece of software to take action on that 
   label, the software has to understand what the label means.  And 
   that's the mission of PICs.  Is it to allow the software at either 
   a proxy server, an on line server, Internet access provider or the 
   actual home computer to understand the label and take the actions 
   whether or not to allow the content to be viewed by the viewer or 
   to block it."  Do you agree with that statement?
   A   Yes, but let me read the first part of it.
   Q   All right.
   A   I think that the sentence before it begins -- is also 
   important -- a couple sentences.  I used the term browser 
   understanding and I used it in generic form.  By that, I mean not 
   only the browser, but all the software beneath it that accesses 
   the Internet.
   Q   And why is that important?
   A   Well, because the -- the blocking may occur either in the 
   browser itself or in some software underneath the browser that's 
   the actual access port to the Internet.
   Q   If you could turn to Exhibit 174, this is the presentation I 
   referred to earlier.  It is not my intention to have you walk 
   through the presentation this afternoon, Mr. Vezza, I just have a 
   couple of questions about it.  If you would turn to the page that 
   says, ideally, at the top.  
   	MR. BARON:  "Ideally, children use the Internet with their 
   parents."  It's six pages in.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  What exhibit are we on?
   	MR. BARON:  174.  Six pages into the exhibit.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Defendants' Exhibit 174.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Yes.  I'm just commenting that we didn't 
   have this before.  This is new to us, right, these exhibits?
   	MR. BARON:  That is correct, your Honor.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Yes, we haven't referred to this before?
   	MR. BARON:  That is correct, your Honor.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  We just got it?
   	MR. BARON:  Yes.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Okay, so we haven't been through it?
   	MR. BARON:  That's right, but this is impeachment exhibits 
   for purpose of cross-examination.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  I understand that.  It's just that --
   	MR. BARON:  We do intend to submit this particular exhibit 
   with other exhibits in our case.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  I'm not questioning the exhibit, I'm just 
   saying that I don't know about my colleagues, but we're looking at 
   it fresh and therefore, don't have -- I don't have anything 
   intelligent to ask or question, but that may not matter.  It may 
   not be even if I had it.
   	MR. BARON:  Well, if the Court desired at the end of the 
   question, we could certainly walk through the exhibit or any other 
   	THE COURT:  Well, that's why -- that's the only reason I 
   asked.  But, go ahead, you conduct your examination.
   	MR. BARON:  All right, okay.
   Q   Could you explain to the Court what this page, which says 
   "Ideally, children use the Internet with their parents"  and the 
   next page were purporting to represent?
   A   Purports to represent a child sitting with a parent making -- 
   having access to the Internet.  And the next page says but parents 
   may not always be present and children may run into an 
   inappropriate material.
   Q   You told me at your deposition that with respect to the second 
   page, we show -- well, with respect to these two pages, we show a 
   child using the Internet -- this is Page 89, Line 7 of the 
   deposition -- "We show a child using the Internet with a parent 
   supervising and that's an ideal situation.  Unfortunately, that 
   ideal situation is not always the case, very often a child is 
   using the Internet without a parent's supervision."  Do you agree 
   with that statement?
   A   Where is that?
   Q   You made it in your deposition at Page 89, Line 7.
   A   Line 7.  Yes.
   Q   Could you turn to a couple of pages after this in Exhibit 174.  
   There is a scenario, one --
   A   Where?
   Q   It's three -- three pages after the last page we referred to.  
   A   Yes.
   Q   Could you tell the Court briefly what this scenario is getting 
   A   The scenario is getting at a parent using a system of Netscape 
   and create -- or Microsoft Explore and creating a profile for the 
   child, so that the child can only access materials that the parent 
   deemed is appropriate for the child to see.  
   Q   If you look at the next page, could you explain what the box 
   that's checked block unrated sites means in the context of this 
   A   In the context of this page, the parent has decided that this 
   ten year old child is not -- does not have the sophistication or 
   the maturity to handle material that is -- might have some sexual 
   connotation, but that has not been rated yet and therefore, has 
   checked block unrated sites, so that the only material a child 
   will be able to have access to is that material which is 
   specifically rated.
   Q   In a PICs --
   A   According to the child's criteria.
   Q   -- in a PICs compatible format?
   A   In a PICs compatible format.
   Q   And that's one way PICs works.  And PICs also works -- that's 
   correct, right?  One way it block all --
   A   That's one way --
   Q   -- unrated sites?
   A   -- right.  And another way would be not to check that and if 
   you look further on in this presentation for the 16 year old 
   child, the parent has chosen not to check block unrated sites, 
   because the parent has a feeling that the child is mature enough 
   to know the family's values and how to avoid that material.
   Q   Okay, that's all I'm going to have with that exhibit.  Now, 
   PICs allows a content provider to place a label on the content of 
   a document, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And it also allows a third party to rate content, correct?
   A   A third party may rate content.  He may give it to the content 
   provider or he may put it in a bureau.
   Q   When a content provider is rating his or her own content on 
   the Internet, that's referred to as self-rating, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Now, it's your view that where a PICs label is put in a 
   document is immaterial, correct?  
   A   No, I went back and checked the specs after my deposition and 
   it appears in two places if it's put in the document.  It's either 
   put in the HTTP header or it's put into MediTech, you're right, 
   Mr. Baron.
   Q   Let's look at Page 62 of your deposition, Line 7 and through 
   16.  And I understand that what you've stated just now -- let me 
   give you a chance to read --
   A   Line?
   Q   -- that passage - from Line 7 to 16.  Let me read it for the 
   Court.  "Answer" -- well, a question, "Could you describe the 
   technical steps of where a label would be put?"  "Answer:  Where a 
   label is put is immaterial.  All that has to happen is that when a 
   client reaches for a particular activity, a particular URL and 
   says, give me that content, that the label arrive at the client 
   before the content or that the -- that's not even necessary, 
   depending upon how the folks who build browsers decide to do it.  
   All that's required is that the label arrive at the Browser and 
   the Browser examined the label and determined whether to show that 
   URL -- the contents of that URL."  Now, aside from the tag or 
   where it's put in the header and that is the rest of that passage, 
   A   Well, the issue here is whether or not it's attached to the 
   document that's coming or whether there's a label bureau that 
   supplies the label by itself.  In other words, you reach for the 
   document and you say, well, wait a minute, go off the Label 
   Bureau, get the labels for that document and bring him back.  And 
   then get the document if the label is okay.'  So, that's what I 
   was trying to drive at when I made those comments.
   Q   Okay.  Now, with respect to is there content creators in the 
   first way, the self-writing method.  The method of labeling may 
   vary from place to place.  For example, Company A might 
   automatically prompt you to label a page when you start creating 
   it and place the label somewhere, is that correct, that's one 
   A   Say that -- I'm sorry, I'm missing --
   Q   Well, you -- you testified that there were different methods 
   of labeling for PICs compatible labels.  And one method, that is 
   in your deposition, one would be where you might automatically be 
   prompted to label a page when you start creating it and in a 
   different methodology, a different institution might require the 
   labeling based on a set of HTML creating tools, is that correct?
   A   Are we talking about -- I'm missing something here -- are we 
   talking about creating labels when you're creating a document or 
   are we talking about when labels come down to be read by a browser 
   or the client software, to be interpreted as to whether or not to 
   show that software?  I don't understand the question.
   Q   Why don't you look at Page 63, Lines 16 through 23 of your 
   deposition?  Tell the Court what you were getting at there?
   A   What I was getting at there, in this instance here, the 
   question was "How" -- let's look at the question.  I -- the way I 
   understood the question was how would labels be created?  And what 
   I responded to here is that it's up to the people who create the 
   software, who allow you to create documents for the Worldwide WEB 
   or the Internet, as to how they will prompt you to create the 
   Q   Okay.  
   A   And that's all I'm saying.  And it could happen, I mean --
   Q   In a variety of way?
   A   -- in a variety of ways.
   Q   Right.
   A   And that each of the designs would be fine.
   Q   Okay.  PICs compatible self-labeling is not in widespread use 
   today, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   In fact, you don't personally know of anyone who has actually 
   self-labeled their own site with PICs, as of today, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   How many different ratings systems are possible in PICs?
   A   Many rating systems are possible, but I don't think that that 
   will happen in the market place.
   Q   PICs doesn't rate sites on a single number or value, correct?
   A   That is correct.  In PICs, you are able to distinguish between 
   literature which might have some explicit content in it or just 
   pornography.  In fact, PICs is general  enough so that you could 
   use the Dewey Decimal System, you could use the Library of 
   Congress system.  You can use any kind of system you'd like to 
   provide a label.  And that's its flexibility and its power.
   Q   There are innumerable numbers or values possible under PICs, 
   A   That is correct.
   Q   The categories in PICs can be quite complex, correct?
   A   The categories in PICs are meant to differentiate subtleties 
   in all of the material that's on line.
   Q   Can you look at Defendants' Exhibit 175.  It's a document that 
   has a title, Rating Services and Rating Systems and their machine 
   readable descriptions.
   A   Yes.
   Q   Do you recall my showing you this exhibit at your deposition?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And you had seen earlier versions of this document, correct?
   A   I have seen earlier versions of this document, that's correct.
   Q   Can you turn to Appendices -- well, look at A, B and C, but 
   start with A?  It's --
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Appendix A to Exhibit 175?
   	MR. BARON:  Yes, it's Page 7 of 12, at the lower 
left-hand corner. 
   Q   This is a hypothetical rating service called Good Clean Fun, 
   A   That is correct.
   Q   It is presented to be in PICs compatible format, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And the document says this is, "one of the simplest possible 
   rating systems, using a single-category, minimum recommended age, 
   we present the machine description for a fictional service that 
   uses this rating system."  Do you see where it says that?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And that would be one of the simplest possible rating systems, 
   A   It's a simple rating system, that's correct.
   Q   You told me at your deposition that with respect to Appendix 
   B, that you had a passing acquaintance with the RSAC rating 
   A   Yes, I've talked to the folks there about it.  I talked to our 
   own staff about it.
   Q   Could you explain for the Court what -- how this rating 
   service works in terms of being in the PICs compatible format?
   A   That the example here is in PICs compatible format, okay.  
   Now, I'm --
   Q   The number of categories.
   A   -- do you want me to go through line by line?
   Q   No, but there are a number of categories here described as 
   values that you didn't put in PICs, right?
   A   Oh, sure.  There's -- well, let's look down, there's a lot of 
   -- one of the labels is the amount of violence.
   Q   Well, why don't we go down to the bottom of the page where 
   there is nudity and sex?
   A   Okay.
   Q   And there are label descriptions in categories, none or values 
   0, 1, 2, 3, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And 4 on the next page?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And they're -- different standards apply to the labels?
   A   And the different standards apply.
   Q   Okay.
   A   None is zero, revealing attire is number one.  Partial nudity 
   is number two.  Frontal nudity is number three.  Provocative 
   frontal nudity is number four.
   Q   And you told me that with respect to Appendix C, the same 
   self-writing system you weren't familiar with that one?
   A   I'm not as familiar with it, no, I'm not.
   Q   But looking at it, it does look like it's more detailed than 
   Appendix B and A, correct?  In terms of the number of values 
   assigned to the labels?
   A   Yes, in terms of the number of values, that's true.
   Q   With respect to -- that's all I'm going to do with that 
   exhibit.  With respect to all of these ratings, PICs will allow a 
   content rater or a third party rater to rate a whole site, 
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Or individual pages within a site, correct.
   Q   Or files.
   A   Or files.
   A   You can ave --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  What was that word?
   	MR. BARON:  Granularity.
   	MR. BARON:  Maybe you can explain it to Judge Sloviter.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Nobody else can -- everybody else can stop 
   	MR. BARON:  And to the rest of us?
   	THE WITNESS:  We talk about granularity when we say if you're 
   going to rate a site or a generic label for the whole site, then 
   you should apply the label to that site, which is the most 
   conservative label for the whole site.  If you want to then go 
   down deeper and label pieces of that site, we say that's more 
   granular labeling and you can label a variety of pieces of that 
   site.  In fact, you can label all -- every place where you can 
   have an entry point you can label.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  I mean, you could ultimately label every 
   single word, so says Dr. Olsen.
   	THE WITNESS:  No, when we say label, what we mean is label 
   where you can get at it by a URL or some entry point.
   	MR. BARON:  Only a select number of third party rating 
   systems --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Judge Sloviter thanks you.  
   	MR. BARON:  Thank you, your Honor.  
   Q   Only a select number of third party rating systems out there 
   -- there are only a select number at present, correct?
   A   Yes, there are, you know, half a dozen or thereabouts that I'm 
   aware of, there may be more.
   Q   That you're personally aware of?
   A   That I'm personally aware of.
   Q   And you don't know how many sites have been rated out on the 
   Internet, correct?
   A   I do not know at this time how many sites have been rated on 
   the Internet.
   Q   It isn't very realistic that third party rating systems can 
   rate all of the sites on the Internet, correct?
   A   Depends upon really the business model the third party rating 
   service is going to employ.  Some rating services, I anticipate, 
   will employ people who will go out and do ratings.  And they will 
   probably be interested in a certain segment of the Internet which 
   they will rate very carefully.  There will be other parties who 
   will make contracts with people and say, I will let you -- here is 
   my criteria for rating, rate yourself.  And we'll sign a contract 
   with you and we'll do spot checks and if you -- if the -- if you 
   break my contract, I'll yank my rating from you.  Or I may even 
   take you into court and sue you.  There may be some penalties 
   associated with that.  If you take that kind of a business model, 
   many sites can be rated.  Those that -- by a third party rating 
   service.  And there are many business models that one could 
   employ.  And I don't know which ones are going to flourish and 
   which ones are going to be good.  But certainly, a lot of sites 
   can be rated fairly rapidly under certain business models.
   Q   At your deposition last Friday, I asked you a question, "How 
   realistic is the statement" -- this is at Page 128, Line 16 -- 
   "How realistic is the statement that, for example, the 
   hypothetical rating service, Good Clean Fun, rates all the 
   material on the Internet, how realistic is that?"  "Answer:  Not 
   A   That's Good Clean Fun.  That's a specific rating system.  We 
   didn't talk anything about a business model.  Somewhere in this 
   deposition I also pointed out to you that how many sites could be 
   rated would depend upon a business model that a third party rating 
   service would employ.
   Q   You agree with Mr. Bradner, who has previously testified in 
   this action, that the Internet is doubling every nine months, 
   A   I believe I stated that it's possible, but that I couldn't -- 
   I couldn't verify it.
   Q   And that the Worldwide WEB is experiencing phenomenal growth?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   The W-3 Consortium doesn't keep track of how many sites are 
   being rated by third parties, correct?
   A   At the current time, we do not.
   Q   I asked you at your deposition, if you have 22 million URLs on 
   the Internet covered by Alta Vista today and a rating service has 
   rated 5,000 sites and you turned the blocking mechanism to the 
   toggle where it's blocking all unrated sites, then you have 
   effectively shut down 99 percent of the Internet, do you recall 
   that question?
   A   I recall that question.
   Q   And you answered, "That's the user's choice though, that's me 
   as the user, my choice to do that for my children or my choice to 
   let them see it."
   A   That is correct.  The parent can decide for the child whether 
   or not he wants to block unrated sites.  The other aspect of that 
   is that many of the sites that children would be interested in, 
   would likely be rated very quickly.  The third aspect of it is 
   there's lots of stuff out there that children don't care about.  I 
   have tons of stuff on the WEB site at my laboratory at M.I.T. that 
   would be of zero interest to children under the age of about 14 or 
   15.  Furthermore, I could go to any of the ratings services and 
   say, give me a label, this is what's on it.  They'd probably give 
   me a label for the site and we'd be done with it.  I don't think 
   it's a big problem.  I mean, I think this is a start-up problem.
   Q   And you understand --
   A   It's not the -- it's a start up problem, it's not a problem in 
   the long run.
   Q   Well, you don't dispute the notion that if there are 5,000 
   sites rated today and they are 22 million URLs and you're blocking 
   all unrelated sites in that option, you're blocking 99 percent of 
   the Internet, correct?
   A   I don't dispute that.
   Q   Okay, let's talk about self-rating schemes.  Put aside PICs 
   for the moment.  You would agree that it could be arranged to have 
   a tag or a label put on a variety of Internet applications, 
   A   Yes.
   Q   There's some generic tag that's possible for UseNet, correct?
   A   PICs is one of those?
   Q   The same for UseNet postings?
   A   Yes.
   A   And a standard tag for browsers to pick up for documents on 
   the WEB could be created, correct?
   A   PICs is one of those tags.
   Q   And there are other tagging schemes that are possible?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And the same for FTP, correct?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   Could be arranged?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And same for IRCs, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   In fact, if the attacking scheme was a simple four character 
   set consisting of a label or a tag.  For the Worldwide WEB, let's 
   stay on that.  The Microsofts and NetScapes of the world could 
   reconfigure their browsers to pick up the four character tag in 
   short order, correct?
   A   Not -- from my perspective, that's not a rational solution, it 
   gives you --
   Q   I didn't ask that.
   A   Okay.
   Q   I asked whether they could, as a technical matter --
   A   Was a technical matter.
   Q   -- was pick up the tag in short order. 
   A   Yes.
   Q   And your answer is?
   A   Yes.
   Q   In some cases, it could be hours or days, correct.
   A   Well, I don't know.  It would be depend upon where and how 
   they would have to modify their browser and making the change is 
   usually the simplest part.  Testing it is usually -- takes all the 
   Q   I just have a few more questions, Mr. Vezza.  If I didn't know 
   the address or the URL for a platform for Internet contents 
   selections home page, would you agree that one way to search for 
   the PICs home page would be to type in the word PICs?
   A   That's one way of doing it.
   Q   And you could use any search engine to that?
   A   You could use a variety of search engines to do that.
   Q   You've used various search engines like Yahoo and Alta Vista 
   in the past, correct?
   A   I've used mainly Alta Vista, but I've used Yahoo,yes.
   Q   You also told me at your deposition you've used WEB Crawler 
   once or twice, correct?
   A   I did not.  I am not familiar with it.
   Q   Well, you -- you -- 
   A   Where is that?
   Q   At Page --
   A   I said I know what a WEB Crawler is, I have not used that 
   particular --
   Q   I think the -- it's Page 212, Line 14 -- Line 13, I asked, 
   "Question:  You're familiar with WEB Crawler, though?"  Your 
   answer:  "Not particularly, no, I may have used it once or twice, 
   but I use hundreds of things."  Do you see where I said that?
   A   Where is that?
   Q   Page 212, Line 13, 14, 15.
   A   Line 12 says not that one.  
   Q   Well, I --
   A   Not the one I use, I use Alta Vista.
   Q   Line 13, "Question:  You're familiar with WEB Crawler though?
   A   I said not particularly, no.
   Q   No.  And then, I may have used it once or twice, but I use 
   hundreds of things?
   A   Well, I may have.  I honestly don't know whether I have or 
   Q   Would you turn to Exhibit 179?  
   A   Yes.
   Q   Do you recall my showing you this exhibit at your deposition?
   A   I sure do.
   Q   Do you see the Line 48 or where it's numbered 048 down -- this 
   -- my representation to the Court is that this was a down loaded 
   page, using WEB Crawler under a search-PICs.  Do you see where 
   Platform for Internet Content selection is listed?
   A   Yes, I do.
   Q   And there are a number of other listings on this page?
   A   There are a number of other listings on this page.  
   Q   That's all I'll say on that.  Last question, Mr. Vezza.  At 
   that time I deposed you last Friday, you did not recognize the 
   name Donna Hoffman, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Or Scott Bradner, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   You asked me, could you tell me who they are, correct?
   A   Yes.
   	MR. BARON:  That's it, that's all my questions.
   	MR. MORRIS:  Just a few questions, your Honor.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Thank you.
   Q   Mr. Vezza, on the question of your expertise, you're very 
   familiar with the PICs specification, is that correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And to use Mr. Baron's terms, there perhaps are some minute 
   details that you may not be familiar with, is that correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   But, with the specification documents, both the labeling 
   specification documents and the rating service specification 
   document, you are very familiar with those?
   A   I'm -- I'm familiar with the -- very familiar with those.  
   I've been through them the last few days.
   Q   Let me go back.  Mr. Bradner -- I mean, Mr. Baron asked you 
   about a four character string and you indicated that that was not 
   a rational approach.  Was there something that you had wanted to 
   A   Yes, the problem with that is there is very little granularity 
   to be -- for someone to express the fact of what this material is.  
   I'll give you the example and which was raised by the jurists 
   here, that of showing something to do with AIDS and an erect 
   penis.  You could, in fact, in PICs say this is educational.  
   Okay.  This is educational, this is what the educational activity 
   is.  And a parent may be able to set up or would be able to set up 
   a browser to discern that, so that in fact, a 15 year old would be 
   able to down load that information because it would specifically 
   say this is educational.  Or in the case of the National 
   Geographic, all of those things.  I was struck by the fact that 
   you kept asking the previous witness, what would you tell your 
   parent -- what would you tell those people how to deal with it?  
   Well, I mean if we have to -- if everybody has to go to an 
   authority to try and get a decision about how to deal with 
   material they want to put on the Net, we're going to have a lot of 
   authorities making decisions like that.  Why don't we let other 
   folks bring in a whole group of people that can help make those 
   decisions.  And that's what the PICs labeling system is about.  It 
   is to allow a lot of granularity and allow people who know how to 
   do that to actually create the labels appropriately.
   Q   And the PICs specifications aren't limited to just labeling 
   sexually oriented material, is that correct?
   A   That's correct.  The PICs specification are a general labeling 
   scheme.  We looked at it and we said what we need is something 
   that will deal with the Dewey Decimal System, deal with the 
   Library of Congress.  Or deal with any other kinds of labeling 
   schemes that we might think of in the future.  And that's what 
   it's all about.  It's going to be used for a variety of reasons.  
   Whether or not it's used for rating or not, it's got a life of its 
   own already.  
   Q   And so, if you hypothesize that there might be a desire to 
   label content by its sexual -- sexual levels.  And then there 
   might also be a desire to label content -- a different content 
   according to whether I dealt with racial issues or Nazism or 
   things like that, PICs would be able to label -- to be used in all 
   those situations.
   A   PICs would be able to be used in all those situations.  We 
   have -- we have behind us the Internet community that the industry 
   that's putting software out there to use PICs, we have evangelized 
   this around the world.  I just came back from the Far East.  Jim 
   Miller just came back from Europe.  We;re talking to all of those 
   folks, they're all interested in the idea of labeling.  They are 
   all interested in using this system.  
   	It has another advantage in that a rating system here in the 
   United States could rate foreign sites according to the U.S. 
   values.  And foreign sites could rate U.S. sites according to 
   their values. If you -- if you go to some European countries, they 
   think that our violence is abhorrent.  Okay, they just --they say 
   how can you have so much violence in your pictures and what not.  
   So, I think a value is local and that has to be taken into account 
   and PICs allows for that value to be local.  Q   Now, Mr. Baron 
   asked you a number of questions about the block unrated sites 
   option that the PICs specifications allow.  Would this option 
   interfere with an adult's ability --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  I would suggest you might get a little 
   closer or talk a little louder.  Not too close, because it's --
   	MR. MORRIS:  Thank you, your Honor.  
   Q   Would this option, the block unrated sites option within the 
   PICs specification, would it interfere with an adult's ability to 
   access content on the Internet?
   A   No, I mean, the adult could change it to not to block unrated 
   sites and so they could access anything they wanted.
   Q   So, an adult would have access to the full range of content on 
   the Internet?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   And would the block unrated sites option mean that minors 
   could never, ever get access to unrated sites?
   A   No, in fact, if you go through the scenario, one of the -- one 
   of the things in the scenario, the child says I need --gets to an 
   unrated site, the child says I need this for my homework.  The 
   mother comes back and gives the child permission.  So, in fact, 
   with the child's -- with the parent's supervision, a child could 
   get at it.
   Q   And under the block unrated sites option, would a parent be 
   able to sit down with her children and access the Internet 
   A   Yes.
   Q   And in that method, they'd be able to --
   A   To control the situation.
   Q   And get access to the whole range of content on the Internet?
   A   That's correct.
   Q   Now, but with the -- if you -- if a parent were to turn the 
   block unrated sites option on to activate that option and to block 
   unrated sites, would the parent be able to protect their children 
   from indecent or patently offensive sites that didn't have a 
   A   That's correct, that's exactly what that option is for.
   Q   And this protection would protect United States citizens from 
   foreign sites.
   A   That's correct.
   Q   Foreign content.
   Q   And that's under the PICs standard, a child could be protected 
   form indecency and patently offensive material without any 
   requirement that labeling be done mandatorily across the Internet?
   A   That is correct.
   	MR. MORRIS:  No further questions, your Honor.
   	MR. BARON:  No further questions at this time.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Here is a question.  You said PICs are 
   	THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry?
   	THE WITNESS:  Are PICs tabs?
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  No, are PICs tags, I'm sorry.
   	THE WITNESS:  Oh, no.  PICs are -- PIC stands for Platform 
   for Internet Content Selection.  
   	THE COURT:  Right.
   	THE WITNESS:  It's a standard by which a rating service can 
   express how they will rate things.  And it's also a standard for 
   how labels should appear.
   	THE WITNESS:  Okay.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  And what are tags, then?
   	THE WITNESS:  Oh -- 
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  I thought you said --
   	THE WITNESS:  -- that was a detail that Mr. Baron asked me 
   about in my deposition as to whether or not a PICs label could 
   appear in a Meta tag of an HTML document.  And I, it was late and 
   I didn't remember and I didn't know and I said, no, I don't think 
   so.  But in fact, he was right.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Okay.  All right, I --
   	THE WITNESS:  That it can appear there.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  -- I didn't quite get that exchange and I 
   wanted to be sure I understood it.  The other thing you mentioned 
   was about PICs will be, you said words to the effect, successful 
   if all vendors adhere.  What's the chance of that happening?
   	THE WITNESS:  Extremely high.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Mm-hmm, okay.
   	THE WITNESS:  Netscape is going to have PICs.  Microsoft has 
   already announced that they are releasing PICs compatible explorer 
   in June.  I can't believe that Netscape would be far behind.  In 
   fact, Netscape may even beat them to the punch.  Certainly 
   Spyglass will.  Spyglass -- both Netscape, Microsoft and Spyglass 
   helped us with these specifications.  Most of the ratings services 
   that I know that are out there, area already, Surfwatch, are 
   changing to a PICs compatible spec rating scheme.  So, I think the 
   chances are very high that --
   	THE WITNESS:  -- it will all happen.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Thank you.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  I mean, the reason is because there are 
   enormously powerful market forces that are driving that, are there 
   	THE WITNESS:  That's correct.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  And you know that from your meetings of the 
   W-3C, right?
   	THE WITNESS:  I know that from the meetings of the 
W-3C and I know that from the meetings of the people who keep 
   urging us to quickly get PICs out and get it into the net.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  So, that they can say to parents like me, for 
   example, who have small children, don't worry.  
   	THE WITNESS:  That's correct.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Come on line with us, your kids won't see 
   what's in Mr. Coppolino's book.  
   	THE WITNESS:  We hope so.  I mean, AOL is there, Prodigy is 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  We'll be forever now on this.
   	THE WITNESS:  They're all there.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Well, looking at Defendants' Exhibit 167 and 
   the members of the W-3 Consortium, am I correct that there is no 
   Government member of that?  That is to say, no United States 
   Government member?
   	THE WITNESS:  That's correct.  They have a lot of input into 
   the process, but there's not really -- they're not really members.  
   And I have to tell you the reason.  The reason is because we give 
   everything away.  In our contracts with our members talks about 
   how we deal with the intellectual property that we developed.  And 
   the Government doesn't know how to deal with the way we want to 
   give stuff away.  And when you have several members that want to 
   be.  We have several Government agencies, can we be a member.  I 
   said if you can sign the standard contract, you can be a member.  
   But they don't want to sign the standard contract, they want to 
   give us a bunch of FARs (ph), which those FARs countermand the 
   standard contract intellectual property clauses.
   	THE WITNESS:  Federal Acquisition Regulations.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Okay.  So, I am correct then and I asked Mr. 
   Bradner about this when he was here.  You now know who Mr. Bradner 
   	THE WITNESS:  I know that he testified.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Okay, good.  That in fact, the Worldwide WEB 
   is a creature completely divorced in its creation from any 
   government, isn't that right?
   	THE WITNESS:  Almost true.  Almost true.  The fact of the 
   matter is Tim Burners Lee did it when he was a staff member at 
   Cerne (ph), which is a particle physics laboratory in Geneva, 
   which is funded by the European Governments.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  By the European governments?
   	THE WITNESS:  European governments, that's correct.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  But Cerne is funded by it, but it's not an 
   agency of any government?
   	THE WITNESS:  It's not an agency of a government.  In fact, 
   there's a lot of United States participation in Cerne activities.  
   One of our faculty members from M.I.T. is a big player in the 
   Cerne activity.  
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  All right, so --
   	THE WITNESS:  And spends a lot of time there.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  So, in truth, it would not be fair to say 
   that with respect to the Worldwide Web  that Government has 
   "nurtured it".  
   	THE WITNESS:  I think --
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  As in the sense of a mother nurturing a 
   	THE WITNESS:  That is true of the Worldwide WEB.  
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  OKay.  Now, we have been told with respect to 
   IP address blocking, okay.  That address blocking requires that 
   the user's computer have stored on it's hard disc a list of all IP 
   addresses which should be blocked. And then it goes on to say that 
   the more you have on there, the more space you're using on the 
   disk.  Ergo, the user will soon run out of disk space to block, 
   true or false?
   	THE WITNESS:  I don't know what was being said by IP 
   blocking.  Certainly PICs does not work that way.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  So, PICs would not use up all the disk space?
   	THE WITNESS:  It certainly wouldn't.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Why not?
   	THE WITNESS:  Because the label could come with the document 
   or it could be down loaded from a service.  It may be stored on a 
   disk.  I mean, we admit that that can happen, but it's not 
   necessary that happened that way.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  When do you estimate, as practical matter, 
   the market will adopt PICs in a ubiquitous way.
   	THE WITNESS:  I think that when Microsoft announces in June 
   or they've already announced, but when they release in June, they 
   will release an Explorer III with PICs compatible blocking 
   software.  I think Netscape will be shortly behind that.  And at 
   that point, it's been adopted.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  All right.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  I'd like to understand how it works from the 
   -- again -- or mae more specifically, when you say -- when you say 
   that the parent can say block all unrated sites.  And then in the 
   colloquy that took place, the analysis was that all patently 
   indecent sites would -- patently offensive and indecent sites 
   would be blocked.  But they would be blocked, would they not, 
   along with everything else. And is there any way -- I mean, I'm 
   not sure how one would pick out from the rating, sites that are 
   patently offensive.  Is that what you suggested?
   	THE WITNESS:  No, I didn't suggest that.   
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  I mean, is that what you were?
   	THE WITNESS:  The question went to what happens if you check 
   block unrated sites?  What would happen then is you would block 
   sites that did not come with a label or did not have a label to 
   associate with him.  YOu would only allow information into 
   computers that had a label.  
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Okay, but all I'm suggesting is there is no 
   way in which that you know of or through PICS,m in which you can 
   identify marginal material?
   	THE WITNESS:  Marginal material is always in the eye of the 
   beholder.  And it's the person who's doing the rating that's going 
   to decide what kind of a rating they're going to place on that 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  All I'm saying is when you block unrated 
   material, you block it all?
   	THE WITNESS:  That's correct.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  That's what I wasn't clear on.
   	THE WITNESS:  Block all material that's unrated.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  That's right.  All unrated material.  
   Whether it is for children or --
   	THE WITNESS:  It could be pictures of ducks.  
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  That's right.
   	THE WITNESS:  You would be blocking them, too.  
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  No, that was my point.  That's just the 
   point, there was in the colloquy some possible ambiguity that what 
   you would be blocking was only material that was unrated that 
   could be considered questionable?
   	THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  And I gather that that's not what you're 
   	THE WITNESS:  That's not what I'm testifying.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  It's everything, no matter how innocuous, 
   would be unavailable to -- once that button or once that tag was 
   	THE WITNESS:  That's correct.  However, if it were a child 
   and the child wanted to see that material, he could ask his 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Oh, no.  I understand that.
   	THE WITNESS:  Okay.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  That's not the -- it was the technicality of 
   what was being asked.  Okay.  Does counsel have anymore?
   	MR. BARON:  Just a couple questions, your Honor?
   Q   Mr. Vezza, Judge Dalzell referred to enormously powerful 
   market forces that are driving adoption of PICs.  If all the 
   browsers in the world support PICs, then self-labeling with Pics 
   would work, will it not?
   A   That's a complicated question and requires a complex answer if 
   you'll allow me.  Self labeling, everybody labeling their own way 
   is going to be chaos and I think everybody will recognize that. 
   But self-labeling, according to some, a few, half a dozen, dozen 
   rating mechanisms will work. 
   Q   And just to be clear, you were talking about how there is this 
   drive towards adoption of PICS and PICs compatible architecture.  
   That adoption of PICS compatible architecture, in terms of the 
   market place, is a different issue and poses different problems 
   than the actual rating of sites using PICs compatible 
   architecture, correct?
   A   Repeat that?
   Q   First there's the adoption of the architecture. 
   A   Right.
   Q   But the question of rating sites on the Internet, on the 
   Worldwide WEB, that's a different issue?
   A   That's a different issue and it's going on and it will -- the 
   minute there are browsers out there, there will be lots of folks 
   that will be getting into the game.  And they're different 
   business models will cause sites to be rated.  Some sites will be 
   rated slowly by one business model, but more carefully.  Other 
   sites will be rated very rapidly, but perhaps no as carefully.
   	MR. BARON:  That's all I have.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  This is a relatively unique and novel 
   experiment in information, isn't it?
   	THE WITNESS:  Yes.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  And with the exception of the movie rating 
   system which has -- 
   	THE WITNESS:  It's a one rating system.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  -- which doesn't do anything at all like 
   this because so simple in the sense to this.  There's really 
   nothing out there, is there, that you can use as an analog.  
   	THE WITNESS:  That's correct.  In fact, we looked at the 
   moving rating system carefully and said, gee, it will not capture 
   the kinds of material that we'd like to have ratings posted to.  
   It will not capture the essence of literature.  It will not 
   capture the essence of art, it will not capture the essence of 
   education.  It just won't capture those things and this is one of 
   the reasons why we have come up with a relatively sophisticated 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  But to work, isn't it so that there has to 
   be a commitment to continue this indefinitely because there is 
   material that will be coming on to the Internet and Worldwide WEB 
   	THE WITNESS:  That's true, but we only have -- I don't know 
   any other way around it.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  And your point, I think, well, to me or Judge 
   Sloviter was in a lot of sites, this issue is simply beside the 
   	THE WITNESS:  That's correct.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  If you're in the area of microbiology, I 
   mean, if you were to raise this subject, I assume they'd look at 
   you as though you're speaking Ordu or Sanskrit?
   	THE WITNESS:  Right, that's correct.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  It's totally irrelevant to them?
   	THE WITNESS:  It's irrelevant.  I mean, you know, you could 
   -- I deal in microbiology.  I have, you know, 500 gigabytes of 
   microbiology information here and you'll probably get a label that 
   says microbiology and everybody will forget about it.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  And much of those 22 million sites are of 
   that nature?
   	THE WITNESS:  Is that kind of information, that's correct.  
   That's exactly -- that's exactly correct.  I mean, I have tons of 
   stuff at M.I.T. under my control that nobody would care about.  I 
   mean, it's just not -- it's not relevant -- it's a rating and you 
   just slap a label on it and it says this is what this is and be 
   done with it.  
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Well, really maybe all material coming out 
   of the science labs at the University of Pennsylvania, for 
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  So, that would have a label that would just 
   be say academic.
   	THE WITNESS:  Well, you have to be a little careful about 
   that.  You noticed there were some EDU sites.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  I sure did.
   	THE WITNESS:  Okay, so I'm not going to -- I'm not going to 
   bite on that one that easily. 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  What you're saying is that for practical 
   purposes was the exception of possibilities that specific material 
   may begin to draw and get closer to the line, that the -- well, 
   you're, I guess answering my question is, that the amount of 
   material that needs the kind of attention that would be required 
   to be satisfactory is more limited than all of the material on it, 
   but nonetheless, there would have to be some care.
   	THE WITNESS:  There is some gradation that has to take place 
   in terms of that marginal material from -- not marginal to 
   marginal to patently offensive.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Okay, thank you.  Anymore?
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Anymore questions based on our questions?
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  No, thank you.
   	(Witness excused.)
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Do you want to break now?
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Yes, it's a good time to take a break.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  All right, we will break now before the next 
   witness.  And I think counsel should be prepared to stay late.  If 
   those -- some of you have trains, I don't know how long the next 
   witness will be.  But if some of you -- oh, do you want to talk to 
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Yes, may I just see counsel briefly?
   	(Court in recess at 3:05 o'clock p.m.)
   	(The following occurred at 3:25 p.m.)
   	DEPUTY CLERK HIGGINS:  Court is now in session.  Please be 
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Okay, does the Government have Dr. Olsen for 
   	MR. BARON:  At this time, your Honors, we call Dr. Dan Olsen, 
   Jr. to the stand.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  What's the timing?  Until what time is he 
   available till, quarter after 5:00?
   	MR. BARON:  Yes.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Remember, it's Friday afternoon, so you have 
   to --
   	MR. BARON:  He's taking a taxi to the airport and 6:30 is his 
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  He'll be in good shape.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Well, you still have to be able to get 
   there, physically, taxi or not.
   	DAN OLSEN, Sworn.
   	DEPUTY CLERK HIGGINS:  Please be seated.  Please state and 
   spell your name.
   	THE WITNESS:  Dan Olsen, O-L-S-E-N.
   	MR. BARON:  At this time, your Honors, we offer Dr. Olsen's 
   declaration into evidence.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Is there any objection?
   	MR. ENNIS:  Your Honors, there is an objection.  We do not in 
   general object to Dr. Olsen's qualifications, and we understand 
   the Court has been generous in receiving testimony.  But based on 
   his specific admissions during his deposition, there are five 
   discrete areas in which we do contest his expertise, and I would 
   appreciate an opportunity for a brief voir dire limited to those 
   deposition questions.
   	MR. ENNIS:  First, your Honors, we contest the expertise of 
   Dr. Olsen regarding Surfwatch, Cyber Patrol, Net Nanny and similar 
   end-user blocking software.  
   Q   Dr. Olsen, is it true that you have never installed or run 
   Surfwatch or Cyber Patrol or Net Nanny?
   A   I did not use the specific applications.  My understanding of 
   what was done there was based on analysis of the required 
   Q   Is it basically fair to say that you have read their Web 
   A   I have read the Web pages and considered carefully what the 
   underlying algorithms necessary to accomplish the goals are.
   Q   And have you primarily read those Web pages and learned what 
   you've learned about them since you were retained by the 
   Department of Justice in this litigation?
   A   With regard to specific products I have considered those pages 
   in the past but not extensively.  However, I have done some work 
   on exactly what the algorithms necessary to do that would be.
   Q   Have you read the Web pages since you were retained in mid 
   March of this year?
   A   Yes.
   Q   We also -- you've never conducted any independent studies of 
   Surfwatch, Cyber Patrol or Net Nanny, have you?
   A   I have not.
   Q   And not personally run them yourself?
   A   I have not.
   	MR. ENNIS:  The second area is parental control technologies 
   employed by America Online, Compuserve, Prodigy and Microsoft 
   Network, including whether the tagging system Dr. Olsen proposes 
   would work in those closed communities.
   Q   Dr. Olsen, is it fair to say other than cursory notice of AOL 
   announcements recently, you have no knowledge of AOL's parental 
   technologies, and you have not subscribed to or used Prodigy, 
   Compuserve or Microsoft Network?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Is it also fair to say that at least as of your deposition 
   Tuesday you did not know whether the tagging system you propose in 
   your declaration would work within AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy or 
   Microsoft Network within their closed communities?
   A   I do not know whether that tagging system would work.  
   However, I do understand some characteristics of what they do that 
   is relevant to my declaration.
   	MR. ENNIS:  The third area in which we contest Dr. Olsen's 
   expertise is with respect to either direct or third party 
   verification of credit cards, including the technology of 
   verification, the costs of verification and the types of 
   transactions that would be verified.  
   Q   Again, Dr. Olsen, with respect to that subject matter, is it 
   fair to say that you have just simply read the Web pages of 
   MasterCard and Visa since being retained in this litigation?
   A   I would have no technical knowledge of what MasterCard and 
   Visa do.
   Q   Is it fair that you've just read their Web pages?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And since being retained --
   A   That is correct.
   Q   -- you've had no discussions with personnel at MasterCard or 
   A   I have not.
   Q   And I believe you just said you have no expertise in the 
   technology of credit card verification.
   A   The technology of what MasterCard and Visa themselves do, I 
   have looked some at verification.
   Q   You have no idea what they would charge to verify for 
   commercial transactions?
   A   I cannot say what they would charge.
   Q   And I take it you don't even know whether they would verify 
   for a noncommercial transaction, that is, for a speaker who wanted 
   to provide his speech for free?
   A   I would have no useful knowledge.
   Q   Now, with respect to third party verification systems, is it 
   also fair to say that you have only looked at the Web pages of 
   those third party verification systems since being retained in 
   this litigation?
   A   Clarify what you mean by a third party verification system.
   Q   Other systems that will themselves go to MasterCard or Visa 
   and obtain verification of credit card information, adult ID check 
   systems --
   A   Oh, adult ID as to what they -- I have read their Web pages 
   and I have studied some of their technical documents.
   Q   And that's again since being retained in this litigation?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Have you interviewed anyone at those third party verification 
   A   No.
   Q   Have you interviewed any speakers who have used those third 
   party verification systems?
   A   I have not.
   Q   Have you ever used those systems yourself?
   A   I have not.
   Q   Do you have any idea how many people are registered with those 
   A   I do not.
   Q   Could be one, could be 1,000, could be 500, you have no idea?
   A   I have no idea.
   Q   Is it fair to say that you don't know how the "referral 
   technology" between a third party verification system and a 
   speaker would work, and you're foggy about how the third party 
   obtains verification; is that fair?
   A   No.  Referral technology, please clarify that.
   Q   Well, would you look, please, at pages 247 to 249 of your 
   deposition transcript which we took last Tuesday.  I'm using the 
   phrase you used there.
   	Have you located those pages?
   A   247?
   Q   Right.  And you were asked the question, "Okay, what happens 
   when John comes to my site?  
   	"Answer:  Okay.  My understanding is that somehow, and I 
   would have to check the details, is that initially he not having a 
   password would be referred to adult check for which he would pay 
   whatever it was and then be referred back.  How that referral 
   technology works, I can't say right now.  I'd have to look at the 
   	And then you say further down, "Question:  Okay.  Now, how 
   does that work?
   	"Answer:  As I remember the technology there, IC Verify 
   provides -- I believe it is a PC-based system, but they may have 
   mentioned Unix (ph), I'm foggy there, whereby a phone line is 
   connected to your machine or multiple phone lines, and then 
   software makes the request.  A call gets made to MasterCard, 
   whoever they're connected to or the bank, however they do that, 
   and a charge gets processed."
   	Do you recall that question and that answer?
   A   Yes, I do.
   Q   Does that -- since you used the phrase "referral technology," 
   what does it mean in that context?
   A   Referral -- excuse me.  Referral technology as I mentioned it 
   there on page 248 has to do with when someone arrives at a site 
   that would like to be verified, say by Adult Check or Validate, 
   they are transferred back to the Adult Check site.  They do that 
   by means of code.  They have the original people who want to be 
   blocked, they have to put that code into their HTML pages.  Now, 
   the details of exactly what the syntax is without again looking at 
   the spec I could not quote to you, but the substantive nature of 
   exactly how that mechanism works, I do understand that clearly.
   	MR. ENNIS:  All right.  Now, the fourth area in which we 
   challenge Dr. Olsen's expertise is with respect to PICs 
   technology, or how cumbersome it would be to use PICs technology.
   Q   Dr. Olsen, is it fair to say that your knowledge of PICs has 
   been gained exclusively after being retained by the Department of 
   Justice in this litigation?
   A   I have read the specifications since being retained by the 
   Department of Justice.  Most of my opinions on PICs have to do 
   with computer science technology in general.
   Q   Again, you read the downloads from the Web pages?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Since being retained in this litigation?
   A   That is true.
   Q   Is it fair to say you have no idea and have no expertise in 
   how cumbersome PICs would be to use?
   A   I have never seen PICs used.
   Q   Is the answer to the question then yes?
   A   In terms of experimental evidence, I have no idea what it 
   would take.
   Q   Would you please look at page 133 of your deposition 
   A   Number again, please?
   Q   133.  And do you see the question, "Question:  How about for 
   PICs technology?
   	"Answer:  For PICs technology, it is more cumbersome than 
   that.  How cumbersome, I would be unwilling to characterize 
   because I think that's beyond my expertise in PICs other than that 
   I read the materials and it is a more cumbersome mechanism for 
   	Do you see that question and answer?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Now, do you believe today you are qualified to testify as an 
   expert in how cumbersome it is to use PICs technology?
   A   I would not characterize myself as being able to say how 
   individuals or how human beings would function in trying to create 
   such specifications.  I am perfectly comfortable with identifying 
   to you exactly what you would have to do in the technology, and 
   what has to be specified.
   	MR. ENNIS:  A final area in which we challenge Dr. Olsen's 
   expertise, your Honors, is in the day-to-day operations of 
   libraries, including how libraries classify materials and what 
   libraries do.
   Q   Dr. Olsen, you've had no experience running a library, have 
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And is it fair to say that you do not have knowledge of the 
   day-to-day operations of an existing library?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And that you do not have knowledge of what librarians do and 
   how librarians classify materials?
   A   That is correct.
   	MR. ENNIS:  That concludes my voir dire, your Honors.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  We will note the plaintiffs' reservations.  
   We will hear Dr. Olsen and the points will go to the weight of his 
   	MR. ENNIS:  I appreciate the courtesy, your Honor.  Thank 
   Q   Dr. Olsen, for simplicity and speed, I'm going to talk first 
   about a category of information which I'll call for convenience 
   tagging speech.  Your declaration reflects the opinion that it is 
   simple for a speaker or a content provider to add a four-character 
   string to the address or the title of their speech; is that 
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And the purpose of adding that four-character string is to 
   communicate information about the content or nature of the speech 
   that is so tagged or labeled; is that correct?
   A   It could be used for that, yes.
   Q   The four-character string that you propose in your declaration 
   as an example is a dash followed by the capital letter L followed 
   by the numerals 18; is that correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   What information would that string of characters communicate 
   to listeners or speakers who knew nothing other than those four 
   A   That would communicate nothing.  It was not designed for that 
   purpose, to communicate with people.  It was designed to 
   communicate with software.
   Q   And what would it communicate to software that knew nothing 
   other than those four characters?
   A   If the software had not been configured to catch it, it would 
   mean absolutely nothing.
   Q   Well, suppose it had been configured to catch it, what would 
   it mean to the software?
   A   It would depend on what the software was programmed to do.  If 
   the software was programmed to ignore it, the program would ignore 
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Dr. Olsen, could you stay back a little 
   bit?  I'm losing some of your answers because of your puffing into 
   the microphone.  Thank you.
   Q   What do you mean the phrase dash capital L --
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  What was that -- I'm sorry, I did miss the 
   answer to his last question, if the software --
   	MR. ENNIS:  I'm sorry, your Honor.
   	THE WITNESS:  The question, I believe, was if I put a -L18 
   and some software catches it, he said what would that mean to the 
   software.  My answer was it would mean whatever that software was 
   programmed to mean.
   	If, for example, we were talking about a Web browser and that 
   Web browser was programmed to look for -L18 and this is a minor 
   flag was turned on in the browser, then it would refuse to ask for 
   that information.  It's merely a code.
   Q   That's assuming the browser would understand -L18 to mean not 
   appropriate for people under 18; is that what you're saying?
   A   All I used, I approached this from a technical point of view 
   that said could I identify material that's not appropriate for 
   people under 18.  It was my understanding the Act was concerned 
   with that.  And I suggested one mechanism by which that could be 
   Q   But the four characters, -L18, could as easily mean okay for 
   people under 18.
   A   Absolutely.  It depends on the convention --
   Q   It's a convention.
   A   Absolutely.
   Q   Does the letter L there mean legal?
   A   It means less than.
   Q   It means less than.  Why is it capitalized?
   A   I just felt like it.  I needed an example.
   Q   Does the -L --
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  So it wouldn't look like a one.
   	THE WITNESS:  That is actually true.
   Q   Does the -L18 string mean inappropriate for persons under 18 
   for any reason whatsoever?
   A   When I approached this problem, I approached it in response to 
   Mr. Bradner's testimony, which was that it was not possible to 
   tag.  My understanding of the law was that it was important to 
   identify what was not appropriate for under 18-year-olds.  I 
   fabricated a tag that could possibly represent that.  That could 
   be programmed to be anything, that's not important.
   Q   So it could mean inappropriate because of violent content?
   A   I made no judgment about why you would want to say not for 
   less than L18.
   Q   Pardon me?
   A   I made no judgment as to why you would want to say less than 
   -- not less than --
   Q   So there's nothing in those characters which would indicate to 
   a speaker who might use them that it means inappropriate because 
   of sexually oriented content?
   A   It would not.  You would need something like PICs to give more 
   Q   All right.  In other words, it would be necessary that there 
   develop a common understanding of what -L18 means and a consensus 
   among speakers worldwide and among listeners worldwide of what 
   -L18 means.
   A   You would need a consensus between speakers and the software 
   that was being used by listeners, yes, you would.
   Q   Now how long do you think it would take -- well, first, is it 
   fair to say you've created this -L18 concept in the last two 
   A   Yes.
   Q   How long -- and you haven't submitted it to any Internet 
   standards community?
   A   I have not.  I created it purely as an example of what was 
   Q   Do you know of any comparable convention, for example, Kidcode 
   (ph) has ever been submitted to any Internet standards community 
   A   Yes.  Mr. Vezza just testified that PICs had been.
   Q   Do you know what Kidcode is?
   A   No, I don't, I'm sorry.
   Q   Now, how long do you think it would take for the consensus you 
   acknowledge would have to spring up to develop around the use of 
   the four character -L18 string?
   A   We're focusing carefully on L18.  Mr. Vezza has just testified 
   that there are market forces that would make such things available 
   very quickly.  He testified under PICs.  PICs is comparable to 
   what I wanted to do.
   Q   Well, the reason I'm asking that question is we're talking 
   about compliance with an Act that's in effect.
   A   Mm-hmm.
   Q   And your proposal is to use -L18.  How long do you think would 
   it take to emerge the consensus that worldwide speakers would know 
   what that means and begin to use it?
   A   It would depend on the people who are producing Web browser 
   software, other client software.  To the extent that they adopted 
   it, it could move rapidly.  To the extent they didn't, it may move 
   much more slowly.
   Q   In other words, it's uncertain.
   A   Absolutely.
   Q   Do you agree that technologically and conceptually there is no 
   difference between using the string -L18 or using the string XXX, 
   triple X?
   A   The only difference would be, and I purposely selected L18 for 
   this, and that is that currently in most of the Internet commerce 
   I'm acquainted with, L18 does not appear.  XXX does have some 
   societal meaning, but other than that technologically there is no 
   Q   Technologically and conceptually.
   A   No.
   Q   And I take it technologically and conceptually there would be 
   no difference between using as the string the letters SEX?
   A   There would be a problem with SEX.  The problem that would 
   occur there is when you select a word that has a common English 
   meaning, you start to interfere with the normal use of that word 
   in its normal meaning.  So, for example, if you were screening on 
   the word SEX, you would screen out things from some organization 
   that was discussing why one should not have sex.
   Q   I understand that --
   A   So -- when you incur -- when you bring in a word that has a 
   common everyday meaning, then you start to get fuzzy about what 
   you are and are not screening for.
   Q   Unless the common, everyday meaning is pretty clear like X-
   rated, triple X?
   A   Yes.
   Q   Well, let's stick with triple X for now.
   A   Yeah, that one works because it's sort of a code in our 
   society that's been established by makers of various kinds of 
   Q   Do you agree that the, as you described it, simple act of 
   adding a three or four-character string to an address or title of 
   your speech which says XXX or which says -L18 would not by itself 
   insure that minors would not have access to that speech?
   A   Without filtering software on the receiving end, no, it would 
   not be sufficient.
   Q   In fact, isn't it fair to say that in order for the speaker to 
   have assurance that the speaker's speech is not displayed in a 
   manner that would be available to a minor, it's not enough that 
   the speaker tag the speaker's speech 
-L18 or something comparable if all they did was tag and there 
   was no other cooperative technology, that wouldn't be enough, 
   A   That depends on what kind of assurance you want.  If you want 
   the kind of assurance that's necessary in a monetary transaction 
   where you're actually exchanging something of significant value, 
   that would not be enough.  If you want something less than that, 
   which is to prevent a large number of minors from accessing a 
   piece of material, and as Mr. Vezza testified, you would have 
   almost all the browsers looking for PICs or some other labeling.
   Q   I'm not talking about if you have the browsers looking.  As of 
   now I'm just talking about the simple act of tagging, self rating 
   my own speech, labeling it XXX or -L18, if that by itself will not 
   insure that my speech so tagged would not be available to minors; 
   A   And my testimony is it depends to the extent to which browsers 
   catch it.  If there are no browsers catching it, you have nothing.  
   If most of the browsers in the world catch it, you can have a high 
   degree of assurance.
   Q   Well, that's talking about what browsers might do, and we are 
   going to get to that.  Just take this in logical order.  The mere 
   act of tagging or labeling or self rating speech by itself is not 
   sufficient to insure that minors will not have access to that 
   speech.  Correct?
   A   That is true.
   Q   So if I self rate my speech triple X, that by itself is not 
   going to insure that minors do not have access to it.
   A   I will agree with you on that with the caveat that 
   communication does not occur without both a speaker and a 
   listener.  And to have ignored the listener is to have ignored 
   something important.
   Q   All right.  Now, as you just started to indicate in your 
   answer, the tagging is not enough, you're going to have to have 
   some capacity to block the speech once it's been tagged, to filter 
   or block it; is that correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And in order to do that, you're going to need to have software 
   that's capable of recognizing the tag and then if it's set that 
   way to block speech with that particular tag, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And that software could be used not to block but to find an 
   access speech that's so tagged, correct?
   A   That is also correct.
   Q   All right.  The blocking software could be either at the 
   speaker's end of the communicative chain or somewhere down the 
   communication pipeline; is that correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Now, for convenience and simplicity here, I'm going to try to 
   break this down.  I'm going to speak first about speaker blocking 
   and ask you questions about that, and then I will ask some 
   questions about user or client blocking, blocking at the user or 
   client end.  Is that convention understood?
   A   Yes.
   Q   The main point we have here is we're not trying to block all 
   speech that's tagged -L18 or triple X or whatever, correct?  We 
   want that speech to be available to adults --
   A   Yes, that is correct.
   Q   -- but not available to minors.
   A   That is correct.
   Q   So it's not just a simple matter of having a software program 
   that automatically blocks all speech with that label.
   A   That would not be appropriate.
   Q   So in addition to the software, we are going to need to have 
   some means of verifying the ages of the listeners who are 
   requesting access to that speech; correct?
   A   If we are to verify that it doesn't go to a minor, yes, we 
   will need that.
   Q   Yes.  And that will mean that with respect to blocking at the 
   speaker end, the speaker would have to have some way of verifying 
   the age of the people attempting to access that speech; correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And if we're blocking at the client or user end, there would 
   have to be some way at that end to verify the age of the person 
   attempting to access the speech.
   A   That is correct.
   Q   All right.  Now, first let's talk about user end blocking.  
   With respect to user or client blocking, do you agree that if the 
   speaker is relying on the client's software to do the blocking, 
   existing client's software and present technology is insufficient 
   to provide assurance to speakers that the client software is able 
   to block and is actually blocking?
   A   One more time, please?
   Q   Do you agree that insofar as the speaker is relying on user 
   blocking software, that existing technology and present technology 
   is insufficient to provide any assurance to the speaker that the 
   client's software is actually able to block and is actually 
   A   With current technology the only assurance you might have 
   would be a statistical one in the sense that if I understood X 
   percent were blocking, then I would have an assurance that some X 
   percent was not getting through.
   Q   Well, in particular, if you were to speak today, there is no 
   client browser software that would verify to you, the speaker, 
   that that client browser software was filtering, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   There's no such browser on the shelf purchasable today.
   A   Does not exist.
   Q   So if you as the speaker tag your speech -L18 or triple X and 
   then you were relying on blocking at the user end to make sure 
   minors didn't access the speech you had so tagged, there's no 
   technology today that could give you assurance that your speech 
   would not be available to minors.
   A   Again I'd qualify that with assurance.  For example, if you 
   did tag it with XXX, it's already been testified that Surfwatch, 
   for example, is watching for XXX.  To the extent that Surfwatch is 
   deployed, you have that amount of assurance that it's not getting 
   through, but no more than that.
   Q   Well, let's be clear here.  You could have some assurance that 
   anybody who is using Surfwatch should get blocked.  But what I'm 
   asking is you could have no assurance as the speaker that the 
   particular home that's getting that speech and using Surfwatch or 
   any other -- any browser is actually running that program and is 
   actually blocking.
   A   That is true.  There is no technology that will give you a 
   handshake that says yes, indeed, I am doing this service for you.  
   Your only assurance is statistical.
   Q   Let's turn for a moment to blocking at the speaker end.  At 
   the speaker end, if the speaker is going to do the blocking, the 
   speaker is going to have to have software or have a contract with 
   a company that has software that can do the blocking at the 
   speaker end; correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Is it fair to say that not all speakers have that software 
   A   Whether or not they have it, I couldn't say.  Whether or not 
   they could obtain it readily off the shelf, there is software that 
   one could obtain that could assist in doing that.  Whether or no 
   all speakers right now have access to that on their site, I don't 
   know what they have installed on their site.
   Q   Would most of the software you're talking about involve use of 
   a CGI script?
   A   Yes, that would be one way of doing it.
   Q   Do you have any knowledge whether the Web pages that are made 
   available by America Online, Compuserve, Prodigy, Microsoft, to 
   speakers who contract with them for those Web pages have the 
   capacity to provide CGI script technology?
   A   It is my understanding that they do not currently allow that 
   for reasons of security.
   Q   Now, we've talked a little about the software, but we began by 
   indicating the software is not enough either.  You have to have a 
   separate age verification system in order to screen minors from 
   adults.  Now, again for simplicity, let's try and break it down 
   and I'll ask you first what could speakers directly do themselves 
   if they were going to be doing the blocking and they were going to 
   be doing the age verification to determine who's adults and who's 
   minors.  First about what speakers could do directly themselves, 
   and then I'll ask you what speakers could do through third party 
   age verification systems.  Okay?
   A   We're assuming the speaker has control over the Web server?  
   The software is actually providing the service on the Web?
   Q   Yes.
   A   Okay.
   Q   And now the speaker has to determine age.
   A   Exactly.
   Q   Are there two basic ways of determining age?  One is through 
   some sort of an ID, adult ID, or adult access code, and the other 
   is through credit card verification, is that fair?
   A   Those are the ones that I'm aware of.
   Q   Let's talk first about the use by the speaker of an adult ID 
   or access code system.  If a speaker wanted to make his or her 
   speech available to the entire adult world, is it fair to say that 
   there is no existing ID or access code listing of which people in 
   the world are adults and which are not?
   A   There is no on line listing that I know of that would identify 
   all of the adults in the world.
   Q   Is there any off line listing you're aware of?
   A   Not that I'm aware of.
   Q   Now, putting aside for the moment adult -
   A   Excuse me.
   Q   Sure.
   A   I'm sorry.  The only possibility I could think of is possibly 
   the Social Security Administration.
   Q   Okay.  That's not -- that information is not available to 
   common speakers, correct?
   A   Yeah, but it is there, and I'm sure they know how old we are.  
   Q   But what we're talking about here is speakers who are trying 
   to comply with the Communications Decency Act and to verify age.  
   There's no such listing available to those speakers.
   A   No.
   Q   Now, putting aside for the moment the use of credit cards as a 
   proxy for adulthood, we're really now trying to find out actual 
   adulthood, is there any system of which you're aware, any adult ID 
   registration system, any adult access code system that a speaker 
   could use to determine whether the listeners attempting to access 
   that speaker's speech are adults or not?
   A   Existing today I know of no adult code mechanism.  That does 
   not mean one could be readily built, and one of the things we've 
   seen about the Internet is technology develops very quickly when 
   there is a need.  But I do not know of one that exists at this 
   Q   And if one sprang up, would it take some sort of an authority 
   to have control over that?
   A   It would depend to what extent you wanted to insure adulthood.  
   There are various ways that it could spring up whereby libraries 
   or other public institutions could verify adulthood and then all 
   share them in a central database.  That is possible.  Whether they 
   would not, I could not say.
   Q   Would you look, please, at page 224 and 225 and 226 of your 
   A   Okay.
   Q   Do you recall being asked the following question.  "How do you 
   envision those would work?
   	"Answer:  I guess part of the question is, it would depend on 
   who issued them.  Some authority is going to have to issue them.  
   I don't know who that might be."  
   	Do you see that?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And then further down you say "Not necessarily a Governmental 
   authority," do you see that?
   A   What line, excuse me?
   Q   Line 20.
   A   20, okay.
   Q   And then line 11 on page 225, "Yeah, I don't know of one.  If 
   that becomes a necessary part of adult access on the Internet, I 
   would immediately postulate the market would create such 
   authorities quite quickly."  That's what you just testified to, 
   A   Exactly.
   Q   And then you go on to page 226 to say, line 7 -- line 8.  "As 
   far as some other way of obtaining the code, I know of no such 
   service."  Correct?
   A   That is correct, other than the possibility of Verisign (ph) 
   and I could not testify as to the details of what they're 
   Q   Okay.  Now, do you agree that there is nothing in current 
   technology that would enable a speaker to go to a news group, a 
   chat room, a list serve, and get back an adult access code for 
   everyone who was listening?
   A   I do not know of any such technology.
   Q   So again there's no way a speaker today could get assurance 
   through technology that only adults were in the news group, chat 
   room or list serve to which that adult wished to speak?
   A   If you want a positive verification, I know of no way.  It 
   would only have to be statistical as I mentioned before.
   Q   All right.  Now, in addition to the adult ID system, which 
   there's none in place today, another possible way for the speaker 
   to verify age is through the proxy of a credit card, correct?
   A   Yes.  I would be reluctant to say there is no other possible 
   way.  That is the only other one I know of.
   Q   Now, you've already testified that you don't personally know 
   what it would cost you as a speaker to verify credit cards, and 
   you haven't checked that cost with credit card companies.
   A   I have not.
   Q   And suppose you wanted to make your speech available for free.  
   Do you know whether credit card companies would verify those 
   noncommercial transactions at all?
   A   I have no knowledge.  I would suspect they would not.
   Q   Let's turn to speaker verification of age through third party 
   systems.  This time the speaker is not doing it directly.  Your 
   declaration suggests that there are springing up some third party 
   systems that might do age verification --
   A   Such as Adult Check or Validate.
   Q   Adult Check or Validate.  And again, what you know about those 
   is what you learned from their Web pages recently?
   A   Yes.  I read their technical specs.
   Q   I assume there's no -- you're not aware of any adult ID list 
   or adult access code that's available to those third party 
   verification systems that's not directly available to you as the 
   speaker; correct?
   A   From my reading of it what they're doing is they're building 
   their own databases.
   Q   Based largely on the use of credit cards?
   A   Yes.
   Q   And again, since you didn't profess to know about this, you 
   don't know what those third party verification systems would do 
   with credit card information in order to verify it.
   A   No.  I have no idea what they actually do with --
   Q   All right.  Well, let's move on then.  I'd like to shift 
   ground now and talk about another subject for a while, PICs, PICs 
   technology.  You would agree, would you not, that PICs, a browser 
   with PICs technology, could be set to reject all unflagged speech?
   A   Yes.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  All what?
   	MR. ENNIS:  All untagged or unflagged speech.  All speech 
   that did not carry a label that was a PICs compatible label.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Yes, I understand.  I didn't hear, I'm 
   Q   Correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   Or you would agree, would you not, that if a parent wanted to, 
   a parent could set a PICs browser to prevent that parent's 
   children from accessing any speech at all unless A, the speech was 
   PICs flagged, and B, the speech was PICs rated as appropriate for 
   minors by a third party rating service the parent trusts.  
   A   With a minor caveat which I hope isn't a quibble, and that is 
   that there are no PICs browsers right now.
   Q   Well, I understand.
   A   But assuming there was, setting that aside, yes, a parent 
   could do that.  A parent could set such a browser and one can 
   easily be built to exclude everything except what was rated 
   Q   By a third party rater that the parent trusted.
   A   That is correct.  It --
   Q   The parent doesn't have to trust --
   A   May I finish?
   Q   Sure, I'm sorry.
   A   The net result of that would be to create a kid's ghetto which 
   is, you would lock them out of most of the Internet, but you could 
   do that.
   Q   Well, it might be a kid's ghetto or it might not, depending on 
   how many third parties had rated how many sites as appropriate for 
   children, correct?
   A   That is correct.  Part of my declaration is is that that would 
   be a problem.
   Q   All right.  But a parent for example could say, I'm going to 
   set my PICs browser so that when I'm home, I'll have access to the 
   whole Internet, myself.  But when I'm not home, I'm going to set 
   it so my child will not have access to anything on the Internet 
   unless it's A, PICs flagged, and B, rated in a PICs-compatible way 
   as appropriate for my child by the Boy Scouts of America, the 
   Christian Coalition, any third party rating service the parent 
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And the parent doesn't have to trust the rating attached to 
   the speech by the speaker.  The parent may have no idea whether 
   Joe Jones, the speaker who says this material is appropriate for 
   kids, is rating accurately or not, right?
   A   It is true that by going through a third party they don't have 
   to trust the speaker, they can trust the third party if they 
   Q   All right.  Now, if a parent has set their PICs browser in 
   that way, to block all access by their children to material from 
   the Internet unless it's appropriately rated by a third party the 
   parent trusts, in that circumstance then isn't it fair to say that 
   the children would be protected from any inappropriate material 
   regardless of whether speakers flagged their speech or not, and 
   regardless of how they tagged their speech.  Correct?
   A   It is true they would be protected from inappropriate 
   material.  They would also be protected from most of the Web.
   Q   From any part of the Web that hadn't been rated, approved by a 
   third party rating system.
   A   Which is most of the Web.
   Q   But the point here, the critical point I believe we agree 
   upon, is that if a parent is concerned enough to deprive their 
   child of access to the whole Web, to set their PICs browser in 
   that way, then at that point there is no need for Government or 
   anyone else t compel the speaker to label their speech at all.
   A   If parents want to deprive their children of most of the Web, 
   they could do that.  That is true.
   Q   Of course a parent doesn't have to set PICs technology that 
   way.  A parent could set PICs technology to allow everything to 
   come to their child unless that material had been rated as 
   inappropriate for children by a third party rating service the 
   parent trusts, correct?
   A   That is true.  They could also do that if the speakers had 
   accepted the responsibility and they could trust unrated speech, 
   then they'd have all the Web.
   Q   Well now, your proposal, unlike PICs, relies exclusively on 
   trusting the speaker to label properly, responsibly, is that fair?
   A   So does the PICs self-tagging scheme.
   Q   Yes, but --
   A   I would not want to characterize that as my proposal or PICs.  
   There are -- a primary feature of the PICs system is self rating, 
   and I am entirely in favor of that and supportive of that.
   Q   All right.  The PICs also strong features and encourages third 
   party rating, correct?
   A   Right.
   Q   And your proposal doesn't rely on third party rating systems 
   at all.
   A   No.  My declaration specifically points out problems with 
   third party systems.
   Q   Well, let me talk about some of the problems about relying 
   exclusively on the speaker to rate.  How is a parent to know 
   whether potentially 40 million speakers who have rated their 
   speech around the world have acted responsibly?
   A   The same way I know whether or not my bank's advertisement is 
   true, because there are laws that say they cannot lie.
   Q   Ah.  Well, speaking of laws, does your proposal make any 
   assumptions about whether foreign speakers would responsibly label 
   their speech -L18 or whatever convention is adopted?
   A   In doing my analysis of the problem I did not consider foreign 
   speech because I was not aware that Congress could legislate 
   foreign speech.
   Q   So with respect to any speech that for any reason is not 
   labeled appropriately in the -L18 code or whatever other 
   convention comes up, under your proposal that speech would reach 
   the home?
   A   That is true.
   Q   All speech that's foreign posted where people don't care about 
   United States laws, that would reach the United States also --
   A   Unless some other measure was taken, that is true.
   Q   We seem to have shifted ground here.  We're now talking a 
   little more about your particular -L18 proposal, so let's stay 
   there as long as that's where we're at.
   A   Okay.
   Q   Again, a difference between your proposal and PICs is that 
   PICs can be imbedded in the client browser or in the actual 
   computer operating system, correct?
   A   You're talking about client side blocking?
   Q   Yes.
   A   It wouldn't really matter whether you imbedded in the -- in 
   terms of -L18 or in terms of PICs, they are the same in that 
   regard.  You can imbed them in the operating system, you can embed 
   them in the browser.  There are technical preferences as to why 
   you go one or the other, but it doesn't really matter.
   Q   Your proposal envisions that the software for recognizing the 
   -L18 tag and blocking it would be imbedded in the browser, 
   A   That is one place.  You could also imbed it exactly the place 
   Surfwatch embeds its keyword checking.
   Q   But your primary proposal, your recommendation is that it be 
   in the browser?
   A   My position, my technical position is I don't care.  It's 
   Q   Well, doesn't your declaration say that if it's imbedded in 
   the operating system, that can complicate the operating system, 
   and that is not a good idea?
   A   It might.  It might.  But that's a technical decision.  It 
   could work.  It would not be a problem.
   Q   Oh, I thought your declaration said that it would be a 
   A   If I had to make an implementation choice, that's probably 
   where I wouldn't put it.  But it would work.
   Q   You'd put it in the browser.
   A   It would work in the operating system.  It doesn't matter.
   Q   All right.  Insofar as your proposal is imbedded in the 
   browser, isn't it fair to say that even if a parent went to the 
   trouble to buy a browser some point down the line in the future 
   that has the software to read your -L18 code and has that 
   installed, turns it on, that a minor in that home could easily go 
   out onto the Internet and for free download a quite different 
   browser that's not configured to recognize and block -L18, 
   A   They could do that.  They could download one that did not 
   recognize PICs.  They could download one that didn't do any of 
   that.  Yes, enterprising children could do that.
   Q   And if a child were to use that way of getting around your 
   proposal, then --
   A   And the PICs proposal.
   Q   Well, not if the PICs proposal is embedded in the operating 
   A   Well, then embed mine in the operating system, too.  It 
   doesn't --
   Q   Well, all I'm trying to get at is you quibble with PICs about 
   whether it should be in the operating system.
   A   Well, let me state that for the purposes of this law, 
   quibbling about in the operating system or in the browser is 
   irrelevant.  Both technologies can go both places.  It doesn't 
   matter.  And another set of enterprising teenagers could un-
   install it from the operating system.
   Q   Have you ever tried to do that?
   A   To un-install stuff?
   Q   No, to un-install Surfwatch or Cyber Patrol or --
   A   No.
   Q   -- Net Nanny from an operating system?
   A   No, I haven't.  However, you could reinstall the operating 
   system and it would effectively take it away.  And I know a large 
   number of teenagers that can do that.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  That can't or can?
   	THE WITNESS:  Can.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Have you seen them?  I mean have you 
   observed that?  Is that from your own --
   	THE WITNESS:  I would not characterize them as a majority.  
   In fact, I would characterize them as a relatively small majority, 
   but almost every high school has four or five kids who really love 
   their computers, and yeah, they could do that.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Have you seen -- speaking of your own 
   knowledge, have you seen them do that?
   	THE WITNESS:  To see them specifically install an operating 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Or take one out, yeah.
   	THE WITNESS:  Yes.  It's a common problem we have actually in 
   our labs at BYU.  When they don't like the operating system we put 
   in there, they take it out and put their own in.  It causes no end 
   of grief.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  But are they kids or are they over 18?
   	THE WITNESS:  These are freshmen just out of high school, 
   some of them --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  But they're over 18?
   	THE WITNESS:  It depends.
   	THE WITNESS:  I guess I would characterize to you --I would 
   characterize to you that their knowledge is not significantly 
   higher when they enter our program than they had in high school in 
   that regard.  For some kinds of machines it actually is relatively 
   Q   Dr. Olsen, you testified that you haven't done this yourself.  
   Are you aware that some of the end user software that is on the 
   market today is specifically designed so that if a child attempts 
   to do exactly what you just said they could do, that the whole 
   system shuts down?
   A   If they attempt to disable it?
   Q   Yes.
   A   To the extent that they directly try to disable it, yeah, I 
   believe that's probably the way it works, but that's not the only 
   way to get at the problem.  You can reinstall the operating 
   Q   You agree, do you not, that a significant number of the host 
   servers that are connected to the Internet are located outside of 
   the United States, possibly 40 percent?
   A   I couldn't characterize the percentage, but it's a nontrivial 
   number.  It's a very significant percentage, yes.
   Q   And growing?
   A   And growing.
   Q   Let me turn to a group of miscellaneous questions for a 
   moment.  They don't fall neatly under any category.  Would you 
   agree that because of the ways that news groups propagate through 
   other news groups, that even a speaker who posted to a tagged news 
   group, to a news group that was tagged in its heading -L18 or XXX, 
   would have no assurance that his or her speech would not be 
   available to minors?
   A   Same problem we discussed before.
   Q   So your answer is yes.
   A   Your only assurance is to the extent that filtering browsers 
   have been deployed.
   Q   And in order to be safe, a speaker who wanted to post a 
   message to such a news group would have to either establish their 
   own news server, buy, own and operate their own news server, or 
   independently verify that everyone -- and independently verify 
   that everyone accessing it is an adult, that's one way, correct?
   A   Characterize safe for me, please?
   Q   In order to be safe, a person who wanted to post to a news 
   group --
   A   No, the issue is, are we talking about safe in that safe from 
   prosecution under the CDA?
   Q   They wanted to comply with the Communications Decency Act, and 
   they wanted to post a message which they think it's appropriate to 
   post, certainly to adults, but might be considered indecent for 
   	MR. BARON:  Objection.  Calls for a legal conclusion.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Let's go back to the -- by this point I've 
   lost the question.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Well, I would permit it though, wouldn't 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Yeah, is --
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Is the question intelligible to you?
   	THE WITNESS:  The issue I'm talking about is the issue of 
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  Right, yes.
   	THE WITNESS:  And if you wanted, without drawing a legal 
   conclusion --
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  No, a layperson's, a layperson's --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Let's let him answer when it's rephrased so 
   we can all understand it.
   	THE WITNESS:  No, it's -- if I can clarify it, it will be 
   	MR. ENNIS:  Let me rephrase the question without the word 
   safe in it.
   	THE WITNESS:  I think I can clarify it, if it's fine.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Well, why don't you let him ask his question 
   and then you can answer --
   	THE WITNESS:  Well, the issue is --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  No, no, let him ask his question, okay?
   	THE WITNESS:  Oh, I'm sorry.
   Q   Suppose I'm a speaker and I want to post a message to a news 
   group, and I want to be sure that my particular message is not 
   going to be available to anyone under 18 who has access to that 
   news group.  I can't do that.  I can't be sure that people in 
   existing news groups are under 18, correct?
   A   If the assurance is zero minors will receive this, no.
   Q   Now, one thing I could do is I could buy, own and operate my 
   own news group, correct?
   A   That is one way.
   Q   But then I would have to independently verify the age of 
   everyone who had access to it.
   A   And that would give you absolute assurance, yes.
   Q   Right.  Another way I could do it is by posting a reference in 
   the news group to my speech, but posting the speech somewhere 
   else, for example, on a Web site that I own and control where I 
   also independently verify age.
   A   That is true.
   Q   Short of that though there is no way I can just speak to a 
   news group and have assurance that my speech will not be available 
   to minors.
   A   Again, the issue of assurance.  If you're talking about 
   absolute perfection, no.  If you're talking about some reasonable 
   statistical view that 90 percent of the minors cannot receive my 
   speech, then there are other possibilities.  But if you're talking 
   about a contractual monetary assurance, no.
   Q   Well, let me ask it this way.  Is it fair to say that as of 
   today with respect to all or the vast majority of news groups in 
   the country, a speaker posting a patently offensive message to a 
   news group has no way of insuring that that message will not be 
   available to persons under 18?
   A   Under the assumption that browsers are not filtering, that is 
   Q   Are you aware of the Internet Yellow Pages and other 
   A   I'm aware of a number of such things, yes.
   Q   Are you aware of any of those directories that at the present 
   time list speech according to what's appropriate for people under 
   18 and speech which is only appropriate for people over 18?
   A   I have not seen such a category, no.
   Q   Now, speaking not as a legal matter, I'm not asking for a 
   legal conclusion under the Communications Decency Act, but if you 
   were a speaker and you thought about posting a centerfold from 
   Playboy Magazine, would you personally think that that image might 
   be indecent or patently offensive for persons under 18?
   A   You're asking me for a conclusion about the decency of a 
   particular piece of --
   Q   No, I'm asking for your personal opinion, would you personally 
   think that that image might be indecent or patently offensive for 
   persons under 18?
   A   So you're asking me for a conclusion as to patently offensive?
   Q   You personally.
   	MR. BARON:  Objection.  It's beyond the scope.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  What?  Excuse me?
   	MR. BARON:  It's beyond the scope of his direct examination.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Okay.  A lot of the witnesses have been so 
   asked, you know, from both sides, but go ahead.  It is beyond the 
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  But so what?
   	MR. BARON:  We're presenting Dr. Olsen as a technical expert.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  We understand, but --
   	MR. BARON:  Not as a speech witness.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  We'll let him answer that question.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  We're going to let him answer it.
   	THE WITNESS:  Okay.  If we consider the local community which 
   consists of Dan, Dan would be offended.
   Q   And how about the seven dirty words?
   A   Dan would be offended.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Who's Dan?
   	THE WITNESS:  That's me, I'm sorry.  That's me.  (Laughter.)
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Oh, he's the community.  He is an expert on 
   what would offend him.
   	THE WITNESS:  That's a relatively small community, but it's 
   the one I know best.  (Laughter.)
   	MR. ENNIS:  May I take one moment, please?
   	(Pause in proceedings.)
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  I should have waited for you to ask him.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  I thought it was an acronym.  (Laughter.)
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  I can't imagine why you would think that.
   	MR. ENNIS:  Your Honors, we have attempted to divide cross-
   examination between us, and I know Mr. Hansen has some questions 
   in areas that I have lightly touched upon but didn't explore in 
   depth, so I think I have no further questions at this time.
   	MR. HANSEN:  Good afternoon, your Honors.  My name is 
   Christopher Hansen, one of the lawyers representing the ACLU 
   plaintiffs.  Mr. Ennis is modest.  He asked most the questions I 
   wanted to ask, so I have relatively few to ask the witness.  I'd 
   like --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  The witness won't cry about that.
   Q   Dr. Olsen, I'd like to bring this from the abstract down to 
   the concrete.  I'd like you to assume a hypothetical situation for 
   me, if you would.  I'd like you to assume first that I am a 
   nonprofit organization, noncommercial organization, that I run a 
   Web site, that I would like to get the information on my Web site 
   to the maximum number of people I possibly can, and I currently 
   offer the information for free to everybody, and that this Act has 
   gone into effect as of 6:00 p.m. this evening and I don't want to 
   go to jail.  I don't want to even risk going to jail.  
   	I'd like to now talk about what it is I might have to do in 
   order to make sure that the Government doesn't start investigating 
   me at 6:15 this evening.  Now, first what I have to do is I have 
   to tag my speech under your proposal, correct?
   	MR. BARON:  Objection.  I just want to clarify that this is a 
   hypothetical, that as the Court is well aware the CDA is not being 
   enforced pending the decision of this Court and --
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  That hasn't eluded our attention.  
   	MR. BARON:  Thank you, your Honor.
   Q   The first thing I would have to do is tag my speech under your 
   proposal, correct?
   A   Correct.
   Q   Now, I want you to assume that the name of my Web site is the 
   Electronic Frontier Foundation, and I want you to assume I have 
   14,000 separate files in my Web site, some of which might be at 
   risk under this statute and some of which might not.  The first 
   thing I'm going to have to do is go to each of the 14,000 files 
   and decide whether to tag each one indecent or not indecent, 
   A   Whether or not you would actually have to look at all of them 
   is actually problematic.  I assume that you've categorized them in 
   some way and you could recognize quickly that there are large 
   categories you don't need to look at.  But I will grant you that 
   there is some labor involved in doing the tagging.  I would not 
   characterize that that label means you looked at every one of 
   those 14,000 pages.
   Q   14,000 files.  A file can be a lot more than one page, 
   A   Yes.  For clarity, when I refer to a page it means a file, and 
   I will use them interchangeably.  I'm sorry.
   Q   Now, I want you to assume that some of my files are in fact 
   multiple pages and within that file some of the material is 
   clearly decent by anybody's standard, and some is potentially 
   indecent under somebody's standard.  Then I have to not only go to 
   my 14,000 files, but I have to go below my 14,000 files and decide 
   what parts of those files to tag and what parts not to tag, 
   A   Not necessarily.  It depends on how much of a compelling 
   interest you have in making sure that all of those actually go to 
   children.  You could, if you wanted, and assuming tagging browsers 
   were deployed, you could immediately tag your entire site as being 
   inappropriate for minors and then over time work you way down 
   exposing pieces as you felt it was important to get them out to 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Excuse me.  Suppose it's a large museum and 
   they have -- I mean I don't know if that's within the scope of 
   what you're asking, Mr. Hansen.
   	MR. HANSEN:  It is, your Honor.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Suppose it was a large museum, a really big 
   one with a lot of different pieces in the museum from different 
   cultures all over.  Does that make it -- that's the only way I can 
   sort of try to think about this.
   	THE WITNESS:  Right.  The issue here --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  And I didn't mean to stop you in your --
   	THE WITNESS:  No.  Please forgive me for trying to 
   characterize what the counsel is driving at.  There is an issue of 
   what it would take to get started, in other words, this transition 
   period when the Act goes into effect.  And then there is the issue 
   of what would I have to do on an ongoing basis over time.  So if I 
   have a large electronic museum, of which at this point there are 
   relatively few, electronic museums.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  All right, but it could be another kind of 
   museum.  It could be a museum of paintings which one might --
   	THE WITNESS:  Your Honor, the reason I characterize a 
   difference is because if you had a large museum of paintings which 
   was not in electronic form and you wanted to put them on the Web, 
   there is a process by which you would have to go through to put 
   them on the Web.  So as you put them on, I presume you would tag 
   them.  And you already are going through a process of paging 
   through each one of them, so you only incurred a small additional 
   cost of evaluating them.  That's different than I already have a 
   huge electronic library and I have to go back and sort it all out.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Which you would agree is a big task, or 
   potentially a big task?
   	THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  If you didn't have a characterization 
   that would help you narrow that down, it could be a big task.  
   Many libraries have characterizations that can help them, but I 
   couldn't, as Mr. Ennis has pointed out --
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  You mention that in your declaration, the 
   Library of Congress system.
   	THE WITNESS:  There are ways to use classifications to get 
   closer.  Whether they would work in all cases I couldn't say.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Well, I'm sorry, I interrupted you, but I 
   was trying to make it concrete for me, not necessarily for him.
   Q   And if I'm trying to avoid going to jail by 6:15, you suggest 
   one of my options is I tag my whole site -L18, thus preventing 
   minors from getting access even to those portions of my site that 
   I know are perfectly acceptable to minors.  That's one of the 
   short-term solutions I have; is that right?
   A   If you were going to do it by 6:15 tonight, I cannot conceive 
   of another solution.  There's not time to do anything.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Except label the whole thing -L18.
   	JUDGE BUCKWALTER:  That's what he said, yeah.
   	THE WITNESS:  Exactly, exactly, yes.
   Q   Well, you proposed one other alternative in your deposition 
   which is I could shut my entire site down for a month or two and 
   reconfigure the whole thing, correct?
   A   Yes.  However, as we've talked about, just labeling the entire 
   site would be a little less Draconian and is easily possible.
   Q   But would prevent all minors from accessing all of my 
   material, even that which is unquestionably decent?
   A   That is true.
   Q   Now, there are some kinds of files that you can't tag because 
   tagging would destroy the file itself; correct?
   A   No, that is not correct.
   Q   So you disagree with Mr. Bradner's position on that?
   A   Mr. Bradner -- I do not disagree directly with Mr. Bradner's 
   position.  Having read through what Mr. Bradner said, Mr. Bradner 
   said you could not change the contents of those files because it 
   would destroy the format.  In that regard Mr. Bradner is correct.
   	However, the proposal which I put in which was in direct 
   response to Mr. Bradner's declaration was that you could change 
   the name and that would not damage the file.  I specifically, in 
   designing the -L18 counterproposal, if you will, I specifically 
   looked at that because there are things that you can't change the 
   contents, but by changing the name you have tagged.
   Q   Well, I'd like you to look at your deposition, if you would, 
   at page 256.  I'm sorry, it's 255.  My Xerox is unclear.
   A   Which line?
   Q   12.  The question you were asked was, "I understood Mr. 
   Bradner to suggest there were some files you couldn't embed a tag 
   in, that you would simply destroy the integrity of the file, is 
   that accurate?"
   	And your answer was "Yes."
   	"Question:  And what kinds of files are those?
   	"Answer:  A GIF, G-I-F, image."
   	Was that your testimony?
   A   Yes, except the proposal that is stated in the declaration 
   does not change the file.  It changes the name.
   Q   And if the -- okay, I understand.
   A   So I did not directly contradict Mr. Bradner in that regard.  
   He is absolutely accurate.  You can't go in the file and mess with 
   some of them.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  And a GIF again is what?
   	THE WITNESS:  It stands for graphical interchange format.  
   The example would be the same if it was JPEG (ph) which is another 
   graphics format, MPEG (ph) which is a movie format.  Mr. Bradner 
   testified about some data files that he had.  It would probably 
   not be appropriate to damage the data.  That's why I specifically 
   went for the -L18 proposal, because you could change the name 
   without actually having to modify the data and damage the 
   integrity of what he's doing.
   Q   But the only way that would work is if you tagged the entire 
   file with the same tag.  And so if it were one of those files we 
   were talking about before, part of which was unquestionably decent 
   and part of which was questionable, you'd still have to tag the 
   whole thing indecent for your proposal to work, correct?
   A   No.  If we take for example --
   Q   Correct?
   A   Well, let me -- I'll get there.
   Q   All right.
   A   If you take the GIF image, for example, that is true.  You 
   would have a hard time unless you did something to break the image 
   apart to put the tags in because there is no mechanism for 
   embedding.  If it was HTML, you could embed a tag inside as Mr. 
   Vezza has already testified.
   Q   Now, I want you to assume hypothetically that the name of my 
   Web site is CDT, Center for Democracy and Technology, and that I 
   add on to my Web site the equivalent of hundreds of typed pages of 
   material a week.  Every time I did that from now until eternity 
   under your proposal I would have to read all of those -- and 
   assume I'm not the author of all of those pages.  Under your 
   proposal every time I did that I would have to read it and decide 
   whether to tag it or no and decide whether to tag subparts of it 
   or not; is that correct?
   A   If there's going to be a label associated with it, somebody 
   will have to read it.  It will either be you or a label bureau or 
   a parent, but somebody will have to make the judgment.
   Q   But under your proposal it's me that has to make the judgment, 
   A   That is correct.  Assuming you are the speaker.
   Q   And you said at your deposition that if I want to make the 
   right kind of judgment under the law, I might well have to hire 
   and consult a lawyer in making these judgments, correct?
   A   Or you could be conservative about it and just classify it for 
   Q   Now, even -- I want you to next assume that my Web site is 
   called Critical Path AIDS Project, and on my Web site I have 
   hundreds of links to other sites.  Under your proposal, how does 
   that work?
   A   Okay.  If you were using -L18, the links to the other sites, 
   there were actually several things we talked about in the 
   deposition.  One was that the other site is friendly with you, and 
   they are going to tag their stuff in some regular way in which 
   case a small program could be written that would go through and 
   fix your links in the same regular way.
   Q   So I'd have to get on the phone or get on E-mail with all of 
   these hundreds of other sites and we'd all have to talk and figure 
   out a joint way of working this all out.
   A   I recommend a news group.  It's the way things are done on the 
   Q   Is there an alternate way in which I could do the -- and if 
   one of the other sites didn't tag themselves -L18, would I then 
   have to block access to that site, get rid of --
   A   Block access to the site?
   Q   Get rid of my link to that site?
   A   I wouldn't think so, unless your link itself was explicitly 
   sexual or some other reference.  It doesn't seem to me that 
   holding the name of something which might be explicitly offensive 
   is not the same as having something explicitly offensive.
   Q   Well, in order to have a link from my site to somebody else's, 
   I have to take certain actions, correct?
   A   You have to have the URL, yes.
   Q   And I have to type that URL into my site and I have to make a 
   conscious decision to make that link.
   A   That is true.
   Q   So if I'm responsible for making it easy for minors to use the 
   link that I have created to get access to that material, I'd 
   better know what's on that link site as well as what's on my own 
   site, hadn't I?
   A   Not necessarily.
   Q   Why not?
   A   All you've done is say there is something over there.  You 
   haven't said anything -- you haven't revealed or exposed or in any 
   way communicated any explicit material.  I don't see how -- what 
   you're saying is you're saying that I would incur liability by -- 
   I would incur responsibility for Playboy's content by having 
   mentioned Playboy to someone.  That doesn't seem to be reasonable.
   Q   Have I made Playboy more available if on my Web site I have 
   created an explicit link to Playboy?
   A   You've made Playboy more available if you told anybody about 
   Playboy.  It is the same thing.
   Q   Now, if all of the hundreds of sites that I have links to also 
   adopt the -L18 convention, I'm going to have to change all the 
   URLs on all my links to reflect that they've changed all their 
   addresses, correct?
   A   And if there is some cooperative mechanism, that can be done 
   automatically.  Also I should point out that -L18 is not 
   necessarily the only way that you could have done the labeling.  
   You could have done it with PICs and then you have not changed the 
   names and you have not broken the links.
   Q   Right.  But we're the ones proposing PICs.  You're the one 
   that's proposing -L18.
   A   No, no, no.  I'm the one that's proposing labeling on the part 
   of the content provider.  I only proposed -L18 as an example of 
   how it could be done because Mr. Bradner said it couldn't be.
   Q   Well, and you said that PICs and your proposal were 
   comparable.  But PICs does not require me as the speaker to self 
   label, does it?
   A   But it allows it.
   Q   That's right, but your proposal requires me as the speaker to 
   self label, correct?
   A   That is true.
   Q   Now, even if I've done all this tagging, either of my files or 
   my subfiles or my links, the next -- that still hasn't prevented 
   me from being vulnerable under this law, correct?
   A   Your only assurance at that point, as we discussed with Mr. 
   Ennis, is to the extent to which browsers are available and are 
   catching it.  As Mr. Vezza just testified, very soon we will have 
   browsers that will catch the PICs labels, and you have some 
   Q   Well, I'm talking about 6:15 this afternoon.
   A   6:15 this afternoon --
   Q   If I put your -L18 in all the places I need to on my site and 
   done nothing else, I'm still pretty vulnerable, aren't I?
   A   In the world of software, compliance with anything by 6:15 
   this afternoon, you are vulnerable.  I don't care what it is 
   you're trying to accomplish.
   Q   All right.  Now, I want you to assume that my Web site 
   receives 50,000 unique visitors every day.  How do I screen each 
   of those 50,000 people to determine whether they're above 18 or 
   below 18?
   A   Same techniques we discussed with Mr. Ennis.
   Q   There are two of them as I understand you to say with Mr. 
   Ennis.  One is I could do credit card verification.
   A   That's true.
   Q   And my hypothetical is I'm a nonprofit, noncommercial site and 
   I'm not selling anything.  You don't know whether this proposal 
   will work for me, right?
   A   Well, it depends on how you define "will it work for me."
   Q   You don't know whether the credit card companies will verify 
   credit cards for me if I ask them to without attaching a 
   commercial transaction to it, correct?
   A   I do not know -- I guess the easiest way to say this is I do 
   not know nor do I particularly believe that for free they would do 
   the validation you want.
   Q   So if I want to comply relatively quickly with this statute, 
   I'm probably going to have to -- one of my options is I'm going to 
   have to talk to the credit card companies and see if they'll let 
   me pay them for each of my 50,000 visitors to verify the credit 
   cards.  And we don't even know whether they'll say yes or not, but 
   at least that's one possible approach I have, correct?
   A   That is.
   Q   And I don't know whether today that approach is going to work 
   or not, right?
   A   Well, wait a minute.  I mean all -- we would have to process 
   some transaction.  
   Q   Okay.
   A   Whether or not -- I would be enormously surprised if 
   MasterCard says no, we will not let you charge something on our 
   Q   Now, the alternate approach that you propose is this adult ID 
   system, correct?
   A   Mm-hmm.
   Q   And you propose in your declaration three or four companies 
   that exist now that will do this, correct?
   A   Yes.
   Q   One example is Adult Check, correct?
   A   That is correct.
   Q   And I believe as you told Mr. Ennis, what you know about Adult 
   Check is that you looked at their Web site.
   A   I looked at their Web site and I also studied their 
   specification of how they claim that their stuff works.
   Q   Did you make any effort to determine whether the people behind 
   Adult Check are reputable or not?
   A   No.
   Q   So you don't know if I go to Adult Check and put my credit 
   card number in there, you don't know whether they sell it to other 
   people or not?
   A   I have no idea what they do.
   Q   You don't know if they sell it to people who -- let me ask 
   this.  Did you look at what sites currently use Adult Check?
   A   No.
   Q   Would it be fair to say that the sites that currently use 
   services like Adult Check are essentially pornography sites of the 
   kind in the Coppolino book?  (Laughter.)
   	MR. BARON:  Objection.  Calls for speculation.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Is it -- I'm sorry.  Is the objection to the 
   characterization of the book?  (Laughter.)
   	MR. BARON:  No.  To this witness' knowledge.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  You're objecting that it's beyond the scope 
   of the witness' knowledge?  I'm sorry, I just don't understand the 
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  I didn't hear it.
   	MR. BARON:  The objection is -- well, the question was 
   whether he knows something in detail about pornography on these 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  No, no.  But you've put this witness forward 
   	MR. BARON:  That's correct.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  -- and they've objected to his knowledge 
   about this general field, part of the field, and we've let him on, 
   and they're trying to show in part that his experience is limited 
   at best on some of this because this is something the witness has 
   proposed as a possibility.  It seems to me that he ought to be 
   able to continue to question him on a very significant point.
   	MR. BARON:  I think there's a difference between a mechanism, 
   your Honor, and substance, but that's fine.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Okay.  We'll continue.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  That makes it all clear, doesn't it?
   Q   Do you still remember the question?
   A   The answer, Mr. Hansen, is that when I believe either Adult 
   Check or Validate had a long list advertising who it was that had 
   already signed up with them and which providers were going through 
   them, I did not look at that list at all, I didn't care.  I was 
   only interested in how does this technology work.  So I really 
   could not characterize what kind of sites they were, who they 
   were, I have no idea.  I only looked at the technology.
   Q   I want you to assume hypothetically that if we booted the 
   computer back up right now and got the Adult Check Web site on the 
   screen and looked at the list that every single Web site currently 
   listed under Adult Check would be what you and I would fairly 
   characterize as triple X or true pornography sites.
   A   That would not surprise me, but I have no knowledge.
   Q   Okay.  So under your proposal if I'm this hypothetical 
   Electronic Frontier Foundation or Critical Path AIDS Project, I 
   have to send all of the 50,000 people who come to my site a day to 
   those people and ask them to list themselves on that site, on 
   Adult Check site, which we just established largely as a place 
   where people list themselves who want to get access to pornography 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  We haven't established, we've assumed.
   	THE WITNESS:  No, we didn't -- we did not establish.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  We'll assume.
   	THE WITNESS:  Yes.
   	MR. HANSEN:  You're correct, you're correct.  
   Q   I have to send all of my potential readers off to this list 
   that hypothetically includes only sites that are pornography 
   sites, correct?
   A   I guess your question is would I have to send these people off 
   to them, and the answer is -- before I answer the question, I 
   would like to complain slightly about the 6:15 characterization.  
   The reason I complain about that is because what it does is it 
   precludes a number of other actions you might take.  If we 
   postulated a one-month characterization, for example, then it is 
   possible that the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and 
   any number of others could say we really don't want to be 
   associated with Adult Check, and you could have established an 
   equivalent service of your own that would not have all these 
   people on it and then you would not have to have guilt by 
   association.  When you characterize 6:15, obviously you could not 
   take any of those measures because they will take time to 
   accomplish, but they are possible.
   Q   Well, Dr. Olsen, my colleagues have helped me out while you 
   were doing that answer, and they have showed me Exhibit 6 to Mr. 
   Schmidt's declaration, which I'd like to show you.
   	(Off the record.)
   Q   Would you agree with me that most of those sites appear to be 
   pornography sites?
   A   I don't know what's there, but I wouldn't go there.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Well, chick of the day could be poultry.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Oh, you really are in for ducks and poultry.  
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  It's a leitmotif.
   Q   Nor would you want to be associated with that list, would you?
   A   No, I wouldn't.
   Q   In addition to that, if I were to send all of my potential 
   listeners to Adult Check, my listeners would have to pay money to 
   Adult Check in order to get an adult ID from Adult Check, correct?
   A   That is my understanding.
   Q   And if I have to comply with this law quickly, that's my only 
   option at this point, isn't it?
   A   If you were assuming compliance within 6:15, yes.  If you're 
   assuming compliance within a month or two, you could with your 
   community of friends create an equivalent site where you would not 
   have to have bad neighbors.
   Q   And it might well cost me a significant amount of money to set 
   up an equivalent site, mightn't it?
   A   I couldn't judge how much money it would cost you to do that.
   Q   Now, the one area that Mr. Ennis did not cover is E-mail.  I 
   want you to assume with me that again I'm head of the Critical 
   Path AIDS Project, and I get dozens of E-mail requests for 
   information about safer sex practices a day, which at the moment I 
   respond to without knowing the identity of the person who is 
   seeking the information.  Can I continue to do that under your 
   A   Well, you would have to clarify something for me under the 
   CDA, since I'm -- my understanding of the CDA says did you 
   knowingly communicate with a minor.  If there's nothing in the E-
   mail that you replied to to indicate they were a minor, I don't 
   think you've knowingly communicated with a minor.  Aside from that 
   minor quibble which would be a legal decision, there is the issue 
   of do you know if it's a minor, and the answer is no, you don't.
   Q   So to be 100 percent sure, I'd have to stop answering the 
   questions from people who came to me by E-mail, correct?
   A   Unless the interpretation of the law that's been characterized 
   to me is that by not knowing you could reply in a one-on-one 
   	MR. HANSEN:  Okay.  I have no more questions, your Honors.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Are there any other plaintiffs' cross-
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  I think Mr. Baron --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  No, I know, but they may have some more.  
   Okay.  Any redirect?
   	MR. BARON:  Your Honor, may I suggest that if we take just a 
   very short break so that I may confer with my colleagues 
   concerning redirect --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Sure.  We might have some questions though.
   	MR. BARON:  And this witness has indicated a problem with his 
   -- a time.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  I know.
   	MR. BARON:  Can I get some sense from the Court, because I 
   might go through a time period where Dr. Olsen may need to leave 
   and beyond?
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  I'm sorry.  Do you think that your -- when 
   does he have to leave, quarter after 5:00?
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Quarter after 5:00.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  And you think that -- and I don't want to 
   cut you off, this is your case, and you're entitled to ask it.  
   And if it means your witness has to come back, your witness has to 
   come back, because, you know, the Government doesn't have that 
   many witnesses and I think we ought to hear you.  How long do you 
   think you'll be today --
   	MR. BARON:  Well, I could start, your Honor.
   	THE COURT:  You don't believe you'll finish?
   	MR. BARON:  I don't believe I'd finish by 5:15.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  That's what I wanted to know, by quarter 
   after 5:00.
   	MR. BARON:  That's correct.
   	MR. ENNIS:  Your Honors, may I respectfully request that we 
   press on as much as possible, because the witness may say 
   something on redirect Monday morning if we don't finish to which 
   we need to have a rebuttal witness we don't know about as of now.  
   So the more we can get done now, the more likely it is --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  All right.  Well, of course we're not 
   cutting him.  He wants five minutes or a few minutes to talk to --
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Sure, and his answer is yes.  Do you want us 
   to leave or do you want us to ask questions or (laughter) -- what 
   will you like?  We'll do whatever you like.
   	MR. BARON:  Just call another recess for another five or ten 
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Five minute recess.  All right.
   	(Recess taken at this time.)
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Please be seated.
   	Mr. Baron, how would you like to proceed?  Because if you 
   would prefer, because it is 5:00 o'clock and I'm sure everyone's 
   rather tired, and Mr. Ennis, it seems to me that the redirect has 
   to be within the scope of cross, so therefore Mr. Baron's not 
   going to open up a subject that hasn't already been opened, 
   because you've finished your cross-examination.  I simply don't 
   see any need to subject the witness to the rigors of Friday 
   afternoon traffic to the airport when he's going all the way back 
   to Utah, but what is the Government's preference here?
   	MR. BARON:  Well, Dr. Olsen will be available though 5:15 or 
   so today, but he will also be available on Monday, and we would be 
   willing to start --
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  Well, what would you like to do, would you 
   like to start asking questions?
   	MR. BARON:  Starting early on Monday would be fine with us.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  All right, well, let's do that.  I think 
   that's practical.  And I don't think the plaintiffs are prejudiced 
   at all because your redirect is limited to the subject of cross.
   	MR. BARON:  Thank you, your Honor.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  We haven't been that strict --
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  True, true.
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  We haven't been that strict, but we find it 
   unlikely that you're going to know a lot different later if he 
   goes on and questions for another 15 minutes.
   	JUDGE DALZELL:  And, Counsel, I want to see you in 15 minutes 
   anyway to conference back there as we've been doing anyway.  All 
   	Thank you all very much.  Have a good weekend and a good 
   	JUDGE SLOVITER:  Thank you.  Yes.  And we'll see you Monday 
   	THE WITNESS:  I'll be here.
   	(Proceedings concluded.)

Return to the EPIC Censorship Lawsuit Page