|
PRIVACY Forum Archive Document
|
PRIVACY Forum Digest Sunday, 15 May 1994 Volume 03 : Issue 10
Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A.
===== PRIVACY FORUM =====
The PRIVACY Forum digest is supported in part by the
ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy.
CONTENTS
ID Card Stories -- Reality Check
(Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
Public Employee SSN's (David Lesher)
Contact Representatives NOW to help sink Clipper (Stanton McCandlish)
EFF Summary of May 3 1994 Clipper and Digital Telephony Hearings
(Stanton McCandlish)
FCC attacks (Carl Page)
FCC order on interstate Caller ID (John R. Levine)
IRS "Privacy Principles" (Laurel Kristick)
Re: alt.sex newsgroups (kaiser@heron.vbo.dec.com)
Censorship as applied to newsfeeds (Willie Smith)
New Electronic Privacy Group Formed (Dave Banisar)
DIAC Virtual Conference Listserv (Doug Schuler / Coralee Whitcomb)
*** Please include a RELEVANT "Subject:" line on all submissions! ***
*** Submissions without them may be ignored! ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet PRIVACY Forum is a moderated digest for the discussion and
analysis of issues relating to the general topic of privacy (both personal
and collective) in the "information age" of the 1990's and beyond. The
moderator will choose submissions for inclusion based on their relevance and
content. Submissions will not be routinely acknowledged.
ALL submissions should be addressed to "privacy@vortex.com" and must have
RELEVANT "Subject:" lines; submissions without appropriate and relevant
"Subject:" lines may be ignored. Excessive "signatures" on submissions are
subject to editing. Subscriptions are by an automatic "listserv" system; for
subscription information, please send a message consisting of the word
"help" (quotes not included) in the BODY of a message to:
"privacy-request@vortex.com". Mailing list problems should be reported to
"list-maint@vortex.com". All submissions included in this digest represent
the views of the individual authors and all submissions will be considered
to be distributable without limitations.
The PRIVACY Forum archive, including all issues of the digest and all
related materials, is available via anonymous FTP from site "ftp ftp.vortex.com",
in the "/privacy" directory. Use the FTP login "ftp" or "anonymous", and
enter your e-mail address as the password. The typical "README" and "INDEX"
files are available to guide you through the files available for FTP
access. PRIVACY Forum materials may also be obtained automatically via
e-mail through the listserv system. Please follow the instructions above
for getting the listserv "help" information, which includes details
regarding the "index" and "get" listserv commands, which are used to access
the PRIVACY Forum archive. All PRIVACY Forum materials are also
available through the Internet Gopher system via a gopher server on
site "gopher.vortex.com/".
For information regarding the availability of this digest via FAX, please
send an inquiry to privacy-fax@vortex.com, call (818) 225-2800, or FAX
to (818) 225-7203.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME 03, ISSUE 10
Quote for the day:
"Never fear... Smith is here!"
-- Dr. Zachary Smith (Jonathan Harris)
"Lost In Space" (1965-1968)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 20:31 PDT
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
Subject: ID Card Stories -- Reality Check
Greetings. As moderator of the Internet PRIVACY Forum Digest, I'm of course
interested in the privacy issues surrounding ID cards, information access
and related issues. However, the current round of stories regarding
supposed plans for national "smart" ID cards, database tie-ins, etc. seem to
have taken on a life of their own, escalating with (as far as I can tell)
little real new information to drive them. In other words, there are signs
that at least part of these stories are tied to rumors that may have been
expanded in the telling.
For example, PRIVACY Forum received a message a few days ago that was a
first hand report of some comments made by a career government official at a
conference, where they were apparently sort of "blue-skying" about the
possibilities for increasingly simplified tax collection through various
sorts of data tie-ins. There was no sign that these ideas had been
incorporated into any sort of formal plan.
In a similar vein, a story from the recent past had the U.S. Postal Service
talking about the ability to issue millions of "smart cards" on short order
for universal identification purposes. Once again, the impression I got
from that piece was of talking about the possibilities for use of such
technology--not that such a plan was about to be implemented in some sort
of surprise move!
Next I saw items where the messages' authors seemed to be combining the two
prior stories into some sort of integrated plan, and were now claiming that
"President Clinton is considering signing executive orders to implement
parts of these plans." Then the message escalation got even more
pronounced--a message in TELECOM claiming that President Clinton was about
to sign such orders.
It seems that the entire sequence of messages escalated with little if any
real new information being added. One can't help but wonder if we might be
looking at a classic case of rumors gone wild.
Obviously, these are important issues worthy of widespread discussion and
debate. I have no special knowledge of any possible underlying realities to
these stories, one way or another. But it did appear that the items seemed
to be spreading around the net feeding upon themselves, becoming more
dramatic with each iteration. I thought it was worth raising a warning that
it might be prudent to not rush to judgement about the validity or veracity
of these stories until more specific information, drawn from sources other
than the same items that have been circulating the net, become available.
Reliable, new information regarding these topics is of course welcome.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 18:28:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher)
Subject: Public Employee SSN's
I regret having lost the original, but from memory:
The ~~"Ohio Newspaper FOIA/PRIVACY Project" based at Kent State
University, and somehow affiliated with professional journalism,
reported that a public employee's SSN is _NOT_ private
infomation as per a recent appeals court ruling. The court cited
the fact that the bill that protects other personnel data does
not mention SSN's.
I hope someone can track down the correct name of this orgainization -
I was impressed with the newsletter.
--
wb8foz@nrk.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 13:43:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
Subject: Contact Representatives NOW to help sink Clipper
At the House hearings on Clipper and Digital Telephony, May 3, 1994,
Chairman Rep. Valentine (D-NC), Rep. Morella (R-MD), and Rep. Rohrbacher
(R-CA) indicated "reservations" about Clipper. Please contact these
Representantives and encourage them.
However, Rep. Dan Glickman (D-KS) indicated "cautious support" for
Clipper, and espoused a 'more surveillance for law enforcement' viewpoint.
It is essential that opinons like these be turned. Contact this
Congressman by any means possible, especially if you are a direct
constituent of Glickman. Show your disapproval of Clipper, politely but
firmly. Congressfolk live on votes, and are not as hard to sway as you
might think. There is little support in the Senate for Clipper. Let's
make it unanimous by turning what little tide there is in the House.
Don't just talk, ACT NOW.
--
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
------------------------------
Date: 4 May 1994 23:19:49 -0500
From: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
Subject: EFF Summary of May 3 1994 Clipper and Digital Telephony Hearings
EFF SUMMARIES
=============
May 4, 1994
________________________
Contents:
* Senate Subcommittee on Technology and the Law holds Clipper Hearing
* House Subcommittee on Technology, Environment and Aviation holds
hearing on Clipper and Digital Telephony proposals; EFF's
Executive Director Jerry Berman and Board Member David Farber
testify
________________________
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE HOLDS CLIPPER HEARING
-----------------------------------------
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law held a
hearing on Tuesday (5/3) to examine the Administration's "Clipper Chip"
Key Escrow Encryption proposal. Witnesses included Asst. Atty. Gen. Jo
Ann Harris (Criminal Justice Division), NIST Deputy Director Raymond
Kammer, Whitfield Diffie (of Sun Microsystems), Stephen Walker
(President, Trusted Information Systems), and NSA director Vice Adm. J.
M. McConnell.
The discussion touched on a number of key issues, including the
necessity of the Clipper proposal for law enforcement; the privacy
interests of network users; the costs associated with implementing the
Clipper scheme; export controls; and whether those intending to use
communications networks to break the law would actually use Clipper as
opposed to other encryption schemes. Although a variety of views were
offered, few new developments emerged in this controversial debate.
Assistant Attorney General Harris and NIST's Ray Kammer both stated that
the Clipper Scheme and Key Escrow system would not provide law
enforcement with any new surveillance abilities. Rather, Harris argued,
Clipper is analogous to a translator. Harris stated, "All Clipper does
is, after a court has authorized interceptions of communications, is
that we get the ability to understand the content of legitimately
intercepted communications". The Administration continues to maintain
that the market would accept the Clipper standard based on the
assumption that it is the strongest encryption scheme, regardless of who
holds the keys. When pressed by Sen. Leahy on this issue, as well as on
the question of whether criminals or terrorist organizations would be
willing to use the Clipper standards, neither witness offered any
assurances, and admitted that this is still an open question. Senator
Leahy expressed skepticism: "I have serious questions about whether any
sophisticated criminal or terrorist organization is going to use the one
code endorsed by the U.S. Government and for which U.S. Government
agents hold the decoding keys. There are a multitude of alternative
encryption methods commercially available. If Clipper Chip does become
the standard encryption method used by Americans, criminals may be
forced to use Clipper to communicate with legitimate outsiders. But
this is a big 'IF' ".
In what may prove to be a significant development, NIST's Kammer
conceded that additional fiscal authorization may be needed to fund the
implementation of the Clipper proposal. If this is the case, Congress
would be required to consider legislation to authorize funding, and at
this point passage of such legislation is at best uncertain. EFF will
continue to closely monitor this development, and will pass along
information as it develops.
Sun Microsystems Diffie urged a slow and careful approach to the Clipper
issue, cautioning that a rush to implement Clipper may create a
bureaucracy that would be difficult to dislodge at a later time. Diffie
stressed the need for international for information security, and
cautioned against attempts to use the power of technology to increase
the power of government. Diffie added, "Integrity of political speech
is the root of legitimate laws in a democratic society. We are in a
position where if we do not make it a national priority to make privacy
available", this integrity may be compromised.
Steve Walker, of Trusted Information Systems, stressed the need for the
removal of export control restrictions. He also countered the
Administration's contention that very few foreign encryption
alternatives exist; noting that his company had found over 340. Walker
displayed several of these applications, and noted that because of
export controls U.S. manufactures of encryption technology face a
significant disadvantage on the world market.
Although the Senate Hearing did not produce many new developments, it is
significant to note that no members of the Subcommittee expressed
outright support for the Clipper Chip proposal. Chairman Leahy, the
most vocal panel member at Tuesday's hearing, was also the most
skeptical, and as such the fate Clipper proposal is still very much in
doubt.
***
HOUSE PANEL CONSIDERS CLIPPER AND DIGITAL TELEPHONY PROPOSALS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday proved to be a busy day for Clipper on the Hill, as the House
Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Technology, Environment
and Aviation also considered the Clipper and Digital Telephony
proposals. Witnesses on the panel included James Kallstrom of the FBI,
NSA's Clinton Brooks, NIST Deputy Director Ray Kammer, Dr. Dorothy
Denning, Dr. David Faber, EFF Executive Director Jerry Berman (on behalf
of DPSWG), and Chmn. Willis Ware of the Congress/NIST System Security
and Privacy Advisory Board. The discussion centered mainly on the
Clipper issue.
Unlike the Senate panel, there seemed to be some support for the Clipper
proposal on the House Subcommittee. Rep. Dan Glickman (D-KS),
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, declared his "cautious
support", for the proposal, and stressed law enforcement's need for
strong surveillance abilities. Subcommittee Chairman Valentine (D-NC),
as well as Reps. Morella (R-MD) and Rohrabacher (R-CA) all expressed
reservations.
James Kallstrom urged full support of both the Clipper and Digital
Telephony proposals on behalf of all law enforcement, citing the need to
counter the increasing sophistication of digital communications
technologies. Kallstrom painted a picture of a network populated by
criminals, terrorists, and drug dealers which would pose a great danger
to public safety, unless law enforcement is given the ability to
intercept illegal communications. EFF's Jerry Berman countered this
assertion by arguing that Clipper would only solve law enforcement's
problems if criminals use it. The only way to do this, Berman added,
would be to mandate the Clipper standard, something which the
Administration does not claim to want to do. The only solution is for
Congress to deny appropriation for Clipper and send the Administration
back to the drawing board, Berman argued.
Dr. Farber, appearing as an expert witness, stated that solutions to
the Clipper issue will not come easily and will not come in one big
step. Rather, a carefully considered and open approach is required.
While stressing the need for encryption standards on communications
networks, Dr. Farber cautioned against "smoke-filled-room standards" of
encryption which are, in his view, likely to bead mistrust. Dr. Farber
also argued for the removal of export controls on encryption
technology.
NSA's Clinton Brooks expressed support for Congressional Consideration
of the Clipper issue. He argued that Clipper is a sound technological
solution to a legitimate law enforcement and National Security dilemma,
and that a public debate on its merits would eventually remove the
misinformation and mistrust of government, and would prove Clipper to be
in the public interest. Dr. Farber offered a strong caution to this,
expressing the concern that a future administration may find it
necessary to mandate the Clipper standard. Dr. Farber suggested that at
the very least Congress weld into law a guarantee that Clipper remain
voluntary, that the Judiciary be an escrow holder. He cautioned, in the
words of Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
**************
Written testimony & documents from the hearings are available as:
ftp ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/Clipper/[filename]
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Crypto/Clipper, [filename]
gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/EFF/Policy/Crypto/Clipper, [filename]
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/Clipper/[filename]
where [filename] is:
berman_eff_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Jerry Berman (EFF)
brooks_nsa_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Clint Brooks (NSA)
denning_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Dorothy Denning
farber_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of David Farber
kallstrom_fbi_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of James Kallstrom (FBI)
kammer_nist_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Ray Kammer (NIST)
ware_csspab_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Willis Ware (CSSPAB)
clip-dt_hearings.docs - charter, witness list, diagrams.
* Senate testimony and spoken testimony from both hearings will be
made available from in the same directory when obtained.
This material will also be available from the EFF BBS within a day or so,
at +1 202 638 6120.
--
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 May 94 12:10:59 PDT
From: carl_page@rainbow.mentorg.com (Carl Page @ DAD)
Subject: FCC attacks
Private Unlisted Phone Numbers Banned Nationwide.
Law Enforcement Explicitly Compromised.
Women's Shelters Security Threatened.
Telephone Rules of 30 States Overturned.
Direct Marketing Association Anticipates Profit.
The FCC released its Report and Order And Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of
March 29th, 1994 (CC Docket No. 91-281)
With the arrogance that only federal bureaucrats can muster, the Federal
Communications Commission has turned the clock back on Calling Number ID
and privacy protection rules nationwide.
Have you ever had any trouble giving a direct marketer your phone number?
You won't any more. Your Per Line Caller ID blocking will be banned,
thanks to the FCC Order which preempts the privacy protections provided by
30 states.
The order carefully enumerates the concerns of law-enforcement agencies
which need per-line blocking to do their jobs. It mentions the need
Women's shelters have for per-line blocking. (A matter of life and death
on a day-to-day basis) It mentions that the customers who attempt to keep
unlisted numbers confidential will be certainly be thwarted. (Can one
train all kids and house-guests to dial *67 before every call? Can you
remember to do it yourself?)
But the Order dismisses all of these problems, and determines that the
greatest good for the greater number will be accomplished if RBOC's can
profit a bit more by selling our numbers and if the direct marketers have
less trouble gathering them.
The FCC doesn't seem to trust consumers to be able to decide whether they
want per-line blocking. It praises the $40 cost of an automatic *67 dialer
as an appropriate disincentive that will benefit the nation by discouraging
people's choice of per-line blocking.
There was one part of the order I was pretty happy about, until I read it.
The FCC has also banned the sale of numbers gathered by 800-900 number
subscribers using the ANI system, unless they obtain verbal consent. (Note
that no rules prevent sale of numbers from the presumably blockable CNID
system.) The problem is that the only enforcement of the rule seems to be
that the requirement must be included in the fine print of the ANI sale
contract between the common-carrier and the ANI subscriber. So it seems to
be up to the common-carrier to enforce a rule which is contrary to their
financial interest. How can a person who suffers from publication or sale
of their number recover compensation?
The FCC is soliciting comments, due May 18th
in their Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking on two issues:
o Whether the Commission should prescribe more precise educational
requirements.
o Whether and how the policies adopted on caller ID should be extended to
other identification services, such as caller party name or CPNI.
I can think of some suggestions...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 02:39:45 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: FCC order on interstate Caller ID
[ From TELECOM Digest V14 #208 -- MODERATOR ]
I picked up a copy of the FCC's Caller ID order, which is available by
FTP as /pub/Orders/Common_Carrier/orcc4001.txt or orcc4001.wp. (Kudos
to the FCC for making this info available so easily and quickly, by
the way.)
Much of the order is straightforward and not contentious, e.g.
delivering CNID between local and long distance carriers is so cheap
to implement that neither may charge the other for the data. They
also note that per-call blocking is a good idea, and that *67 should
be the universal code to block CNID delivery.
But the arguments they list against per-line CNID seem, to me, to be
astonishingly specious.
There are three blocking options 1) per call for anyone, 2) per line
for anyone, and 3) per line for special groups. The FCC thinks, not
unreasonably, that it's a mare's nest to ask the telco to implement 3,
since they have to determine who's in the special groups and who
isn't. Then they say:
43. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that per line
blocking unduly burdens calling party number based services
overall by failing to limit its applicability to those calls for
which privacy is of concern to the caller. The Commission noted
that even in the case of law enforcement personnel, there may be
a need to maintain calling number privacy on some calls, but that
the same number may be used to telephone other law enforcement
personnel, victims of crimes, cooperative witnesses, and family
or friends. The Commission asserted that in these types of
calls, calling number privacy is not needed and calling number
identification can actually be a valuable piece of information
for both the caller and called parties. The record reflects the
useful nature of CPN based services, and the comments of
Rochester illustrate that callers are likely to be interested in
blocking only a small percentage of their calls. The comments of
USCG illustrate the usefulness of caller ID to emergency
services. In contrast, Missouri Counsel's analogy to unlisted
numbers is inapposite because caller ID only permits parties
called by the calling party to capture the calling party number,
and then only if the calling party has not activated a per call
blocking mechanism. We find that the availability of per call
unblocking does not cure the ill effects of per line blocking.
Moreover, in an emergency, a caller is not likely to remember to
dial or even to know to dial an unblocking code. For the
foregoing reasons, we find that a federal per line blocking
requirement for interstate CPN based services, including caller
ID, is not the best policy choice of those available to recognize
the privacy interests of callers. Thus, carriers may not offer
per line blocking as a privacy protection mechanism on interstate
calls. We agree that certain uses of captured calling numbers
need to be controlled, and address that issue infra.
In other words, per-line blocking is a bad idea because subscribers
are too dumb to unblock calls when they want to unblock them, although
they're not to dumb to block calls when they want to block them.
In paragraph 47 they note that where per-line blocking is offered,
telcos use *67 as a blocking toggle, so users can't really tell what
*67 does, but it doesn't seem to occur to them that the problem is
easily solved by requiring a different code for unblock than for
block. In paragraph 48 they wave their hands and say that people who
care about privacy can just buy a box for "as little as $40.00 per
unit" that will stuff *67 in front of each call. Thanks, guys.
The docket number is 91-281, with comments due by May 18th. Comments
must reference the docket number. Send ten copies (yes, 10) to:
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
Washington DC 20554
Before you fire off a comment, please get a copy of the order, since
there's a lot of material beyond what I've summarized. For people
without FTP access, I've put them on my mail server. Send:
send fcc-cnid.txt (for the text version)
send fcc-cnid.wp.uu/ (for uuencoded compressed WP version)
to compilers-server@iecc.com.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 May 94 15:55:42 MDT
From: kristill@robie.cs.trw.com (Laurel Kristick)
Subject: IRS "Privacy Principles"
In the April 25, 1994 edition of _Federal Computer Week_ was an article
titled "Employee guide on protecting taxpayers' privacy planned."
The gist of the story is that the IRS plans to provide formal rules for
protecting personal information about individual taxpayers. The exact
wording of the guidelines is still being negotiated, but includes a warning
against "browsing," or opening taxpayer files without authorization.
The final paragraph of this article was interesting:
"Among other instructions to employees, the guidelines would demand they
collect only information they need for their jobs, to ask taxpayers for
information before seeking it from third parties and to verify with
taxpayers all data obtained from other sources before acting on it."
Can one assume that the IRS feels the need to put this in writing because
of serious problems with employees violating taxpayers privacy and with
accepting non-validated information?
Laurel Kristick
kristill@robie.cs.trw.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 May 94 09:03:33 MET DST
From: Technology Strategy & Architecture <kaiser@51.186.ENET.dec.com>
Subject: Re: alt.sex newsgroups
The University of British Columbia faced the question of Usenet newsgroups
in 1992 and appointed a task force to study it. The task force represented
the department of computer science, the computing center, the law faculty,
the student body, and the Center for Research in Women's Studies & Gender
Relations. In December 1992 they issued a very good "Report .. on the
Appropriate Use of Information Technology", which recommended to permit all
Usenet newsgroups, but to regulate offensive behavior.
Recommended reading.
___Pete
kaiser@heron.vbo.dec.com
+33 92.95.62.97 FAX +33 92.95.50.50
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 10:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: wpns@roadrunner.pictel.com (Willie Smith)
Subject: Censorship as applied to newsfeeds
In the PRIVACY Forum Digest Friday, 29 April 1994 Volume 03 : Issue 09
eccest@watarts.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>Greetings fellow internetwits... I am a grad student at U of Waterloo, in
>Ontario, Canada. Recently, five newsgroups were banned on campus:
>alt.sex.bondage, alt.sex.bestiality, alt.sex.stories, alt.sex.stories.d, and
>alt.tasteless. [Previously, rec.humor, a.s.b, alt.*]
[...]
>newsgroups were banned, allegedly due to the cost of running them. They were
>later restored after a massive student outcry.
Don't you people have public access Unix machines available in
Ontario? If I weren't getting a marginal feed for free at work, for
between free and $1/hr I could have as much Usenet as I could stomach
from local dialins (and my wife has such an account). We're gradually
getting away from 'Usenet is interesting' to 'Usenet is a right, in
fact _all_ of Usenet is a right I cannot be denied!'. Does the
University have an obligation to supply you with video games for your
entertainment? Are they required to purchase everyone a CB radio so
they aren't left out of the vitally important conversations traversing
the airwaves? Do they have to put TV sets in all the dorm rooms? Do
they buy you newspapers and pay your phone bills?
>Although obscene or offensive subject matter cannot be ignored, this recent
>directive has heady censorship and privacy protection implications.
There _are_ no censorship or privacy protection implications here! If
TPTB were preventing you from accessing the Uselessnet ("No student
may have an account with a public access Unix site with a full news
feed"), or requiring that all postings by students from those sites be
first vetted for 'appropriate language', then there would be an issue.
All I hear is "But we _want_ it!!!". If I want the Wall Street
Journal is the paperboy practicing censorship by not giving it to me?
Sorry if this seems a tad heated, can you tell you hit one of my hot
buttons? What's the educational value of a.s.* anyway, besides
exposing students to flamewars?
--
Willie Smith wpns@pictel.com N1JBJ@amsat.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 17:02:33 +0000
From: Dave Banisar <epic@cpsr.org>
Subject: New Electronic Privacy Group Formed
EPIC Press Release
Electronic Privacy Information Center
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 544-9240 (tel)
(202) 547-5482 (fax)
epic@cpsr.org (email)
April 29, 1994
NEW PRIVACY CENTER ESTABLISHED
EPIC TO MONITOR DATA HIGHWAY
WASHINGTON, DC -- A new organization was launched today to address growing
public concerns about privacy protection for the national information
infrastructure. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) will focus
on emerging threats to personal privacy.
Among the threats are the government's controversial Clipper computer
encryption proposal, which has caused widespread protests from companies and
computer users around the world. Proposals for an information superhighway
and recent plans to reform the nation's health care system also involve
significant threats to personal privacy.
"We have established EPIC to focus public attention on these new
privacy issues -- the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony Proposal, medical
record privacy, and the sale of consumer data." said Marc Rotenberg, director
of EPIC.
A 1993 poll by the Lou Harris organization found 80 percent of
Americans concerned about threats to their privacy. More than two thirds
believe they have lost all control over personal information. Still, 70
percent believe that privacy is a fundamental right comparable to "life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and a clear majority of Americans
favor establishment of a privacy agency within the government.
EPIC brings together an unprecedented group of experts from computer
science, information law, civil liberties, human rights, public interest
advocacy, library and research communities, as well as privacy experts and
scholars. Among the members of the EPIC Advisory Board is former Congressman
and Presidential candidate John B. Anderson. Mr. Anderson said today at a
Capitol Hill press conference he was very pleased by the establishment of the
new organization.
"Privacy is one of the bedrock American values. EPIC will help
ensure that privacy is protected in the information age," said Mr. Anderson.
Simon Davies, the Director General of Privacy International, welcomed
the launch of EPIC. Speaking from London, England today he said, "EPIC is an
exciting initiative on the leading edge of privacy protection. My hope is
that EPIC will be the forerunner of many such organizations around the
world."
EPIC is a joint project of the Fund for Constitutional Government and
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. FCG is a non-profit
charitable organization established in 1974 to protect civil liberties and
constitutional rights. CPSR is a national membership organization
established in 1982 by professionals in the computing field concerned about
the social impact of computer technology.
For more information contact EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite
301, Washington, DC 20003. 202 544 9240 (tel), 202 547 5482 (fax)
epic@cpsr.org (email). Current materials include a program description and
list of Frequently Asked Questions about EPIC.
Marc Rotenberg, EPIC Director
David L. Sobel, Legal Counsel
Dave Banisar, Policy Analyst
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 09:27:20 -0700
From: email list server <listserv@snyside.sunnyside.com>
Subject: DIAC Virtual Conference Listserv
Introducing the DIAC Virtual Conference List Serv!
For those that couldn't attend the CPSR conference, DIAC-94, on
"Developing an Open and Equitable Information Infrastructure" and for
those who want to continue attending, we've established the "DIAC Virtual
Conference", a listserv that we'll use to continue the discussion that we
started in Cambridge. Note that the discussions on this listserv will
be used in the developing of DIAC-96 etc.
There were nearly 30 workshops at DIAC-94 - too many for anybody to
attend. Topics included "direct democracies" in MUDs, using the network
for non-profits, the NII and the disenfranchised, networks for the blind,
the ethics and values office of the NSF, measuring the NII, using the NII
and the Internet to encourage political dialogue, and many others. At
each workshop, the convenors and participants were encouraged to work
together towards some objectives and to record their "findings" -
preliminary, final, or just plain guess-work - and make them available on
the list. In this way, those that couldn't participate in some of the
workshops can still join in.
We will also strive to make as many of the proposals and readings
available electronically.
If you'd like the hardcopy proceedings, send $25 to CPSR, P.O. Box 717,
Palo Alto, CA 94302.
To join the virtual conference, send mail to listserv@cpsr.org with the
message:
SUBSCRIBE DIAC Firstname Lastname
where Firstname is your first name and Lastname is your last name. To learn
more about listserv, send the command HELP to the same address.
To post to the list, send mail to diac@cpsr.org
Please note that the workshop convenors should probably refrain from
posting until at least Wednesday, May 18.
Thanks! Hope you can attend!
-- Doug Schuler
Coralee Whitcomb
"Developing an Open and Equitable Information Infrastructure"
DIAC-94
TOPICS
------
This is a list of presentations and workshops from DIAC-94. It should
provide examples of the type of discussion that we're having.
INVITED SPEAKERS
Promise and Problems of the NII: Who Contributes and Who Benefits?
Beverly Hunter, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman
The Information Superhighway & Public Interaction with the Government
Patrice McDermott, OMB Watch
Choosing a Regulatory Scheme for the Information Superhighway
Stan Kugell, Pilgrim Telephone Inc.
Mechanisms for Funding Non-Commercial Information Services
James Love, Taxpayers Assets Project
"It's the Economy, Stupid!"
Herbert Schiller, University of California at San Diego
Democratic Discourse and the Computer Age
Benjamin Barber, Rutgers University
The News in the Future
Walter Bender, MIT Media Lab
Communications Policy at the Crossroads: Channels for Democracy
or Video Shopping Malls
Jeffrey Chester, Center for Media Education
Seizing the Infosphere: An Alternative Vision for Community Networking
Tom Grundner, National Public Telecomputing Network
Playing to Win
Antonia Stone, Playing to Win
WORKSHOPS
---------
Stream A: NON-PROFITS
A2: PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION / MEDIA ARTS CENTERS: MODELS
FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE
- Rika Welsh, Susie Walsh, Abigail Norman,
Susan Fleischmann, Cambridge Community Television
A3. NAVIGATING THE NET: A NON-PROFIT NIGHTMARE??
- Philippa Gamse, Terry Grunwald
A4. MISANET: THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN PRESS ON THE NET
- Philip Machanick, Ronnie Apteker, Philip Green, Thomas
McWalter
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
A5: INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY:
A ROAD MAP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION PROFESSIONALS
- Melissa Lee Price, Morris College
Stream B: ACCESS/OUTREACH
B1. INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNET
- Michael Barrow, Boston Computer Society
B2. THE NII AND THE REST OF US
- Jim Davis, CPSR
B3: INFORMED PARTICIPATION AND THE NATIONAL INFORMATION
INFRASTRUCTURE
- Thomas A. Kalil, The White House, John Mallery, Joshua
Cohen, MIT
B4. PLAYING TO WIN AND THE COMMUNITY COMPUTING CENTER
MOVEMENT
- Antonia Stone and Peter Miller
B5. THE GREATER BOSTON COMMUNITY-WIDE EDUCATION AND
INFORMATION SERVICES ORGANIZING PROJECT (CWEIS)
- Marlene Archer, The Boston Computer Society
Stream C: POLICY (Room 2-135)
C2. MEASURING THE NII
- Richard Civille, Ann Bishop
C3. POLICY FOR THE GII (1)
- William Drake with Herbert Schiller, UCSD
C4. PUBLIC SERVICES FOR THE GII (2)
- Lee McKnight, MIT
C5: NII: PUBLIC OR PRIVATE? DEFINING RESEARCH PARAMETERS
Sherwood A. Dowling
Stream D: CYBERSPACE (Room 2-136)
D2: COLLABORATIVE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL:
COMBINING TALKING AND SEARCHING
- Larry Masinter, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
D3: DECISION MAKING ON THE INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE
- Craig Smilovitz, Analog Devices
D4. DEMOCRACY IN CYBERSPACE
- Amy Bruckman, MIT Media Lab
D5. "SERIOUS" USES OF MUDS?
- Amy Bruckman, MIT Media Lab
Stream E: RHETORIC AND METAPHOR (Room 2-139)
E1: A POSTMODERN VIEW OF NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE
- Dr. Bob Barbour, The University of Waikato, New Zealand
E2. METAPHORS ALONG THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY
- Mark Ackerman, University of California Irvine
E3. THE RHETORICAL HISTORY OF NII
- Steve Fuller, University of Pittsburgh
E4. THE POLITICAL RHETORIC OF NII
- Steve Fuller, University of Pittsburgh
E5. DUPED AGAIN? LEARNING FROM BROKEN PROMISES
- David Levinger, John Monberg, and Steve Pierce
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Stream F: CULTURE (Room 2-142)
F2: EMPOWERMENT AND INTERGENERATIONAL BILINGUAL LITERACY:
PARENT-CHILD PARTNERSHIPS IN LONG-DISTANCE NETWORKS
- Dennis Sayers, New York University
F3: CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE SOFTWARE
- Dr. Bob Barbour, The University of Waikato, New Zealand
F4. NETWORK PERSONALITY
- Ted Gaiser, Boston College
Stream G: FREE SPEECH (Room 2-143)
G1: INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM: PARKS, STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND
...CYBERSPACE? FREE SPEECH IN THE NEW PUBLIC SQUARE
- Anne Levinson Penway, ALA, Paul Vermouth, MIT
G2. INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNET
- Michael Barrow, Boston Computer Society
G3: SECURING THE INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE: NEW CRIMES,
CRIMINALS, LOSSES, AND LIABILITIES IN THE POST-HACKER ERA
- Sanford Sherizen, Data Security Systems, Inc.
G4: COPYRIGHT ON THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
- Simson L. Garfinkel, NeXTWORLD Magazine, Nancy Smith,
Lance Rose
G5. NO FREE LUNCH, EVEN IN THE DIGITAL AGE?
- Richard Lynch, Long Island University
Stream H: CONSTITUENCIES (Room 2-146)
H2. PC's EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
- Joseph J. Lazzaro, Massachusetts Commission For The Blind
H3: GENDER GRIDLOCK ON THE INTERNET SUPERHIGHWAY
- Sarah Douglas, Cheris Kramarae, Univ. of Illinois
H4. DEVELOPING COMPUTER ETHICS CASE STUDIES
- Heinz C. Luegenbiehl, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
H5. ETHICS, EDUCATION AND ENTERTAINMENT ON THE NII:
WHAT SHOULD RESEARCH PRIORITIES BE?
- Rachelle D. Hollander, National Science Foundation
APPENDICES
"Questions to Vice President Al Gore at the National Press
Luncheon" by CPSR.
"Democratizing Technology" by Richard Sclove.
"Universal Access: Making Sure That Everyone Has A Chance" by
Steven Miller.
"Serving the Community: A Public-Interest Vision of the National
Information Infrastructure," CPSR Policy Statement, October 1993.
------------------------------
End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 03.10
************************
Copyright © 2005 Vortex Technology. All Rights Reserved.