PRIVACY Forum Archive Document
PRIVACY Forum Digest Sunday, 15 May 1994 Volume 03 : Issue 10 Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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 (email@example.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 "firstname.lastname@example.org" 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: "email@example.com". Mailing list problems should be reported to "firstname.lastname@example.org". 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 email@example.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: firstname.lastname@example.org (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: email@example.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. -- firstname.lastname@example.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 13:43:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Stanton McCandlish <email@example.com> 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 * firstname.lastname@example.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 1994 23:19:49 -0500 From: email@example.com (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 * firstname.lastname@example.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 94 12:10:59 PDT From: email@example.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: firstname.lastname@example.org (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 email@example.com. Regards, John Levine, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 May 94 15:55:42 MDT From: email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 May 94 09:03:33 MET DST From: Technology Strategy & Architecture <email@example.com.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 firstname.lastname@example.org +33 126.96.36.199 FAX +33 188.8.131.52 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 10:50:51 -0400 (EDT) From: email@example.com (Willie Smith) Subject: Censorship as applied to newsfeeds In the PRIVACY Forum Digest Friday, 29 April 1994 Volume 03 : Issue 09 firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com N1JBJ@amsat.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 17:02:33 +0000 From: Dave Banisar <firstname.lastname@example.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) email@example.com (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) firstname.lastname@example.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 <email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com 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 ************************
Vortex Technology Home Page
Copyright © 2005 Vortex Technology. All Rights Reserved.