Date: Fri, 15 May 92 15:43:49 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <comp-privacy-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#028
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 15 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 028
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: Is Email Private--NOT!
Re: Is e-mail private?
Re: Public Battle Over Secret Codes, John Markoff, NYTimes May 7
"Nightline's discussion of camcorder tape as evidence"
Re: SSN's from AT&T
Re: What's to hide?
Re: If you have nothing to hide
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the
effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy
(Moderated). Submissions should be sent to
comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to
comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.200].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <schumach@convex.com>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: 15 May 92 01:30:02 GMT
>In article <comp-privacy1.19.2@pica.army.mil> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>>One of the reasons that many people are against 'intrusive' laws is
>>because they disagree with the rational "If you have nothing to
>>hide, then you don't need to worry." However what I have failed to
>>see is a single cogent explination of WHY the rational of "If you
>>have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" is a bankrupt
>>one. Would anyone care to provide a concise explination of WHY the
>>previously mentioned rational is wrong?
(BTW: The word is "rationale".)
Because people disagree, sometimes violently, about what is worth
hiding. For example, one person might go to absurd lengths to prevent
people from learning the details of how he masturbates even though most
people would probably find it uninteresting. For another example,
many people do not want their tax returns made public even though
they might not reveal anything which is, strictly speaking, illegal.
Is the point now clear? (If you have no emotional need for privacy,
or no appreciation for the need in others, then I suppose that no
argument against the "nothing-to-hide" doctrine will have any force
for you.)
------------------------------
From: "Gabriel M. Schuyler" <gabe_sky@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Is Email Private--NOT!
Date: 15 May 92 09:50:54 GMT
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
[Moderator's Note: the source-info field is stating the local mail
machine bypassed authenication of this user.]
Now that you've got me worried. . . . I'm on a machine that is part of MIT's
project athena, and the Kerberos authentification system. My mail may not
be private, but do I have an assurance that I am the only one who can send
mail with my name on it? Or can someone forge my name on a piece of mail and
send it without the reciever getting a notice that the mail is not authentic,
and therefore suspect of forgery? This may be read as "Is Athena more secure
than other systems" if you'd like to give me a general answer. . . .
| Internet:
-Gabe Sky | gabe_sky@cats.ucsc.edu
| America Online:
Editor, | Gabe Sky
...elipsis, west coast edition. | Voice:
| 408/459-8664
--
"Gabriel M. Schuyler"
------------------------------
From: Boris Hemkemeier <boris@math10.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: Re: Is e-mail private?
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 13:56:38 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: math10.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uucp
In article <comp-privacy1.18.6@pica.army.mil> jkp@cs.hut.fi (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <comp-privacy1.14.5@pica.army.mil>, vikrum@milton (Vikram Madan) writes:
>>I was reading the discussion about privacy and the cordless phone and I was
>>just wondering ... how private a medium is e-mail legally? Is it illegal to
>>tap into someones e-mail and read it and if so what legal repercussions can
>>the wrong-doer face?
>
>It is illegal, just as it is illegal to tap into people's phones.
>However, there's a small hole in the law - it's illegal only when the
>email is "in transit" and nobody really knows what that means. That's
>going to be changed to cover all email. The punishments are similar
>to phone tapping.
Illegal (??), hmm, by which law?? American, finish, german? A few days ago
I had a talk with a german lawyer, an expert on computer crime. He said,
that email is not to compare with snail or phone. There is no privacy act
(explicit or implicit) on email in germany.
Boris
--
Boris Hemkemeier boris@math10.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de
------------------------------
From: Paul Olson <olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Public Battle Over Secret Codes, John Markoff, NYTimes May 7
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Date: 15 May 1992 09:31 EST
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
In article <comp-privacy1.24.1@pica.army.mil>, monty@proponent.com (Monty Solomon) writes...
>>From: dlv@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math)
>>Newsgroups: sci.crypt
>>Subject: Public Battle Over Secret Codes, John Markoff, NYTimes May 7
>>Date: 9 May 92 02:43:51 GMT
>
>
> A Public Battle Over Secret Codes
> By JOHN MARKOFF
>
>
> THE NEW YORK TIMES, THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1992
>
> [copy of article deleted]
>
>Dimitri Vulis
>CUNY GC Math
>DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET DLV@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
>
>Disclaimer: my Usenet postings don't necessarily represent anyone's views,
>especially my own and/or CUNY's.
You know, when I read items like this, it just brings home the facts pointed
out by Alvin Toffler in his book POWER SHIFT (I suggest EVERYBODY read this
book; it should be made manditory at the high school level). I believe what we
are seeing here is a case of a bureaucracy unable to keep up with the society
which it is supposidly taking care of. The FBI, NSA, etc. aren't able to keep
up with new developments, so they cry "Foul" and resurect some obscure law
which allows them to dam up the free flow of progress. It kinda goes back to
an old joke we had in the area in which I grew up (rural). It goes, "Hi.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Personally, I think the "law and order" reasoning for these types of
governmental intrusions into personal and business lives is little more than an
excuse by those in goverment to ensure the perpetuation of their positions.
The prime function of a bureaucracy is to maintain the status quo.
Unfortunately the status quo isn't going to do anything except put the country
into the global gutter. The form of government we have today simply isn't able
to respond quickly enough to the changes in the global market and global
situations. And it will fail.
I think the people of this country are starting to wake up, albeit slowly, to
this fact. Listen to the disgust expressed over politicians. Look at how H.
Ross Perot is starting to take states by storm (leading in CA last I heard).
Congressional term limitations are just a start. The public taking back
Congress will be the second.
Don't get me wrong. I'm no anarchist, and I think we live in the best country
on the face of the planet. But I can't help but think that we're going to see
a major revolution in this contry. It won't be violent, but it will be a
revolution. And it will involve the privatization of goverment functions as we
know them today.
Anybody else have any thoughts on these issues?
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| __| Paul J. Olson - VAX Systems Manager & Resident Amiga Addict |
| C= ///| Voice - 301/286-4246, 301725-5501 |
|__ /// | DECnet- DSTL86::OLSON |
|\\\/// | Internet - olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov |
| \XX/ | Disclaimer: Statements in my messages are wholely my own. |
| AMIGA | "[the universe originated] as a quantum fluctuation |
| RULES! | of absolutely nothing." - Guth & Steinhardt |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 11:28:14 EDT
From: Anthony Rzepela <garzepel@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU>
Subject: "Nightline's discussion of camcorder tape as evidence"
Did anyone see ABC's "NIGHTLINE" Thursday, 5/14/92?
Topic: Police use of video shot by "Newshounds", and whether there
was justification to issue subpoenas for such material.
In particular, the tons of video shot in Los Angeles this past month
during the riots. I missed the beginning of the show, but it seems
that someone got some footage the DA wants to use in a case,
and they're doing their best to get their hands on it. COunselor for
the cameraperson was trying to make a name for himself, warning
viewers that there would be "no more" citizens videotaping events
such as the horrors that happened to Rodney King. I didn't exactly
see his logic, but I missed some of the show.
Anyway, a GW University Law professor, who was pitted agasinst the
Los Angeles DA, finally got around to the meat of the matter 2/3 of
the way through the show. After all the dross about whether
citizens could be considered legitimate journalists, blah, blah, blah,
it got down to: we are protected Constitutionally from unreasonable
search and seizure by agencies of the STATE, not each other. Once
private citizens have started turning the camcorders on each other,
and the results are showing up in court as legit evidence, we do have
1984. Some "what ifs.." included: what if some citizen breaks in
your house, records your incriminating activities, and the
tapes become considered evidence, or at least grounds for request for
warrants from the DA. GWU-guy's basic premise: anyone with
a Sony becomes an arm of law enforcement.
My own "what if..": what about when the police start hiring thugs to
do same?
MOST INTERESTING HIGHLIGHT:
If you recall the recent debate about cordless phones, many, many replies
castigated the privacy types as Luddites who couldn't possibly want
to forbid sale of some technology, blah, blah, blah. Here was this same
argument EXACTLY on Nightline last night as DA from LA kept trying to bait
GWU professor with questions like: "Are you actually suggesting we forbid
the sale of camcorders?" Be prepared for this line of reasoning:
law-enforcement types don't want to lose their toys, and the less 'out-there',
the more commonplace the tool, the better. ("My egg beater, a tool of the
state? I doubt it") People will not be made uncomfortable with tools in the
hands of the police that Uncle Joe uses on picnics. Once again, technology
has crept up on a populace unprepared to battle its intrusions.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Anthony J. Rzepela rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu |
| Resource Mgr, CVI Computer Center (215) 448-7741 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Mail Stop 110 | |
| Hahnemann University | |
| Broad & Vine Sts. | |
| Philadelphia, PA 19102 | |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
"I can't stop thinking about Tony...wondering where he is, what he is
doing, who he is with, what is he thinking, is he thinking of me,
and if he'll ever return some day."
------------------------------
From: Mike Rose <mrose@kali.stsci.edu>
Subject: Re: SSN's from AT&T
Reply-To: mrose@stsci.edu
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 16:39:32 GMT
On 14 May 92 00:52:12 GMT, NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) said:
>I looked at
>a CPR/First Aid/BLS signup course sponsored by the local YMCA and
>on line one was a space for the Social Security Number. What the
>hell do they want that for? I can't see any good reason at all.
>The only thing I can think of is the BLS (Basic Life Support) certification
>which is given by the state. Guess I'll call them tomorrow and find out.
The local red cross wanted my ssn when I gave blood. They got really
ugly when I refused. They finally agreed to take my blood without the
ssn, but only because I told them it was that or I'd walk.
Fortunately I was in the position of having something they wanted,
rather than vice-versa.
--
Mike Rose, mrose@stsci.edu, 410-338-4949
------------------------------
From: Mike Hawk <mhawk@csl.sri.com>
Subject: Re: What's to hide?
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 16:51:39 GMT
ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
[snip...]
> The reason the statement "If you have nothing to hide then
> you have nothing to fear" is false is because the government
> is out to get you.
>
>I'm sure there will be some argument on the addition of a modifying
>adjective such as 'usualy', 'sometimes', 'on occasion', or what have
>you. But I find that a triffling matter.
>
> The Jester
[snip...]
the statement "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing
to fear" is NOT false, it's TRUE!!! But you shouldn't use it as
an argument to support giving intrusive powers to others because
you don't have any control over whether or not you have something
to hide.
Other than that, you're basically right. Only a perfectly altruistic
government could be trusted with unlimited power to intrude. Such
a government could only exist where all citizens were perfectly
altruistic. Therefore the power to intrude without justification
is either unnacceptable or unnecessary.
Mike
------------------------------
From: Carl Ellison <cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com>
Subject: Re: If you have nothing to hide
Date: 15 May 92 18:31:27 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.26.2@pica.army.mil> NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:
>If I call my local
>Radio Shack and they ask for the phone number, why should I give
>it to them? For their mailing list?
It's a unique number (they think). My dry cleaner uses it, too.
There's no law that you can't make up a number.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #028
******************************