Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 17:33:22 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 V2#051
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 14 Jun 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 051
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Clipper/Eric S. Raymond/Dr. Dorothy Denning
Re: Those UPS clipboards again
Post Office Boxes
Re: Clipper -- SJ Merky News
Re: Retaliatory Crimes
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
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 19:27:28 EDT
From: "George T. Talbot" <ugtalbot@king.mcs.drexel.edu>
Subject: Clipper/Eric S. Raymond/Dr. Dorothy Denning
Last month in the RISKS forum (comp.risks) Eric S. Raymond had an article which
discussed the Clipper proposal. He raised many issues of the relationship
between government and the individual in the context of this proposal.
In the next digest, Dr. Dorothy Denning rebutted his article with an article
which was basically a small technical correction to his discussion of the
actual algorithm, and a dismissal of everything else as "wild speculation".
I became interested in hearing her actual views on the "wild speculation" so
I came up with the following article. She found it to be rather prejudiced
and inappropriate for distribution in the forum.
-----------------------CUT HERE-------------------------------
Date: May 23rd, 1993
From: ugtalbot@mcs.drexel.edu (George Thomas Talbot)
Subject: Clipper/Eric S. Raymond/Dr. Dorothy Denning
I have been following the discussions on the Clipper chip and NIST's
proposal since it started in this group. There have been many impassioned
assertions and counter assertions by the two groups that have formed on
either side of this issue.
It is my concern that we, as a society, are drifting from some of the under-
lying principles of government that were intended by the framers of the
Constitution. The writers of the Constitution, after the Revolutionary War
had a well justified distrust of large power structures. This was well-
evidenced in the initial form of government which granted excessive powers
to states. This experiment failed because of the conflicting interests of
the states. The essential lesson that was learned at this time was one of
balance between interests of the individuals and of interests of the
country as a whole.
It is my concern that we all search to find the appropriate balance point
on this issue. When NIST introduced this proposal, and Dr. Denning made her
initial post to this group describing it, the government made it very clear
that their major public concern was one of monitoring communication for
suspected criminal activity. I don't think that the necessity for the
government to be able to pursue and stop criminal activity is the major issue
here. It is understood by members of our society that one of the reasons
which we agree to have a government serve us is to protect us from ourselves.
The issue here is the relationship between individuals and a large power
structure. That was what Mr. Raymond was addressing in his post. There is
a large amount of truth in the notion that the government in the past 80 years
has drifted from the idea of service of the individual to service of only the
large power blocs among the individuals. The government has also become much
more adept at manipulating opinions in recent years.
It is important for all of us as a society to learn to find balance points
when dealing with issues such as electronic privacy. This will not be
accomplished by confrontation, but by cooperation. The private sector has,
on this issue, been more than willing to work out solutions which are
agreeable to both sides. On this particular issue it has been the government
and the persons espousing the government's position who have been less than
forthcoming on this issue. Part of it is the sensitive nature of privacy
and national security. However, I feel that Mr. Raymond's fears do have
significant justification. As an example, take the response by Dr. Denning
to Mr. Raymond's post. It deals with a possible technical inaccuracy of
his description of the security of the DSS algorithm, while dismissing the
more important societal and governmental concerns as "wild speculations".
Sure, sometimes people's fears may seem "wild", but it is the government's
responsibility for addressing the fears of the individual and possibly
modifying government action when the individual fears have sufficient
justification. It is also the obligation of those who speak for the
government and/or hold the government's opinion to carefully consider and
discuss the fears of the individuals as to how the government's proposed
action may affect them. Simple dismissal as "wild" or "crazy" or "fringe"
as I have read in government/authority position on this issue is not
conducive to finding the appropriate balance point when discussing future
government action.
I would appreciate a carefully considered reply to the societal issues
raised in this forum from Dr. Denning.
George Thomas Talbot
<ugtalbot@mcs.drexel.edu>
------------------------------
From: John Starta <tosh!starta@enuucp.eas.asu.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 07:46:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Those UPS clipboards again
Organization: GO SUNS!
In <comp-privacy2.50.5@pica.army.mil> Carl Oppedahl <oppedahl@panix.com>
writes:
>Remember those UPS clipboards, the ones where the recipient of a
>package is asked to sign on a touch pad rather than on a piece
>of paper? Well, today's Network World (June 7, 1993) describes
>Maxitrac, said to have debuted in 1991, which lets users employ
>their own PCs to tie into UPS's computer network to instantly
>check the status of any package they have shipped. Users can
>display actual receipt signatures on their PC screens for confirmation
>of delivery.
To clarify, Maxitrac is intended to help _businesses_ (the "users"
Network World is referring to) track their large quantity of packages
through the UPS shipping network. Joe Average customer doesn't have
access to Maxitrac; if he wants to find his package he must call a
[human] UPS customer service representative.
john
--
*** PHOENIX SUNS * 1993 WESTERN CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS * PHOENIX SUNS ***
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Subject: Post Office Boxes
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 11:03:22 -0500 (CDT)
Phones: (414) 229-5170 office; 962-4719 home; 229-6958 fax
My wife is responsible for a Post Office Box at the Shorewood
Wisconsin Post Office. That office is located at 1620 E Capitol Drive
and they accept mail addressed like the following:
Joe Doaks
1620 E. Capitol Drive #12345
Shorewood, WI 53211
(her box number is not #12345)
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu |
| Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 |
| Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
------------------------------
From: "Michael T. Palmer" <m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.clipper,alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Clipper -- SJ Merky News
Date: 11 Jun 1993 11:39:54 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
In article <strnlghtC8F22s.9rz@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>[etc]
>As far as the details, as long as the offer is voluntary and alternatives
>are not prohibited, I don't see why the big flap about public involvement.
>The government makes a zillion voluntary programs available under the laws
>and their general mandates without the need for public involvement. It was
>an OFFER, boys and girls.
>[etc]
I think what most people object to is that the feds have a habit of making
"offers" with a club in the hand behind their back. Which means that your
qualifiers above ("voluntary and alternatives are not prohibitied") are
likely to be the very things that disappear with the NEXT Executive Order --
why bother with messy legislative battles?
It appears to many people that the problem with this proposal is that it lays
the foundation for future action to: (1) prohibit the use of alternative
cryptographic technology -- after all, only *criminals* would need better
code capability than Clipper provides; and (2) establish the precedent that
all future systems MUST use key escrow systems to provide the feds a way
to eavesdrop if they want to.
I recently saw about the best quote I can think of for this situation,
spoken by none other than the "illustrious" LBJ himself:
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will
convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it
would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson
If you start to view things in this light, I think you'll see VERY QUICKLY
why so many people are opposed to this "generous offer."
Michael T. Palmer | "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any
m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov | other way than one which will conceal it
RIPEM key on server | from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon, 1220-1292
------------------------------
From: George Crissman <btree!crissman@ucsd.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 22:57:45 GMT
Organization: Brooktree Corporation
Subject: Re: Retaliatory Crimes
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
In article <comp-privacy2.50.6@pica.army.mil> Geoffrey Kuenning
<geoff@ficus.cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> This, according to Justice Scalia, is precisely the reason
>the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits excessive
>fines: to remove the profit motive from classifying certain behavior
>as criminal.
>--
If this is true, how come the fines for exceeding the posted speed
limit are so high? How come they have a new photo-speed-trap, in
which they take a picture of you & your car & the radar-indicated
speed and _mail_ the picture to you, requesting the payment of a fine?
Low-posted speed limits are a primary method of income to the various
municipal governments lately....
-- George Crissman
*********************************************************************
Opinions Expressed Are Not Necessarily Those Of Brooktree Corporation
George Crissman San Diego, California
*********************************************************************
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #051
******************************