Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 16:33:44 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 V3#014
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 13 Aug 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 014
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Enhanced Driver's License
NSA Seeks Delay in Clipper
Re: First Person broadcast on privacy
Re: Encryption policy.
Does the "Stopper" 1-800 number use Caller ID or ANI
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MP%MPA15C@mpa15ab.mv-oc.unisys.com
Date: 12 AUG 93 10:12
Subject: Enhanced Driver's License
The August 2, 1993 edition of _Government_Computer_News_ contains an
article titled, "Feds listen as states describe benefits of kiosks".
The article deals with efforts in California to create "Info/California
kiosks" and in Florida to "to cut costs by building a centralized,
on-line system that integrates federal and state benefits programs."
Steve E. Kolodney, director of California's Office of Information
Technology describes how California is "transforming driver's licenses
into personal identification and authentication devices."
"California licenses now look more like credit cards with magnetic
stripes as well as the owner's picture, Social Security number and
thumbprint. Kolodney said citizens can insert their enhanced licenses
into state kiosks to reserve recreational facilities and obtain state
information."
Kolodney is also quoted as saying, "We have to start thinking of
technology as infrastructure not information."
The final line of the article is, "But Kolodney warned that all
governments must develop clear policies for data ownership because these
massive databases will have tremendous value."
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Perew Unisys Corp MREW/CORP | I sometimes hold it half a sin
(714) 380-5484 Fax: (714) 380-6560 | To put to words the grief I feel
mp%mpa15c@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com| For words, like Nature half reveal
mp@mpa15c.mv-oc.unisys.com | And half conceal the Soul within.
cb103@cleveland.freenet.edu | - Tennyson
============== "All opinions are mine," sayeth the poster ==============
Please forward bounced mail to: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
------------------------------
Organization: CPSR Washington Office
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 9:37:14 EST
Subject: NSA Seeks Delay in Clipper
[Moderator's Note: David Sobel <sobel@washofc.cpsr.org> submitted
a copy of this, too. ._dennis ]
NSA Seeks Delay in Clipper Case
The National Security Agency (NSA) has asked a federal court
for a one-year delay in a lawsuit challenging the secrecy of the
government's "Clipper Chip" encryption proposal. The suit was
filed by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
on May 28 and seeks the disclosure of all information concerning
the controversial plan.
In an affidavit submitted to the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia on August 9, NSA Director of Policy
Michael A. Smith states that
NSA's search for records responsive to [CPSR's] request
is under way, but is not yet complete. Because the
Clipper Chip program is a significant one involving the
participation of organizations in four of NSA's five
Directorates and the Director's staff, the volume of
responsive documents is likely to be quite large.
Moreover, because the Clipper Chip program is highly
complex and technical and is, in substantial part,
classified for national security purposes, the review
process cannot be accomplished quickly.
CPSR called for the disclosure of all relevant information
and full public debate on the proposal on April 16, the day it was
announced. While NSA has insisted from the outset that the
"Skipjack" encryption algorithm, which underlies the Clipper
proposal, must remain secret, the Smith affidavit contains the
first suggestion that the entire federal program is classified "in
substantial part." In the interest of obtaining timely judicial
review of the agency's broad classification claim, CPSR intends to
oppose NSA's request for delay in the court proceedings.
In another case involving government cryptography policy,
CPSR has challenged NSA's classification of information concerning
the development of the Digital Signature Standard (DSS). The
court is currently considering the issue and a decision is
expected soon.
CPSR is a national public-interest alliance of computer
industry professionals dedicated to examining the impact of
technology on society. CPSR has 21 chapters in the U.S. and
maintains offices in Palo Alto, California, and Washington, DC.
For additional information on CPSR, call (415) 322-3778 or
e-mail <cpsr@cpsr.org>.
David L. Sobel
CPSR Legal Counsel
<sobel@washofc.cpsr.org>
------------------------------
From: Mark Meuer <meuer@camax.com>
Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 21:43:11 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.12.2@pica.army.mil>,
Bill Stewart <wcs@anchor.att.com> wrote:
>(unless, of course, she *was* armed and violent,
>which probably would have been mentioned on the tube if true.)
Of course, since we can trust TV to give both complete
and fair treatment in all news stories. :-)
-mark
--
Mark Meuer <>< | CAMAX, Inc | (612) 854-5300 Ext 376 | meuer@camax.com
The process of making Mars' environment hospitable is called terraforming,
which is a Latin term meaning "really dumb idea." -- David Prill
------------------------------
From: James R Ebright <jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Encryption policy.
Date: 13 Aug 1993 03:32:30 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University
In article <comp-privacy3.13.6@pica.army.mil> irakliot@lance.colostate.edu writes:
>Hope I'll get some responses here. Is encryption in email legal?
Yes. How could it be otherwise? As long as the headers exist and the
data is ascii characters, the net will pass it along.
>Is it legal for an electronic mailing list, or a usenet newsgroup
>to operate using encryption?
Probably...but there is a key distribution problem :) [come to think
of it, talk.bizzare is already encrypted!]
>
>If encryption is against the law, please site some references.
Encryption is illegal for ham radio in the US. Government agencies are
regulated as to the type of encryption they may use -- to make sure it is
good enough but not too good :) I believe cross border traffic in France
must be non-encrypted.
--
Information farming at... For addr&phone: finger A/~~\A
THE Ohio State University jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu ((0 0))____
Jim Ebright e-mail: jre+@osu.edu \ / \
Support Privacy: Support Encryption (--)\
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 00:43:58 PDT
From: Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
Subject: Does the "Stopper" 1-800 number use Caller ID or ANI
I believe that I found 1-800-235-1414 posted in this group a while back
and gave it a try to see if the free per call caller ID blocking that BC
Tel is required to provide was working.
I was not too surprised to find that it read my area code and number to me.
I reported this to BC Tel, with a copy to the CRTC, and received a reply
saying that there had been a programming problem in a couple of switches
related to "ANI spill" which had been fixed.
A second call to the number above gave me a repeat of my number being read
to me, followed by a second voice saying that I could prevent "joker" from
using his "caller ID box" to get my number by calling 1-900-STO-PPER. My
understanding of US advertising laws is that this means that they got my
number by Caller ID, not by ANI or some other technique. Am I wrong?
A third call to the number above gave a different message, and mentioned
1-800-852-9932 as a new number to call "for a caller ID demonstration".
When I called it my number was read to me again.
Am I justified in pursuing this with BC Tel and the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission as a failure to comply with the CRTC
decision that Canadian phone companies must provide free Caller ID blocking or
is STOPPER faking Caller ID with ANI?
BC Tel has been a supporter of the Victoria Freenet, and seems to have a
much better attitude toward customers than the local Cable TV Companies,
so I don't want to give them a hard time about this if they don't deserve it.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #014
******************************