Date: Thu, 05 May 94 10:58:20 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <owner-comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#063
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 05 May 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 063
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Military and Law Enforcement
Re: Ethics and the Law
What the IRS is up to
Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted
DOJ Clipper Documents: Summer Release Under FOIA
The Clipper Debate
CFP: The Information Society (long)
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@uwm.edu and administrative requests
to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via
anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp"
with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory
"pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John A. Thomas" <B858JT@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU>
Date: 3 May 94 17:36:52 CDT
Subject: Military and Law Enforcement
Timothy A. Brown cites two articles in one issue of the Army Reserve
magazine. I haven't seen the articles. From his discription, the
first, about military operations in urban terrain, sounds innocuous;
armies have always had to fight in urban areas. The second, about the
use of the Army Reserve for duties similar to those of the National
Guard is more troublesome, but not of major concern. The National
Guards are the militia of the several states, but also subject to
"federalization" as part of the Army Reserve. There doesn't seem to be
any involvement of the active Army in day-to-day law enforcement in
these proposals.
Timothy also states: The Army has no power to make arrests? Maybe
not, YET. On the subject of key escrow encryption(Clipper), who do
you think will be performing the wire taps? It will be the FBI,
BATF, DEA, Dept. of Treasury, Dept. of Justice, etc., not the
NSA. The real threat (to liberty) is from "federalizing" the
law-enforcement system, in combination with the increase in power.
When the local police are more accountable to Washington D.C. than
to the local mayor and the local citizens, "Lord Have Mercy On Us
All."
The Army *doesn't* have power to make arrests. Why should we believe
it will?
The rest of the comment is exactly my point. The additional remark
about "federalizing" the law-enforcement system is well taken. New
monitoring technologies may tend to move more evesdropping to the feds,
since local police will not have the technical resources, even though
they have the authority. This in turn may lead to Congress to try to
expand federal criminal jurisdiction, since the "tools" are available.
John A. Thomas
b858jt@utarlvm1.uta.edu
------------------------------
From: austin@netcom.com (Tony Austin)
Date: 4 May 1994 04:08:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Ethics and the Law
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
WHMurray@dockmaster.ncsc.mil wrote: Tony Austin writes (on
Privacy): It's ethical because it violates no laws. Ethics is
defined as "the study and philosophy of human conduct, with
emphasis on the determination of right and wrong."
I differ with you. If you look at the word "ethos" and "ethic" you will
see that derivation of the words are both latin AND greek and they both
summize to moral custom.
To equate ethical with legal is to give to the state the right to
decide all issues of right and wrong. While most states are more
than anxious to arrogate this authority to themselves, few of was
would like to live in the world in which they were permitted to do
so.
Custom applies to the individual and the group or profession he is in.
The ethics of sending out promo violated no "carved in stone custom;"
like the law, or personal custom I believe. Ergo, I found it ethical.
Many things are perfectly ethical, moral, and right but are illegal
under the laws of many states.
The concept of privacy vs ethics vs morals vs the law is a can of worms
which this newsgroup is in the act of formulating so we can influence
custom/law in the United States.
Likewise, many things that are generally accepted to be unethical,
But for how long. Custom and society are not finished. It's growing and
will change to suit the needs of the people.
I do not know where this idea came from, but it is particularly
dangerous and ought to be resisted at every opportunity. Neither
the state nor even the law are the appropriate arbiters of right
and wrong. While we may have to live with the law, we do not have
to accept it as ethical and moral when it is not.
We are the "arbiters of right and wrong." We encourage policy and we,
through representatives, delete laws.
Sending out promo to immigrants violates no law/custom henceforth it's
okay. (n.b. As far as ethos goes.) The morals of it are individual.
--
Tony Austin
------------------------------
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Date: 4 May 94 1:56:09 EDT
Subject: What the IRS is up to
Here's some excerpts from a speech by Coleta Brueck, Project Manager,
Document Processing system, at the Internal Revenue Service, that she
gave at the Computer Press Association Awards luncheon in New York on
April 15th. I was at the lunch, but the transcript of the speech just
arrived today. The ellipses are mine, but I think I'm not distorting
what she said.
She started by explaining that their current systems are functionally
based on punch card systems from the 1950s, and they want to get more
stuff on-line so that when you call with a question, the person at the
IRS can retrieve a copy of your records while you're still on the
phone. But then:
"We should be able to provide you on-line access to that information.
... You will have the availability to know what your current account
information is, very much like if most of us who have an American
Express Card, you can call -- you don't really know where that 800
number goes, but what you do know is when that person answers your
call, they have your complete account information. ... They can give
you information on your account, they can update your account, or they
can provide you futuristic looks into your account as to where you
might be next year, even, for filing tax returns. We've often talked
about, and this is the terminology that I used when I was in on a task
group, we've talked about the "golden eagle" return. This is the
golden -- or gold American Express Card return. At the end of each
year, if you have an American Express Card, you get a gold account
summary of what you've done for the year. ... Basically, what I say is
that if I know what you've made during the year, if I know what your
withholding is, if I know what your spending pattern is, I should be
able to generate for you a tax return so that I only come to you and
tell you, 'This is what I think you should file for the next year, and
if you agree to that, then don't bother sending me a piece of paper.'
...
But I am an excellent advocate of return-free filing. We know
everything about you that we need to know. Your employer tells us
everything about you that we need to know. Your activity records on
your credit cards tell us everything about you that we need to know.
Through interface with Social Security, with the DMV, with your banking
institutions, we really have a lot of information, so why would you, at
the end of the year or on April 15th, today, do we ask the post office
to encumber themselves with massive numbers of people out there,
picking up pieves of paper that you are required to file?
... We could literally file a return for you. This is the future
that we'd like to go to."
Lest there be any doubt, she was entirely serious, and she clearly
expected that that we'd all think this is as wonderful as she does.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com
------------------------------
From: rivaud@rain.org (L. E. de Rivaud)
Date: 3 May 1994 23:33:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted
Organization: wherever.com
Poivre (poivre@netcom.com) wrote: Is it possible NOT to give them
your license?? Also, if my license # is not my SSN, is it possible
for them to still check my report?? If i were a rich kid and i
could buy a car with cash without loans, leases, etc, would i be
able to buy one without a credit check??
You may not be allowed to test drive the car without showing a
licence. TRW does cross reference driver's licence numbers and social
security numbers. How did they get MY DL #? I live in CA and my DL #
is different from my ss #. Well, try and open a bank account without a
DL or state ID card. Forget it. So the bank writes my DL # down
somewhere and there it goes off into circulation out of my control.
While working at the dealership I saw TRW's run on only name, DOB, and
city of residence. It's just a database: how many Joe Foobars live in
Miami that are born on the exact same day.
ALSO: at the dealership they ran two different kinds of TRW's, "on
screen" and "printed." An on screen was run if the sale associate
wasn't sure you were going to buy a car. S/he just wants to see if you
are worth spending time on. An on screen is just that: on screen, you
can't print it out, (well, I suppose you could do a screen capture, but
it isn't the real thing for credit purpose.) An on screen DOES NOT
show up on your credit report. I don't care what TRW says, but
everyone and their mother ran on screens on themselves and their
friends and no one ever had it show up on a credit report.
If you are going to buy a car AND finance it through the dealership
they do a TRW "printed." This is where the form gets spit out of a
printer, and is the actual piece of paper that gets sent to the bank
with your loan application so that the dealer can arrange financing.
------------------------------
From: Lee Tien <tien@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 4 May 1994 08:00:28 -0700
Subject: DOJ Clipper Documents: Summer Release Under FOIA
As you know, there has been much debate about the Clipper Chip
initiative, but relatively little hard information. John Gilmore,
member of the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
filed FOIA requests to numerous government agencies last April after
the Clipper plan was announced. In June 1993, he filed a FOIA lawsuit
against the Justice Department ("DOJ") and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI"). Gilmore v. FBI, et al, C-93-2117, U.S. District
Judge Charles Legge, Northern District of California.
As a result of this lawsuit, the Justice Department has agreed to a
staggered release of some documents about Clipper and Digital
Telephony. The Justice Department and Gilmore signed a joint
stipulation and agreement on Friday, April 29, 1994, in which the
Justice Department and several other federal agencies agreed to release
documents over the next several months:
a) DOJ's Office of Information and Privacy ("OIP") will transmit
all documents recovered in its search for responsive documents that it
has identified as requiring referrals or consultations to the
appropriate agencies or DOJ components by May 31, 1994. OIP will
complete processing of all documents that it has identified as not
requiring referrals or consultations to other agencies or DOJ
components by June 20, 1994.
b) DOJ's Justice Management Division ("JMD") will complete
processing of all documents recovered in its search for responsive
documents, excluding documents which have been referred for processing
to other agencies, by July 30, 1994.
c) The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") will respond to all
DOJ consultation requests which OMB had received as of April 20,
1994 by May 20, 1994.
d) The National Security Agency ("NSA") will respond to all DOJ
consultation requests which it had received as of April 20, 1994
by July 18, 1994. NSA will complete processing of all documents
which had been referred to it by DOJ as of April 20, 1994 for direct
response to plaintiff by July 18, 1994.
e) The National Security Council ("NSC") will respond to all DOJ
consultation requests which NBC had received as of April 20, 1994 by
July 29, 1994.
f) The Department of Commerce and National Institute of Standards
and Technology (collectively "Commerce") will respond to all DOJ
consultation requests which Commerce had received as of April 20, 1994
by August 7, 1994. Commerce will complete processing of all documents
which had been referred to it by DOJ as of April 20, 1994 for direct
response to plaintiff by August 7, 1994.
The documents being processed by the NSC include the Presidential
Review Directive and Presidential Decision Directive which started the
Clipper initiative. We have been informed that NSC is processing the
two final versions as well as 68 draft versions.
We have also been informed that documents produced in the course of the
OMB legislative clearance process for the Digital Telephony Bill are
being processed. This should provide insight into how the government
decided to proceed with this bill.
We have also been informed that there are approximately 25 documents
produced in the course of the government's solicitation of industry
views on Clipper.
Obviously, we do not know how much useful information will be
released. It is probable that the documents will be heavily redacted.
Given the recent directives from the President and the Attorney General
that all possible discretionary disclosures of information should be
made, we hope, optimistically, that these disclosures will prove
illuminating.
Unfortunately, the FBI is not a party to this agreement. We are in the
process of attempting to obtain the release of about 3000 pages of FBI
records. FBI has told the Court that it will be approximately 2 years
and 8 months before it will even begin processing Gilmore's request,
and that actual processing will take about a year, if not more. We
believe that this delay is unlawful and cannot be countenanced.
Lee Tien
Attorney for John Gilmore
tien@well.sf.ca.us
PLEASE REDISTRIBUTE IF YOU THINK IT'S WORTH IT. (feel free to edit any
obvious typos, too)
------------------------------
From: agrosso@access.digex.net (Andrew Grosso)
Date: 4 May 1994 11:02:11 -0400
Subject: The Clipper Debate
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
The Great Clipper Debate: National Security or National
Surveillance?
Sponsored by: The Georgetown University Law Center Space Law Group and
Communications Law Forum
In Coordination with: The George Washington University Institute for
Computer and Telecommunications Systems Policy, the Association for
Computing Machinery Special Interest Group for Computers and Society,
and the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section.
Date and Time: May 9, 1994, at 7:30 p.m.
Place: The Georgetown University Law Center (Moot Court Room) 600 New
Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
The Administration, through the Department of Justice and the National
Security Agency, has proposed a standard encryption algorithm for both
the public and commercial marketplace, with the goal of making this
algorithm the method of choice for persons wishing to encode their
telephone and other voice and data communications. The FBI and the
NSA are concerned that the increasing availability, and affordability,
of encryption mechanisms will make it difficult and in some cases
impossible for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tap into
and to understand the communications of criminals and other pertinent
groups. This proposal has become known as the "Clipper Chip," in that
it would be implemented by the voluntary insertion of a computer chip
into telephone, fax machine, and other communications systems.
The Clipper Chip has generated considerable controversy. Opposing it
are various civil libertarian groups, as well as telecommunications
companies, software and hardware manufacturers, and trade
associations. The debate has raged behind closed doors, and openly in
the press.
On Monday, May 9, at the Georgetown University Law School, a round
table debate will take place on this controversy. The participants
represent both sides of the issue, and are illustrative of the various
groups which have taken a stand. The participants are:
Dorothy Denning, Chairperson of the Computer Science
Department of Georgetown University
Michael Godwin, Legal Counsel of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation;
Geoffrey Greiveldinger, Special Counsel to the Narcotic and
Dangerous Drug Section of the U.S. Department of Justice;
Michael Nelson, of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy of the White House;
Marc Rotenberg, Director of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center; and
Stephen Walker, President of Trusted Information Systems,
Inc., and a former cryptographer with the National Security
Agency
In addition, there will be two moderators: Dr. Lance Hoffman,
Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at The George
Washington University, and Andrew Grosso, a former federal prosecutor
who is now an attorney in private practice in the District of
Columbia.
The program will last approximately two and one half hours, and will be
divided into two parts. The first half will offer the panel the
opportunity to respond to questions which have been submitted to the
participants beforehand; the second will present the panel with
questions from the audience.
There is no charge for this program, and members of the public are
encouraged to attend. Reservations are requested in advance, and
should be directed to one of the following individuals:
- C. Dianne Martin, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science, The George Washington
University, Phillips Hall, Room 624-C, Washington, D.C. 20052;
telephone: (202) 994-8238; E mail: diannem@seas.gwu.edu
- Sherrill Klein, Staff Director, ABA Criminal Justice Section,
1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; telephone: (202)
331-2624; fax: (202) 331-2220
- Francis L. Young, Young & Jatlow, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite
600, Washington, D.C. 20037; telephone: (202) 663-9080; fax:
(202) 331-8001
Questions for the panelists should be submitted, in writing, to
one of the moderators:
- Lance Hoffman, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science, The George Washington University,
Washington, D.C. 20052; fax: (202) 994-0227; E mail:
ictsp@seas.gwu.edu
- Andrew Grosso, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C.,
20037; fax: (202) 663- 9042; E mail: agrosso@acm.org
PLEASE POST
------------------------------
From: Rob Kling <kling@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 4 May 94 23:59:29 GMT
Subject: CFP: The Information Society (long)
This posting contains:
1. Information and CALL FOR PAPERS for "The Information Society"
journal, published quarterly by Taylor & Francis
2. Titles of recent articles published Vol. 8 (1992) and Vol. 9 (1993)
3. Subscription Form
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
An International Journal
An "information revolution" is clearly underway. The exponential
growth in computational capability per unit dollar will continue at least
for the next several decades. Communication bandwidth is undergoing
simultaneous exponential growth. Connectivity among individuals,
companies and nations is forming what some are calling "worldnet",
"cyberspace", "global grid" or "the matrix." These combined trends are
leading us into an Information Society in which wealth, power and freedom
of action derive from access to, and effective use of, information.
"The Information Society" journal, published since 1981, is a forum for
thoughtful commentary about impacts, policies, system concepts and
methodologies related to these trends. It is a refereed journal that
publishes scholarly articles, position papers, short communications and
book reviews on these topics.
"The Information Society" is a multidisciplinary journal whose audience
includes policy- and decision-makers and scientists in government,
industry and education; managers concerned with the effects of the
information revolution on individuals, organizations and society; and
academic researchers and others with an interest in issues regarding the
Information Society.
Among the topics addressed within the journal are:
* the implications of the coming surge in electronic data interchange
(EDI) among businesses globally,
* the ability of companies to "outsource" portions of their information
processing to different countries around the world, creating
transborder data flow issues for the countries involved and
increasing the rapidity with which jobs migrate globally,
* fear of cultural imperialism and inundation,
* options for, and implications of, various forms of "electronic
democracy",
* the rise of "virtual communities" of persons worldwide engaging in
"many-to-many" communication among their participants, irrespective
of borders or corporate structures.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The journal is currently seeking papers for Volume 11 (1995). |
| Manuscripts should be sent in triplicate (or electronically by |
| Internet) to the editor-in-chief. For manuscript format details,|
| contact the editor or see the inside back cover of an issue of |
| the journal. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
editor-in-chief:
Dr. Robert H. Anderson tel: (310) 393-0411 x7597
RAND Corporation fax: (310) 393-4818
1700 Main Street internet: anderson@rand.org
Santa Monica CA 90407-2138
Articles published in Vol. 8 (1992) and in Vol. 9 (1993) include:
Bankes, S., Builder, C. Seizing the moment: harnessing the information
technologies. 8(1), 1992.
Chartrand, R.L. Dreams and realities: the international dimension of the
1991 white house conference on library and information services. 8(2),
1992. (summary of conference proceedings, with brief articles by
Bearman, T.C., Duncan, J.W., Rowe, G.R., Young, E.L., Bleakley, K.W.,
Kroloff, G.M., Ganley, O.H., Horton, F.W.)
Forester, T. Megatrends or megamistakes: what ever happened to the
information society?. 8(3), 1992.
Parker, E.B. Developing third world telecommunications markets. 8(3),
1992.
Swatman, P.M.C., Swatman, P.A. EDI system integration: a definition and
literature survey. 8(3), 1992.
Markus, M.L., Bikson, T.K., El-Shinnawy, M., Soe, L.L. Fragments of your
communication: email, vmail, and fax. 8(4), 1992.
Boon, J.A. Information and development: some reasons for failures. 8(4),
1992.
Ronfeldt, D. Cyberocracy is coming. 8(4), 1992.
Ciborra, C.U. From thinking to tinkering: the grassroots of strategic
information systems. 8(4), 1992.
Foegen, J.H. From Cobol to diction. 8(4), 1992.
Kling, R., Dunlop, C. Controversies about computerization and the
character of white collar worklife. 9(1), 1993.
Calantone, R.J., Holsapple, C.W., Johnson, L.E. Communication and
communication support: an agenda for investigation. 9(1), 1993.
Schoonmaker, S. Trading on-line: information flows in advanced
capitalism. 9(1), 1993.
Arthur, C. Zen and the art of ignoring information. 9(1), 1993.
Mankin, D. Review of Peter G.W. Keen, "Shaping the future: business
design through information technology". 9(1), 1993.
Kling, R. Organizational analysis in computer science. 9(2), 1993.
Bikson, T.K., Law, S.A. Electronic mail use at the World Bank: messages
from users. 9(2), 1993.
Bikson, T.K., Law, S.A. Electronic information media and records
management methods: a survey of practices in United Nations
organizations. 9(2), 1993.
Martin, W.J., McKeown, S.F. The potential of information and
telecommunications technologies for rural development. 9(2), 1993.
Lincoln, T.L., Essin, D.J., Ware, W.H. The electronic medical record: a
challenge for computer science to develop clinically and socially
relevant computer systems to coordinate information for patient care
and analysis. 9(2), 1993.
Kling, R., Covi, L. Review of Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler "Connections:
new ways of working in the networked organization". 9(2), 1993.
Ware, W. The New Faces of Privacy. 9(3), 1993.
Soe, L.L., Markus, M.L. Technological or social utility? Unraveling
explanations of email, vmail, and fax use. 9(3), 1993.
Orlikowski, W.J. Learning from Notes: organizational issues in
groupware implementation. 9(3), 1993.
Katz, J.E. and Hyman, M.H. Dimensions of concern over telecom privacy
in the United States. 9(3), 1993.
Chen, Z. Intelligence and discovery in an information society: an essay
in memory of Derek de Solla Price. 9(3), 1993.
Allen, J.P. Review of "Microcomputers in african development: critical
perspectives". 9(3), 1993.
Rosenberg, R.S. Free speech, pornography, sexual harassment, and
electronic networks. 9(4), 1993.
Dedrick, J., Kraemer, K.L. Caught in the middle: Information technology
policy in Australia. 9(4), 1993.
Kraemer, K.L., Dedrick, J. Turning loose the invisible hand: New
Zealand's information technology policy. 9(4), 1993.
Medina-Mora, R., Winograd, T., Flores, R., Flores, F. The action
workflow approach to workflow management technology. 9(4), 1993.
To subscribe, the following form may be clipped and mailed to the address
below:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
Published quarterly, ISSN 0197-2243
___ Please enter my institutional subscription to Volume 10 (1994)
at US$92
___ Please enter my personal subscription to Volume 10 (1994) at US$46
___ Please send me a free sample copy
Payment options:
___ Check/Money Order Enclosed (please make checks payable to
Taylor & Francis, in U.S. funds only)
___ Please charge my: ___ VISA __ MC ___ Amex
Card # ________________________________ Exp date: _________
Signature: _________________________________________________
Telephone: ____________________________________
(required for credit card purchases)
or BILL TO: (please print)
Name _________________________________________________
Institution __________________________________________
Address ______________________________________________
City _________________________________________________
State ____________________________ Zip _______________
SHIP TO (if different):
Name _________________________________________________
Institution __________________________________________
Address ______________________________________________
City _________________________________________________
State ____________________________ Zip _______________
Mail this form to: Taylor & Francis Inc.
1900 Frost Road, Suite 101
Bristol PA 19007-1598
toll free: 1-800-821-8312
or fax: 1-215-785-5515
Outside the U.S. contact: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Rankine Road
Basingstoke, Hampshire
RG24 8PR, United Kingdom
tel: +44 (0) 256 840366
fax: +44 (0) 256 479438
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #063
******************************
.