Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 08:45:33 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 V5#034
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 15 Sep 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 034
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Afraid of Big Brother?
Re: West Publishing - Permanent Injunction Regarding Legal Text
Re: Some Privacy Notes
Government Survailance
Re: Bank Account Numbers
Privacy and the IRS
PGP Back Door
Reason 52: Cost
Reason 55: Extent
Network Security Journal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Housekeeping information is located at the end of this Digest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: v-one!dgthornton@uunet.uu.net (Daryl George Thornton II)
Date: 13 Sep 1994 13:02:16
Subject: Afraid of Big Brother?
Organization: V-ONE
funny to see this big brother(s) observation posted here. I was about
to post an open question to biz.smartcards (promotion plug) which I
started a few weeks ago.
I market smartcards blah blha bhal blah....but No one ever asks or
mentions or voices corncern (though it would seem obvious to do so) the
big brother-national ID aspects of smartcards EXCEPT government
employees and in particular military employees.
IMHO It would seem to me that government employees are the most aware
of the abuse possibilities. Most likely from thier own day to day
inside view of the government at work.
When I started this job I expected resistance from commercial users but
instead have found them the most interested and embracing of SmartCard
technology.
also see : Forbes ? Fortune? mining the datadump? American Expresses
use parallel computer processing machines to figure when you would buy
something in the future from what you have purchased in the past and
send coupons/discounts etc. to entice to repeat such purchase again.
(i.e. ever three months you buy XXX you have not purchased XXX in
9-months send discounts/promo.)
In short business loves big brother(s).
Is the government big brother Is the government afraid of big
brother(s)? Can any one big brother control/influence thousands of big
brothers? Can thousands of big brothers control/influence one big
brother?
--
If I had onions, I am not sure who would own them but, since all have are
opinions, I will claim them as my own.
------------------------------
From: robert@unlv.edu (Robert Cray)
Date: 13 Sep 94 17:42:08 GMT
Subject: Re: West Publishing - Permanent Injunction Regarding Legal Text
Organization: Information Science Research Institute
Prof. L. P. Levine (levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu) wrote: According to
the atty, OPS had obtained copies of West publications then tore
the pages from the spine then scanned in the printed matter. OPS,
apparently, deleted any material copyrighted by West then made the
CD-ROM's from what was probably public domain material.
Can anyone tell me the name of the case, case number, court it is in,
name of defense lawyers or any other information? I am currently
involved in trying to get the Nevada Revised Statutes released so they
can be made available to the Internet.
My situation is a little different than that of OPS since I am doing
this in cooperation with the state attorney generals office and with
the state agency who publishes the statutes, and I am not at all
interested in violating anyone's copyright including West's. None the
less the attorneys involved would like to take a look at this case
before we proceed with any action. Thanks in advance.
--
robert@cs.unlv.edu
------------------------------
From: parris@sbt.tec.sc.us
Date: 13 Sep 1994 17:47:27 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Some Privacy Notes
Organization: SC Board for Tech $ Comp Ed
"Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> writes: "Kentucky's
data base showed that only 350,000 of the 2.5 million Canadians who
drove through the state last year stayed overnight.
I wonder if anyone could explain how it is that Kentucky determined the
number of Canadians who *DROVE THROUGH* the state during a year. Does
someone sit by every highway/state border crossing and tally the
occupants of each vehicle which bears Canadian tags? Or is that 2.5m
figure the product of some bureaucratic imagination?
------------------------------
From: anonymous <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 13 Sep 1994 12:50:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Government Survailance
The following excerpt is from the newsgroup: sci.military
Subject: AF News Svc 30 Aug 94
Sender: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login)
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCX
Date: 31 Aug 1994 16:19:13 GMT
616. Rome to aid highway managers
GRIFFISS AFB, N.Y. (AFNS) --- America's highways should become less
congested as the result of signal processing and computer
technologies developed at the Air Force Material Command's Rome
Laboratory here.
Rome Laboratory entered into an agreement in July with federal and
New York transportation agencies to pioneer development of an
automated traffic monitoring system. The system will assist
traffic managers in planning for --- and relieving --- congestion
on major U.S. highways.
The system will make use of advanced signal processing, neural
network and distributed systems technology, all of which are major
technology areas to Rome Laboratory.
By employing video sensors, processors, communications services,
and a closed-loop feedback system to monitor expressway traffic,
engineers will be able to gain insight into congestion build- up,
officials say. This will permit early action --- such as
electronic messages to motorists or altering traffic signals --- to
reduce or eliminate problems caused by accidents, poor weather
conditions or peak driving periods.
Rome Laboratory will serve as the executive agent and will have the
primary responsibility for managing the program. The Federal
Highway Administration will provide funding, while the New York
transportation department will provide housings for the monitoring
sensors, technical services and expertise to assist with the
operational aspects of installing and testing the system.
[Obviously the USAF is putting a "government is your friend" spin on
this story, but this program is just a small step from more draconian
forms of surveillance.]
I have noticed, and you may also have noticed, this form of
surveillance going on right here in Milwaukee. On I-94 and I-43 I have
noticed communication towers and surveillance cameras that have been
erected within the past two months. It makes me a bit paranoid too.
------------------------------
From: clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp)
Date: 13 Sep 94 15:18:16 CDT
Subject: Re: Bank Account Numbers
wayne@arrow.HIP.berkeley.edu (Wayne Christian) writes: Actually,
there is no difference although I do understand the point you are
trying to make. Reversal of charges by the Credit Card company is
subject to the discression their customer service office, just like
the
Very true. Years ago we had our Visa number misused just after
ordering a diet scale from a TV offer (which never arrived). We called
the issuer of the card, who proceeded to give us the third degree and
to sound VERY skeptical... until we pinned down the fact that the $1000
worth of clothes the thief bought were size 10, and my wife was a
size... well, let's just say a bit large for size 10 clothes.
They didn't seem to notice that 1) we had a separate credit card for
the merchant at which the clothing was purchased, 2) this would have
been the first and only time we ever would have ordered anything by
phone for delivery (much less from a local store), 3) our buying
patterns didn't show us buying $1000 of _anything_ at once (much less
clothing), 4) the stuff was delivered to an address about 15 miles from
our home of 13 years, etc. etc.
--
Cliff Sharp Whatever it is that hits the fan,
WA9PDM it will not be evenly distributed.
clifto@indep1.chi.il.us --The Third Law of Reality
------------------------------
From: John Medeiros <71604.710@compuserve.com>
Date: 14 Sep 94 00:23:19 EDT
Subject: Privacy and the IRS
Following are excerpts from "Privacy becomes an IRS Priority" by David
Skidmore, Associated Press, published 9/11/94:
No government agency knows more about American citizens than the
IRS...By law, that information must be kept private and confidential.
Now it's Robert N. Veeder's job to make sure it stays that way.
Restrictions on the use of taxpayer data go back as far as 1939 and
were toughened by Congress in 1976 in reation to President Nixon's use
of his prolitical enemies' tax returns.
But the agency moved to extablish Veeder's office only after it became
clear that rapidly advancing techmology made it possible to manipulate
masses of information.
Veeder arrived at the IRS just a month before Sen. John Glenn D-Ohio,
revealed that 1,300 agency employees had been investigated since 1989
for illicitly snooping into the tax returns of celebrities and others.
The new computers that will make it easier for the IRS' 115,000
employees to serve the tax-paying public also will, by necessity make
it easier for them to call up taxpayers' records on a computer screen
instantly.
"You have to ...empower the employees in order to get the answer to the
question the taxpayer is asking," Veeder said.
But, he said, new computer technology also will allow agency managers
to limit file access more effectively to those who need to know and to
detect a suspicious pattern of information use by employees with wider
access.
A far tougher issue, Veeder said, will be deciding what is a legitimate
use of taxpayer data by other agencies.
The IRS is already obliged to supply state agencies with information
that could help them track dwon parents delinquent on child-support
payments and information used to verify applications for food stamps,
Medicaid and other welfare programs. And agencies administering
federally guaranteed student, veterans and farm loans have the right to
intercept defaulters' tax refunds.
------------------------------
From: ryan_wilson@kvo.com (Ryan Wilson)
Date: 15 Sep 1994 00:29:33 GMT
Subject: PGP Back Door
Organization: RGNET
Sorry if this has been rehashed here before. I infrequently come here
and might have missed it, but...
Is there any truth to the rumor that certain versions of PGP, released
after a certain date or version number, contain a back door which is
accessible by the NSA or other so-called intelligence entities?
--
Ryan Wilson/Portland, OR | BOYCOTT CLIPPER TECHNOLOGY
ryan_wilson@kvo.com | CLIPPER = BIG BROTHER
All these opinions, humble or otherwise, are my own.
------------------------------
From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@washofc.epic.org>
Date: 13 Sep 1994 23:24:38 EST
Subject: Reason 52: Cost
Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center
from CPSR Reason 52: Cost
========================================================================
100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill
Reason 52: The FBI wiretap bill will cost taxpayers at least
$500,000,000.
The FBI wiretap bill authorizes the expenditure of $500 million over
the next four years to reimburse private firms for complying with the
FBI's "capacity requirements" for electronic surveillance. But that
amount may not be enough to satisfy the FBI's goal. The General
Accounting Office estimates that the cost could run as high as $2
billion to $3 billion. Roy Neal, the President of the United States
Telephone Association estimated that it could cost as much as $1.8
billion just to redesign call forwarding to satisfy the FBI's
concerns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What To Do: Fax Rep. Jack Brooks (202-225-1584).
Express your concerns about the FBI Wiretap proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 Reasons is a project of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) in Washington, DC. For more information: 100.Reasons@epic.org.
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@washofc.epic.org>
Date: 13 Sep 1994 23:14:30 EST
Subject: Reason 55: Extent
Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center
from CPSR Reason 4: S. 266
========================================================================
100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill
Reason 55: The FBI wiretap bill now under consideration by the
Congress is far more sweeping than the original
plan proposed in 1991.
In 1991 the FBI proposed a one-paragraph Sense of the Senate Resolution
commonly known as S.266 that asked telecommunications firms to provide
the plaintext of encrypted communications to law enforcement agents
upon presentation of a lawful warrant. That proposal was quickly
withdrawn once the privacy implications became known to the public. The
current FBI Wiretap Bill, (H.R. 4922 and S. 2375) runs 29 pages. It
includes sweeping new powers for the Attorney General to develop
surveillance standards for communications networks, new technical
requirements to facilitate network monitoring, and stiff penalties for
non-compliance. It limits the use of encryption. If S. 266 could be
easily defeated, should this wiretap bill be allowed to pass?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What To Do: Fax Rep. Jack Brooks (202-225-1584).
Express your concerns about the FBI Wiretap proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 Reasons is a project of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) in Washington, DC. For more information: 100.Reasons@epic.org.
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: subnso@aol.com (Subnso)
Date: 15 Sep 1994 03:24:02 -0400
Subject: Network Security Journal
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
A n n o u n c e m e n t
November 1994 Network Security Observations will be out with its
inaugural issue. Network Security Observations is expected to be the
leading international journal on computer network security for the
science, research and professional community. Every annual volume
contains five issues, each offering ample space for vigorously reviewed
academic and research papers of significant and lasting importance and
a wealth of other network security information, including network
security patches and other technical information, related governmental
documents (international), discussions about ethics and privacy
aspects, the 'Clipper chip' and other cryptologic issues, viruses,
privacy enhanced mail, protocols, international data security and
privacy legislation, harmonization of computer security evaluation
criteria, information security management, access management,
transborder dataflow, edi security, risk analysis, mission critical
applications, integrity issues, etc.
Its Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Bertil Fortrie, also the Chairman of Working
Group 11.9 - IT Related Crime Investigations - of the International
Federation for Information Processing, is assisted by a team of
international seasoned experts forming the Journal's prestigeous Review
Board. Among them: Emeritus Prof. Dr. Harold Highland (Editor-in-Chief
Emeritus of Elsevier Advanced Technology's Computers & Security Journal
and President of Compulit Inc., United States), Dr. Willis Ware
(Security Counsel, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, United States),
Prof. Dr. William Caelli (Head - School of Datacommunications, Faculty
of Information Technology of the Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia), Prof. Eugene Spafford (Faculty of Computer
Science of the Purdue University, West Lafayette, United States),
William List (Partner, The Kingswell Partnership, London, United
Kingdom), John Beatson (Manager Information Security & Risk Management,
Databank Systems Ltd., Wellington, New Zealand), Ross Paul (Manager
Corporate Information Security, The Worldbank, Washington D.C., United
States).
If and when appropriate reports of major international conferences will
be included, as well as information made available by governments,
agencies and international and supranational organizations. Network
Security Observations is published in the English language, and
distributed Worldwide. The publication does not feature commercial
announcements. National and international organizers of dedicated
conferences, congresses and seminars can offer calls for papers and
invitations to participate. Relevant posting from other publishers
announcing new books, etc. are welcomed as well.
Network Security Observations provides the in depth and detailed look
that is essential for the network system operator, network system
administrator, edp auditor, legal counsel, computer science researcher,
network security manager, product developer, forensic data expert,
legislator, public prosecutor, etc., including the wide range of
specialists of the intelligence community, the investigative branches
and the military, the financial services industry and the bank
community. Network Security Observations serves as the primary source
of dedicated information for every governmental department, service,
branch and office, directly or indirectly involved with computer
networks, in every country.
Subscriptions are available as of now. The inaugural issue will be
available by November 1, 1994. Applicants ordering subscription by
electronic mail before November 1, 1994 are entitled to a special
inaugural rebate of 30 %, paying only US $ 195. Special
academic/educational discounts and membership discounts for members of
IEEE, IFIP (Technical Committees and Working Groups) and governmental
agencies and branches are available upon request. Since Network
Security Observations is a not-for-profit journal, we are sorry to
reject requests for trial orders.
Order now by sending an email message to subnso@aol.com .
Alternatively applicants may write to: Network Security Observations,
suite 400, 1825 I Street, NW. Washington DC 20006, United States.
Network Security Observations is the only authoritative international
research journal fully dedicated to the security and protection of
computer networks. As a courtesy to your fellow computer network
users, please forward this announcement to any list service and netnews
board available to you.
------------------------------
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of
technology on privacy or vice versa. 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".
People with gopher capability can access the library at
gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133].
End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #034
******************************
.