Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 26 Sep 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 038
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Reason 16: Expense
The Future of the Internet is Secure: Press Conference
Outlaws on the Net
Another Group Opposes Wiretap Bill
Merrill Lynch's "Anonymous" Client Survey
Digital Telephony: Shifting the Burden
Re: Anti-Clipper T-shirts
Telephone Background Noise Risks
Computer Privacy Digest Informaton
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Housekeeping information is located at the end of this Digest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@washofc.epic.org>
Date: 26 Sep 1994 13:15:12 EST
Subject: Reason 16: Expense
Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center
100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill
Reason 16: Wiretapping is a particularly expensive investigative method.
According to data obtained from the Administrative Office of U.S.
Courts, the cost for each Title III intercept in 1974 was about
$7,500. The average cost for all intercepts in 1993 was $57,000 per
order. Federal orders were more expensive, each costing an average of
$66,323. Since 1970, the average cost per order has increased 1,100
percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What To Do: Fax Senator Biden (202-224-0139)
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: "Winn Schwartau" <p00506@psilink.com>
Date: 23 Sep 94 17:03:58 -0500
Subject: The Future of the Internet is Secure: Press Conference
Organization: Inter.Pact
F O R I M M E D I A T E R E L E A S E
DISTRIBUTE WIDELY:
The Future of the Internet is Secure!
On October 11, 1994, The Internet Will Become
A Safe Place To Do Business.
Sidewinder:
Internet Security That Strikes Back
The Internet is a dangerous place. Ask anyone.
* Between 85-97% of all computer break-ins go undetected.
* Industrial espionage is up 400% since the late 1980's.
* Hacker attacks increase exponentionally:
* Over 1 million computer break-ins last year alone.
* Theft of confidential information costs billions to Am
erica's financial infrastructure
* Privacy is almost nonexistent.
Yet, the Internet is the fastest growing segment of the National
Information Infrastructure. Over 20 million users and businesses
conduct global affairs on the Internet today, and over 125 mil
lion will by the year 2000.
Join us to witness the technological breakthrough in inter-
networking which finally makes the Internet a safe place to be.
The future of the Internet is secure.
Come see how.
October 11, 1994
10:00 AM
National Press Club
Zenger Room
529 14St. NW
Washington, DC 20045
_Continental Breakfast_
RSVP
Presented by:
Secure Computing Corporation
2675 Long Lake Road
Roseville, MN 55112
For more information contact:
Interpact, Inc.
Winn Schwartau
813.393.6600
P00506@Psilink.Com
Secure Computing:
Kevin Sorensen
1.612.627.2800
1.800.692.LOCK
Sorensen@Sctc.Com
------------------------------
From: Andrew Grosso <agrosso@access.digex.net>
Date: 23 Sep 1994 17:25:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Outlaws on the Net
District of Columbia Bar Association
The New Technology Committee
of the Computer Law Section, and the Criminal Law and
Individual Rights Section, invite you to a Panel Discussion entitled:
CRIMINAL LAW IN CYBERSPACE: OUTLAWS ON THE NET
Speakers: Scott Charney, Chief, Computer Crimes Unit of
the U.S. Department of Justice
Mike Godwin, Counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Mark D. Rasch, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn
Moderator: Andrew Grosso, Co-Chair, New Technology Committee
Whenever a new technology becomes prevalent, the law enters a period of
struggle during which it tries to find adequate means for resolving
disputes involving that technology, and for protecting the rights of
people affected by it. We are now in such a period for the Internet
and the developing National Information Infrastructure (NII). Of all
legal fields, the struggle concerning the criminal law is the most
pronounced, since old statutes must be narrowly construed to protect
civil liberties, while used in a creative fashion in order to deter
malevolent acts which have never before been seen. This program
focuses on computer network crime having national and international
ramifications, including several recent investigations and
prosecutions.
This panel brings together noted experts in the field of civil
liberties and computer crime to discusses the issues presented by the
latest developments in this area. Scott Charney is the Chief of the
Computer Crimes Unit of the U. S. Department of Justice, and is
actively involved in the formulation of federal policy with regard to
computer-related crimes. Mike Godwin is the On Line Legal Counsel for
the Electronic Frontier Foundation who is a respected defender of civil
liberties for telecommunications users. Mark D. Rasch is prominent
defense attorney who, while an attorney with the Fraud Section of the
Department of Justice, prosecuted the "Internet Worm" case in 1989.
Andrew Grosso, the panel moderator, is a Co-Chair of the New Technology
Committee and a former federal prosecutor. Written materials by the
panelists will be distributed.
Date: Thursday, October 27, 1994
Time: 12:00 Noon
Place: D.C. Bar Headquarters
1250 H Street, N.W.
Cost: Box Lunch: $25.00 for Section members and students;
$30.00 for Non-Members.
Program Only: $19.00 for Section Members and students;
$24.00 for Non-Members.
____________________________________________________________
REGISTRATION FORM
____________________________________________________________
Mail to: Computer Law Section
D.C. Bar, 1250 H Street, N.W. 6th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005-3908
Please reserve ____________ spaces(s) for me at the October 27 program.
Enclosed is my check for __________ made payable to the DC Bar.
Checks must be received by October 25. Sorry, phone reservations cannot
be accepted.
Name(s) Phone(s) Bar No(s). Bar Member?
_____________ ____________ ___________ Yes/No
_____________ ____________ ___________ Yes/No
_____________ ____________ ___________ Yes/No
Please notify the Sections Office (202-626-3463) if you require any
special dietary or physical accommodations.
------------------------------
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.epic.org>
Date: 23 Sep 1994 20:07:10 EST
Subject: Another Group Opposes Wiretap Bill
Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center
Another Civil Liberty Group Opposes Wiretap Bill
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today wrote to Rep. Jack
Brooks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, "to express the
ACLU's opposition to the FBI Wiretap Access Bill, H.R. 4922." The
organization's position is the latest indication that the legislation
is running into serious trouble in Congress for several reasons,
including strong opposition from civil liberties and privacy
advocates. The bill's proponents had initially hoped to bring it to a
vote on the floors of the House and Senate by mid-September. Instead,
the bill remains in committees of both houses and is the object of a
grassroots campaign to prevent its enactment.
Excerpts from the ACLU letter:
"The principal problem remains that any digital telephone bill which
mandates that communications providers make technological changes for
the sole purpose of making their systems wiretap- ready creates a
dangerous and unprecedented presumption that government not only has
the power, subject to warrant to intercept private communications, but
that it can require private parties to create special access. It is as
if the government had required all builders to construct new housing
with an internal surveillance camera for government use. ...
"Moreover, the FBI has not borne the burden of proving why such an
extraordinary requirement is necessary. ...
"H.R. 4922 proposes a radical and expensive change in our
telecommunications structure. The threats it poses, now and
prospectively, are real, but the need for it is far less than evident
or proven. We urge that your Committee not rush into consideration of
this far reaching measure with so little time left in the session."
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is urging all
concerned individuals and organizations to contact the following
members of Congress immediately:
Rep. Jack Brooks Sen. Howard Metzenbaum
(202) 225-6565 (voice) (202) 224-7494 (voice)
(202) 225-1584 (fax) (202) 224-5474 (fax)
For more information about the FBI Wiretap Bill, check the Voters
Telecomm Watch (VTW) gopher site (gopher.panix.com) or send e- mail to
<info@epic.org>.
------------------------------
From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith)
Date: 24 Sep 1994 11:59:59 GMT
Subject: Merrill Lynch's "Anonymous" Client Survey
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
A few weeks ago, Merrill Lynch sent me a "1994 Private Client Survey."
It was supposed to be anonymous.
I was, however, intrigued by the presence of a six-digit number on the
survey form, printed in the upper-right hand corner in what looked to
me like high-density dot-matrix and a fabric ribbon (i.e. it did NOT
look to me like part of the preprinted form).
I filled out the survey, but I also tore off the corner on which the
number was printed, noting that I did not believe the survey was really
anonymous.
The result? A follow-up letter from Merrill Lynch with another copy of
the form and a letter saying "If you have already completed and
returned [the first survey,] we thank you very much. If not, we have
enclosed another survey in case you did not receive or have misplaced
the first one."
Funny thing... the number that I was probably supposed to ignore, or
believe was part of the survey form, was printed in a different ink and
style from the rest of the form... yet... you'll never believe this...
William Henkel's very own personal signature on the follow-up letter is
in ink that's an absolute dead-perfect match for printing in the
letter. :-)
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com
------------------------------
From: Andrew Grosso <agrosso@access.digex.net>
Date: 25 Sep 1994 16:39:48 -0400
Subject: Digital Telephony: Shifting the Burden
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The March 1993 issue of Communications of the ACM (pages 24-44)
included an editorial debate on the merits of Digital Telephony
Legislation. As part of that debate, the following commentary by
Andrew Grosso* appeared**:
The year was 1928, long before the dawn of digital networks,
infrared nightvision, or reconnaissance satellites. In a now
famous dissenting opinion, JusticeLouis D. Brandeis of the U.S.
Supreme Court gave identity to the most precious rightheld by any
citizen, that of the right to protection from governmental
intrusion, or inhis words, "the right to be alone - the most
comprehensive of all rights and the rightmost valued by civilized
man."***
Our system of jurisprudence has long recognized that this right is
notabsolute, and must sometimes bend to other concerns, one of
which is lawenforcement. Thus, arrest warrants, search warrants,
and wiretaps have their placein our Constitution and in our laws.
However, the burden of carrying out suchintrusions has always
rested with the agency or person seeking the warrant or tap. The
digital telephony legislation seeks to change that.
Because of advances in technology, the value of a significant
investigatorytool - the wiretap - is now compromised. The
legislation seeks to rescue that tool bypoking holes in the
security of the "common man's" privacy. Think of opaque wallsbuilt
around a person's life, protecting the details of that life. Such
walls make thesedetails accessible only to those with the means and
determination, as well as the rightto make a key which will open a
door through those walls. This is as it should be,if the
protection of privacy is to have any meaning to the common
citizen.
Instead, the legislation would shift the burden. It would require
all to livewithin transparent walls. The value to law enforcement
is obvious; it need not expendresources in order to design and make
a key to open the door. The harm to theindividual is enormous. In
one's own mind, one can never be sure who is outside,peering from a
distant hideaway, watching every move. In place of opaque walls,
the legislation proposes that law enforcement and industry shall
make a promise: no oneshall look through those walls unless a court
approves. However, the history of politics and civilizations
makes it clear that promises are broken, by individuals aswell as
by governments. People know this.
Advances in technology are not all harmful to the goals of law
enforcement. The rapist who escaped last year will be caught today
because of DNA matching; thedrug smuggler will be captured because
of satellite surveillance; the terrorist will beidentified and
tracked down using an international network of computers
processingmegafiles of data. Law enforcement often gains from
technology. It is notunreasonable to acknowledge that, sometimes,
it will lose.
Our jurisprudence recognizes that in order to protect certain
critical socialvalues, some criminals will remain uncaught and
unpunished. This is the price wepay for living in a
nontotalitarian state. If Congress, law enforcement, and
society-at-large conclude the wiretap an indispensable part of our
national safety and must bepreserved, then a remedy is to provide
the financing which will enable lawenforcement to effectively tap
digital telephony. If this costs hundreds of millionsof dollars,
then so be it. Our nation has spent untold more in the defense of
our rightsin the past, and will continue to do so in the
future. It is worth the price so that we, as free individuals,
can be sure of being leftalone.
_____________
* Then an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and now in private practice
in Washington, D.C.
** @ Communications of the ACM, 1993. Reprinted with
permission.
*** Olmstead v. United States, 227 U.S. 438, 478 (1928)
(dissenting opinion).
------------------------------
From: jhendrix@panix.com (Josh Hendrix)
Date: 23 Sep 1994 19:38:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Anti-Clipper T-shirts
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Norman J Harman <normh@crl.com> wrote: I would like to offer an
anti Clipper/Skipjack T-shirt. They would be white with black
printing and cost approximately $5.00 plus $2.90 shipping to US
locations. That is the cost to produce one shirt. I am
I need to know if people are interested in this idea and what
should the shirts say?
How about:
Get Hipper
Oppose Clipper
--
A man said to the Universe: "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe,
"the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation." - Stephen Crane
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 24 Sep 1994 07:50:53 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Telephone Background Noise Risks
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Friday 23 September 1994
Volume 16 : Issue 42 ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy,
Peter G. Neumann, moderator
Telephone Background Noise Risks (Michael P. Gerlek)
Date: 22 Sep 1994 13:57:26 -0700
From: "Michael P. Gerlek" <gerlek@dat.cse.ogi.edu>
Subject: telephone background noise RISKS
Just another horror story:
I called a major airline the other day to make reservations. In the
course of my dialog with the agent she put me on hold for a minute or
so while she checked something, and I listened to the usual canned
music interspersed with promos for the airline. Then, after more
dialog with the agent, again she put me on hold... but this time didn't
switch on the music.
As I waited, I could clearly make out another reservations agent
working in the background: "yes, Mr. Smith, flight 234 from Portland to
San Francisco..." <more dialog, and then the best part> "thank you, Mr.
Smith -- to confirm, that was a charge of $567.89 to your Mastercard,
account number 1234-5..."
I discussed this with my agent when she came back on the line. She
said it was her mistake (she didn't press the right button or
something), and that the official policy was to switch the line to
hold, so as to allow the customer to hear the promotional ads while
waiting. I pointed out the privacy advantages, too, and she agreed
this was a good thing and promised to be more careful next time. :-)
--
mpg
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:45:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest Informaton
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
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.
If you read this from the comp.society.privacy newsgroup and wish to
contribute a message, you should simply post your contribution. As a
moderated newsgroup, attempts to post to the group are normally turned
into eMail to the submission address below.
On the other hand, if you read the digest eMailed to you, you generally
need only use the Reply feature of your mailer to contribute. If you
do so, it is best to modify the "Subject:" line of your mailing.
Contributions generally are acknowledged within 24 hours of
submission. An article is printed if it is relevant to the charter of
the digest. If selected, it is printed within two or three days. The
moderator reserves the right to delete extraneous quoted material. He
may change the subject line of an article in order to make it easier
for the reader to follow a discussion. He will not, however, alter or
edit or append to the text except for purely technical reasons.
A library of back issues is available on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18].
Login as "ftp" with password identifying yourid@yoursite. The archives
are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy".
People with gopher capability can most easily access the library at
gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Older archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133].
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest
Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu
| Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu
levine@cs.uwm.edu | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #038
******************************