Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 07:03:59 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#054
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 28 Oct 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 054
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: How to Verify Your Phone Number
Re: A Tempest Paper
Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud
Re: The Crypto Dilemma
License Plates
Is Anyone Tracking H.R. 5199?
Re: Planting "Mistakes" to Guard Copyright.
Press release for VTW Voters Guide
Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fd@wwa.com (Glen L. Roberts)
Date: 26 Oct 94 16:44 CDT
Subject: Re: How to Verify Your Phone Number
Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services 312-282-8605 708-367-1871
1 800 MY-ANI-IS yields the correct number from here in 301-land.
Try 10555-1-708-356-9646 from most places it reads back your number.
Tyr it with *67 as well.... Two 10228 or 10222 for AT&T for MCI... see
the different... 10555 places your call through Wiltel...
--
Glen L. Roberts, Editor, Full Disclosure
Host Full Disclosure Live (WWCR 5,065 khz - Sundays 7pm central)
email fd@sashimi.wwa.com for catalog on privacy & surveillance.
Does 10555-1-708-356-9646 give you an "ANI" readback?
email for uuencoded .TIF of T-Shirt Honoring the FBI
Remember, fd _IS FOR_ Full Disclosure!
------------------------------
From: gt0212f@prism.gatech.edu (Brad Waugh)
Date: 26 Oct 1994 21:03:41 -0400
Subject: Re: A Tempest Paper
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
david.m.kennedy@CEORD-PM.mail.usace.army.mil writes: TEMPEST.TXT
states, I believe correctly, that it is illegal to posess some
types of specialized electronic evesdropping equipment necessary to
intercept tempest-type, e.g. Van Echt, emanations. *If* Winn
states it is illegal to protect your equipment, that is derived
from the inability to legally check your own equipment due to above
limitation, or that the US government's standards for emanations is
classified. To
I believe that the US government's standards for tempest-type
emanations _are_ classified, from talking to acquaintances in the
military C3I biz.
--
Brad Waugh gt0212f@prism.gatech.edu
------------------------------
From: ewl@panix.com (Emery Lapinski)
Date: 27 Oct 1994 00:21:08 -0400
Subject: Re: MCI Employee Charged in $50 Million Calling Card Fraud
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM> writes: Computer crime is growing
expotentially. I think it is time to have another massive
crackdown, similar to Operation Sun Devil a few years ago. Let's
start getting really tough on hackers and phreaks.
I would have preferred if you had written "Let's start getting really
tough on criminals". Not all (perhaps few?) hackers and phreaks are
necessarily criminals.
I think we can do without OSD2.
--
Boycott the CIX; refrain from using the Internet November 1, 1994.
"My shirt is plastic." -- James Burke
"Clothes make the spam" -- Dr. Fun (written by David Farley)
------------------------------
From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills)
Date: 27 Oct 94 07:09:57 EDT
Subject: Re: The Crypto Dilemma
Shayne Weyker's essay "Clipper:How much privacy can we afford? How
much security do we need?" left me unconvinced.
More and more of our life will take place over the wires, so it is
no surprise that more and more crime will take place there as
well.
If all communication is by wire then all fraud will by definition be by
wire also. The inference is that there will be more crime because of
wires. That would be an unsubtatiated assumption.
Mr. Wayker's attitude on "illegal" communications is chilling. Our
constitution prevents governments from putting any _prior_ restraint on
speech. The main purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect unpopular
speech that others might consider undesirable, illegal or terrorist.
Civil law makes us liable for the consequences of our speech, like
shouting FIRE! in a theater, but _prior_ restraints are forbidden. Even
terrorists can not be forbidden to communicate with each other.
Why assume that legislation or regulation can effectively suppress
secret communication? I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag. All the
laws in the world can't stop it. I believe there are some equally
silly laws on the books making it illegal to use radio to communicate
in code. For example, if you and I agree that "rain in Spain" actually
is code for "Chase Manhattan Bank", it would be illegal to say rain in
Spain over the radio. Try to imagine enforcement of such a law.
The Soviet Union and China both discovered in the 1980's that it was no
longer within their power to impede the flow of information. Attempts
to do so via laws only promotes disrespect for the law.
------------------------------
From: twallace@mason1.gmu.edu (Todd A Wallace)
Date: 27 Oct 1994 14:08:11 GMT
Subject: License Plates
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
I have been curious about this for a long time: How much can the
average Joe (not affiliated with law enforcement) find out about be by
using my license plate number on my car?
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Todd Wallace | "A pessimist is surprised |
| twallace@mason1.gmu.edu | as often as an optimist, |
|-------------------------------| but always pleasantly." |
| Expatriate Midwesterner (tm) | - Robert Heinlein |
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Carl Ellison <cme@tis.com>
Date: 27 Oct 94 10:20:24 EDT
Subject: Is Anyone Tracking H.R. 5199?
On July 13, 1994, Tony Clark (staff of the House Committee on Science,
Space and Technology) wrote a memo detailing a bill to back up
Clipper/Capstone.
I neglected to provide him with comments (got tied up at work), so I
called him this a.m.
It's no longer a memo.
----------------------------------------
"Encryption Standards and Procedures Act of 1994"
HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 6, 1994
Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 5199, the Encryption Standards
and Procedures Act of 1994. The purpose of this legislation is to establish
Federal policy governing the development and use of encryption technology
for unclassified information that strikes the proper balance between the
public's right to private and secure communications and the government's
need to decipher information through lawful electronic surveillance.
---------- etc. ----------------
I just got off the phone with Tony Clark who pointed out to me some
advantages for this bill. It might even be the proper vehicle for what
Cantwell was trying to do. It is an attempt to put into law the
gov't's policy on encryption, taking it out of the hands of
policy-setting office staff at State and NSA.
I have trouble with the Bill and its cover letter, which I will detail
in a letter to them and a CC: to the net (mention of "preserving the
gov't's ability to decrypt", suggesting that it had that ability, for
example; and of course, there's my soap box issue: that civilian crypto
is 4000 years old :-).
My copy of the bill is a FAX and I have no scanner. Does anyone out
there have a way to get the bill scanned and posted?
--
Carl
------------------------------
From: dpaulson@cpdsc.com
Date: 27 Oct 1994 20:37:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Planting "Mistakes" to Guard Copyright.
Organization: CP DSC Communications, Plano TX
"/DD.ID=OVMAIL1.WZR014/G=DANIEL/S=STICKA/"@EDS.DIAMONDNET.sprint.com
writes: The practice of planting addresses in a mailing list to
guard against unauthorized re-use is similar to the map publishing
trick of printing fictitious cities that would be recognized on an
illegal copy.
Assuming the point of this is to have the fictitious city appear on the
illegal copy...
How does one tell an illegal copy from a legitimate one, when the
legitimate copy contains the fictitious city?
__
Dean Paulson
Phantom City, USA
------------------------------
From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir@panix.com>
Date: 27 Oct 1994 00:55:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Press release for VTW Voters Guide
[This is the last posting about the Voters Guide. Further postings
will go to the appropriate newsgroups. -Shabbir]
October 24, 1994
PRIVACY GROUP RELEASES LEGISLATIVE REPORT CARD
FOR 1994 CONGRESS
For Immediate Release
NEW YORK - The Voters Telecomm Watch (VTW) an organization dedicated to
monitoring civil liberties in telecommunications, has just announced its
1993/1994 legislative report cards -- and the news isn't good. Almost the
entire Congress received a grade of 'D' for failing to recognize several
threats to American privacy that presented themselves to the legislature
this year, and one opportunity.
"A few legislators distinguished themselves, recognizing the bills that
threatened privacy this year, but on the whole, Congress was asleep at the
wheel," stated Alexis Rosen, VTW board member.
This year VTW monitored two pieces of legislation, Rep. Maria Cantwell's
(D-WA) cryptographic exports bill (HR 3627) and the FBI's Wiretap/Digital
Telephony bill (S.2375/HR.4922).
Representative Cantwell received VTW's Legislator of the Year Award for
her attempts to bring laws governing the export of encryption more in line
with the current state and availability of that technology overseas.
Rep. Cantwell's export bill would have made practical the incorporation
of encryption into systems and application programs. Currently, such
technology is not included because of government regulations
restricting the export of such software. Embedded encryption is
essential to expand business use of electronic mail and other
transmission of sensitive data, such as credit card information. It is
therefore necessary for on-line shopping and banking. Software
manufacturing currently one of America's strongest exporting industries
is threatened by foreign competition not subject to the same
constraints.
Representatives Melvin Watt (D-NC) and Elizabeth Furse (D-OR), both
first-term legislators, received VTW's Rookie of the Year awards
for their stated opposition to the Digital Wiretap bill, on privacy and
fiscal grounds.
Most Congressional actions this year on telecommunications and privacy
issues have been on voice votes, making it difficult to score
individual performance. A network of hundreds of VTW volunteers have called
and written their own legislators to ascertain their positions.
"Our legislators really don't seem to want to be held accountable,"
stated volunteer Josh Hendrix. "The breakfast food of the day is still
waffles at Sen. Feinstein's office," stated a California volunteer,
expressing his frustration after literally hundreds of faxes and called
had been received by Senator Feinstein without a change in her position.
Senator Feinstein received a special award this year from VTW -- the
'Duck of the Year'. "She received hundreds of constituent calls and
faxes asking her to oppose the FBI Wiretap bill," said VTW Press contact
Steven Cherry, "and she still voted for the bill, despite the wishes
of the very people she was elected to represent. We've purchased a
rubber duck for her, and it will arrive in the mail soon."
Voters Telecommunications Watch is hoping Rep. Cantwell's bill will be
reintroduced in the 104th Congress. Perhaps the biggest issue of the
next session will be the continued legality of strong private encryption
without key escrow. FBI Director Louis Freeh has been quoted as saying
that, according to cyberjournalist Brock Meeks, "if the Administration's
Escrowed Encryption System, otherwise known as the Clipper Chip, failed to
gain acceptance, giving way to private encryption technologies, he would
have no choice but to press Congress to pass legislation that provided
law enforcement access to all encrypted communications."
The Voters Telecomm Watch legislative report card can be found on the
Internet in their gopher at gopher.panix.com. You can also send them
email requesting a copy (or information about the organization) at
vtw@vtw.org. Finally, you can request a copy until November 15th via
US Mail by leaving a message in their voice mail at (718) 596-2851.
You must leave your entire address (including zip code).
VTW's efforts to garner grass-roots opposition to the FBI Wiretap/Digital
Telephony bill were reported upon by such publications as the New York
Times and Wired magazine. It's legislative report card has also been
distributed onto the Internet, where it will quickly reach hundreds of
thousands of readers within the first week of distribution.
Concerned citizens can reach Voters Telecommunications Watch by writing to
vtw@vtw.org or checking their gopher at gopher.panix.com.
--
Steven Cherry <stc@vtw.org>
Media contact
Voters Telecommunications Watch <vtw@vtw.org> (718) 596-2851
gopher -p 1/vtw gopher.panix.com
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:45:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc.
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 #054
******************************
.