From daemon Mon Nov 14 15:00:58 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA30562 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:00:55 -0500
From: listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA04014 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:08:42 -0800
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:08:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199411142308.PAA04014@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
To: rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu
Subject: SUBSCRIBE PRIVACY REY BARRY 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  NTIA Virtual Conference Server
Status: RO

You have been added to list privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov.
The system has recorded your address as

			rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu

and in order for your messages to get posted (if the list accepts postings),
you will have to send them from this address, unless the list does not require
subscription for posting.
If a message is ever rejected, please contact the list's owner: ntia@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov

Your initial password is 784854522. Please change it as soon as you can
by issuing the following request to listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov:

		SET PRIVACY PASSWORD 784854522 new-password

WARNING: Do not use your login password; you will be breaching security at your
site.

This system may accept Internet TCP/IP connections for processing of live
requests, and the password will be used to give you subscriber privileges.
For more information, send a 'help live' request to listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov.

For information on this service and how to use it, send the following
request in the body of a mail message to listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov:

			HELP

All requests should be addressed to listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov.
                    WELCOMING STATEMENT FROM 
            DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE DAVID BARRAM

Welcome to the Virtual Conference on Universal Service and Open
Access to the Telecommunications Network.  In hosting this
conference we seek to broaden our reach beyond the physical
limits of any conference room or auditorium.  The NII will tear
down the barriers of time and distance.  This conference, like
the NII itself, is meant to be inclusive and your ideas are
welcome and encouraged.  Your participation will help make it a
success.

This effort is jointly sponsored by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the
Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF), as part of the
Administration's National Information Infrastructure initiative. 
Through the NII, the Administration is focusing on the ability of
computer mediated communications to enhance the life and work of
every American.  The NII is a harbinger of change, both economic
and political, and holds great promise for the future of America. 
Some benefits of the NII include telecommuting, distance learning
and active life-long education, remote consultations with expert
medical professionals, as well as new forms of art, entertainment
and culture.

This conference continues the dialog started by NTIA's five field
hearings, held over the past nine months in cities throughout
America.  Unlike the field hearings, this conference allows for a
much wider participation, and more in-depth discussion on the
issues.  There are over 80 public access points in 25 states.

With this conference we are hoping to:

    Garner opinions and views on universal telecommunications
     service that may shape the legislative and regulatory
     debate.

    Demonstrate how networking technology can broaden
     participation in the development of government policies,
     specifically, universal service telecommunications policy.

    Illustrate the potential for using the NII to create an
     electronic commons.

    Create a network of individuals and institutions that will
     continue the dialog started by the conference, once the
     formal sponsorship is over.

This conference is an experiment in a new form of dialog among
citizens and with their government.  The conference is not a one-
way, top down approach, it is a conversation.  It holds the
promise of reworking the compact between citizens and their
government.

I thank you once again for your participation.
Len Levine

Professor
Dept. of Elect. Eng. & Computer Science, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Moderator of Computer Privacy Digest, a forum handled as a
maillist and gatewayed into the USENET news group
comp.society.privacy . This forum was set up to discuss the effect
that technology has on privacy. 

Information Address: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu
Gopher Address: gopher.cs.uwm.edu
Mosaic Address: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu

Contact Addresses

levine@cs.uwm.edu
Phone: (414) 229-5170
Fax: (414) 229-6958

Leonard P. Levine 
Professor of Computer Science 
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 
Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 

Research Interests

Graphics, human interfaces, ethical use of modern systems. 

Background

Ph.D., Physics, Syracuse University
Sperry Gyroscopy Company
Honeywell Corporate Research Center
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee


=======================================


Marc Rotenberg

Director
Electronic Privacy Information Center, Washington, DC

EPIC is a public interest research organization in Washington, DC
sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and
the Fund for Constitutional Government. EPIC was established to
protect the privacy of the users of the information highway.
Toward that goal EPIC conducts litigation, sponsors conferences,
publishes articles, distributes the EPIC Alert, and promotes
legislative and technological solutions to privacy problems.

EPIC Address: info@epic.org 
Gopher Address: gopher.cpsr.org 
CPSR Address: cpsr@cpsr.org 

Contact Addresses

rotenberg@epic.org
Phone: (202) 544-9240
Fax: (202) 547-5482

Marc Rotenberg 
Electronic Privacy Information Center 
666 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 301 
Washington, DC 20003 

Interests

Technologies of privacy, technologies of surveillance. 

Background

Fellow in International Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee
Secretary, Privacy International 
Former Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
J.D.Stanford Law School, A.B. Harvard College

=======================================

Privacy and the NII (Levine/Rotenberg)
======================================


Welcome to the NTIA Virtual discussion on privacy.  Over the next 
few days we hope to have an interesting and lively discussion 
about privacy issues and the National Information Infrastructure. 
There is obviously a lot of ground to cover.  Almost every 
transaction these days involves some aspect of personal privacy.

One approach to personal privacy is to consider it is a concept 
that permits each individual to deny to others certain facts 
about his or her life.  Its definition may depend upon the social 
attitude of a particular group.  Salary, for example, might be 
considered private for one group and public for another.

Sometimes individuals barter part of their privacy in order to 
obtain other advantages that are important to them.  As long as 
the bartering is on an even footing, as long as what each person 
gets for the privacy lost is viewed by that person as a fair 
trade, and as long as the bartering is done with free will the 
loss of privacy that occurs is generally not considered a 
problem.

For example, anyone might have purchased some office supplies at 
a shop and paid with a personal check.  Before the clerk would 
accept such a check she might well ask to see the purchaser's 
driver's license, checked the picture against his face, and 
copied the license number onto the check.  The purchaser 
effectively gave the shop a copy of his license number in 
exchange for them trusting the check, a deal that many would 
consider fair.  Furthermore, had the customer been concerned, he 
could have gone to a cash machine, taken some cash out of his 
checking account and then paid the shop with anonymous cash.  At 
some small cost of personal time he could have maintained his 
anonymity at the shop.

A second example:  Anyone might well have purchased a can opener 
manufactured by a major corporation.  She might find enclosed a 
registration card asking for her name, address, phone number, 
shopping and reading habits, life style, birth date, marital 
status, annual income, number and age of children, home ownership 
status, occupation, credit card type, and a selection of her 
hobbies chosen from a list of fifty items.  A final check box 
even might allowed her to refuse mailings from a "multi company 
marketing program".  She would also be expected to pay the 
postage costs for returning the registration card.  In return for 
this the manufacturer would offer to contact her about any safety 
notifications dealing with the can opener. Many people would 
judge that the barter of that level of intrusion for that 
advantage was not in their best interest.

In many social interactions there is an exchange of personal 
information for other advantages.  In the two examples above the 
benefit to the individual can be shown to vary.  Both of them, 
however, were voluntary in that subject had the choice of paying 
by cash or check and of accepting or rejecting a potential safety 
notice.

Other transactions are not voluntary.  These transactions involve 
information extracted from an individual by a government via an 
act of law and by large conglomerates or corporations pooling 
otherwise voluntarily submitted data.  

An example of the first might be driver's license data.  A 
driver's license and car registration are appropriate tradeoffs 
of private information to the state affirming our individual 
acceptance of responsibility for our actions in return for the 
improved mobility afforded by being able to drive anywhere in the 
nation.  But the public disclosure of these records has raised 
problems, ranging from excessive junk mail to the murder of a 
licensee.  Recent federal legislation, aimed at increasing the 
privacy of driver's license information is still to be tested to 
see if it establishes appropriate boundaries.

An example of the second might be data collected and sold by 
credit reporting agencies combining publicly available bankruptcy 
data with credit card purchases and medical data.  There is a 
good deal of controversy in the United States about exactly who 
owns such data collected by grocery stores, hospitals, credit 
agencies and the like.  

Another example might be if the local telephone company decided 
to start selling the records of the telephone calls of its 
customers.  As a practical matter, a telephone customer might  
have difficulty finding another local carrier who didn't sell the 
records. In this sense the disclosure would be involuntary.

A different approach to privacy is to think about principles that 
generally make good sense for social well-being. For example, the 
legal principle that protects the confidentiality of what a 
patient tells a doctor is based on the belief that if the patient 
is assured confidentiality he or she is more likely to be 
forthcoming with the doctor.  This leads to more accurate 
diagnosis and better medical care. Similar legal privileges exist 
for communications between spouses, between attorneys and 
clients, and between priests and parishioners.

Other privacy principles are based on concerns about specific 
types of abuse.  The Privacy Act of 1974 limits the sharing of 
private records by government agencies.  This law was passed in 
response to concerns about the creation of a centralized Big 
Brother database that many believe would threaten the freedom of 
American citizens.  There is, at present, no such limitation on 
the equivalent action on the part of corporations.

Other laws exist to protect the privacy of telephone 
communications and even the privacy of video rental records.

In the example of cashing the check above, we might decide as a 
matter of policy that stores should not ask individuals for their 
licenses when they cash checks because of concern that the stores 
might misuse the license information. This policy may have the 
effect of requiring stores to rely on check verification services 
(which many do) or simply accepting the risk of bad debts. 
Whether the policy makes sense depends on how we balance the 
privacy concern against the potential costs.

We might also have a policy that says that companies should not 
sell a person's name unless the company receives the person's 
affirmative consent. This "opt-in" approach is generally not 
followed in the United States, although it is followed in Europe. 
 Some people believe it would be a good way to protect privacy 
here.

Other privacy issues are less related to laws and principles and 
more tied specifically to recent developments in technology.  
Encryption provides a method for very private communications.  
Policies for encryption may have a great impact on the level of 
privacy for future users of the information highway.

Encryption also creates a capability for "pseudononymous" 
transactions.  These are transactions where the actual identity 
of the buyer is kept hidden but sufficient information is 
available to the seller to verify the transaction.  Such systems 
may well be suited for network environments such as the Internet.

Anonymity can also be maintained by simple debit cards, such as 
the metro cards in some of the large metropolitan areas like San 
Francisco or Washington, or by telephone cards.  With these 
electronic cash cards, it is possible to pay for services and to 
keep absolute anonymity.

Returning to our example of buying the office supplies, if our 
subject carried an electronic cash card and the store was 
equipped to read the card, he would have been able to purchase 
the supplies without disclosing his identity.

The privacy issues facing users of the information infrastructure

are likely to combine aspects of several of the approaches 
described above.  Of course, not all of these ideas work equally 
well.  And that's where the decisions have to be made.

To get our discussion started, here are a few questions to 
consider:

- Is privacy really that important?  Couldn't we get by with less 
focus on privacy issues?

- What are the most serious privacy concerns that will face the 
users of the information highway?  What specifically is the 
problem?

- Who are likely to pose the greatest threats to privacy?  Is it 
the government?  Is it the private sector?

- Can you think of an example where your privacy or the privacy 
of someone you know was violated?  What did you (or the other 
person) do?

- What policies do you think are best for privacy protection?  Do

you favor barter systems, new laws, technology, or some 
combination?

Be provocative, have fun, let's hear from you!


Prof. Leonard Levine            Marc Rotenberg, Director
University of Wisconsin-        Electronic Privacy Information 
Milwaukee                       Center
Milwaukee, WI                   Washington, DC


From rbarry Tue Nov 15 01:54:47 1994
Subject: password
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:54:47 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 254       

set privacy password 784854522 fhof1194

-- 
 
 rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu          Freeware Hall of Fame BBS  
    The only thing Americans       Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 
   have in common is paranoia.       Free BBS - 1st call downloads  

From rbarry Tue Nov 15 10:30:52 1994
Subject: password
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:30:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 254       

SET PRIVACY PASSWORD 784854522 fhof1194

-- 
 
 rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu          Freeware Hall of Fame BBS  
    The only thing Americans       Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 
   have in common is paranoia.       Free BBS - 1st call downloads  

From daemon Tue Nov 15 17:40:02 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA37273 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:40:02 -0500
From: listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA06220 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:47:15 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:47:15 -0800
Message-Id: <199411160147.RAA06220@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
To: rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu
Subject: SET PRIVACY PASSWORD 784854522 XXXXXXXX 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  NTIA Virtual Conference Server
Status: RO

PASSWORD mode reset to FHOF1194

From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:19:54 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA15463 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:19:52 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA05785; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:27:19 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:27:19 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.91a.941114121521.11719Q-100000@saul4.u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Randy Chapman <chapman@u.washington.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:28] Re: Some topics for discussion
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, Prof. L. P. Levine wrote:
[clip]
> - Is privacy really that important?  Couldn't we get by with less 
> focus on privacy issues?
> 
> - Who are likely to pose the greatest threats to privacy?  Is it 
> the government?  Is it the private sector?
[end clip]

This brings up a very good point.  How much do we trust our own
government?  While we may now think that having the `net' under
Governmental control would be the best thing (hence to protect its
existance and non-comercialism), is it really the best for the
future?

What if the government someday decided that they didn't like some
people group?  Or if they decided to put some sort of quota system
on the net?  And then make it illegal for people to go over that, 
no matter what?  Do we remember the health bill that was talked about
recently where it would be -illegal- to try to go to your own doctor?

Sure, I think that we should avoid commercials on the net if at all
possible (and I think unsolicited commercial mail is rather bad), but
do we _really_ need governmental control to stop that?  What about
the standard free-market bit?  As a matter of policy, I will NEVER
buy from a company that sends me unsolicited mail to me.  Or to an 
unrelated news group.  Yet, I think it _is_ perfectly reasonable to 
be able to mail to a company and request a catalog to be emailed
to me.  Or to go to a forsale newsgroup and see what is forsale --
as long as it is not dominated by commericial places.  And it seems
perfectly reasonable that Joe Blow asks somewhere how he might do
such-and-such and a company emails him (or even posts if there seems
to be enough interest) saying "My product will do this, write to
<xyzzy@foo.bar.com> for more information".

Thanks,
Randy Chapman

-Thanks to all who amde this conference possible-


From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:21:36 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA15229 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:21:35 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA06099; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:29:01 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:29:01 -0800
Message-Id: <44256616248@UOFRLAW>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:30] RE: Concepts of Property and Privacy - The Essential Nexus
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Status: RO

    I respectfully disagree at a central and conceptual foundation 
with the analogies put forth by Professor Levine.  

    HOW I READ PROF. LEVINE'S THESIS:
    Professor Levine urges us to consider our transactions on the 
Internet as a commercial transaction or as a property transaction.  
In that we are asked to accept that we are all on equal footing with 
respect to conducting transactions on the Internet.  The foundation 
of this, to me, is that we all have a piece of property and with that 
comes rights which we exercise.  

    WHY I DISAGREE:
    Professor Levine's thesis assumes that this Internet is a bunch 
of free land that each of us must stake a claim to and build upon.  
It is my perception that our ability to operate on the Internet is 
rooted in permission granted to us, indeed we only have a lisence.  
    Like a driver's lisence we may drive whatever car we wish on the 
road.  Likewise, we may buy and use any combination of hardware and 
software on the Internet (Information SuperHighway).  This aside 
there remain traffic flow signs, speed limits, vehicle inspections, 
etc.  
    Privacy is included in this.  The Highway Patrol may not pull you 
over for no reason at all.  They may not ask you your destination or 
why you travel there.  They may tell you you have broken a driving 
law.  They may, with probable cause, search you, detain you, and 
inspect your vehicle.  
    So it must be on the Internet.  An agency must exist to insure 
the Internet runs smooth, that it delivers the e-mail, that its users 
do not exceed the grant which they have been given.  Privacy must, 
therefore, yield to this police power in some manner.  
    It is at this point: between privacy and lisence, between police 
power and free use where we must set the standards which will allow 
for the protection of our national security, survival of the 
Internet, and protection of our own communications.  
    This is why I have proposed that Internet be run by the 
Department of Defense (DOD) with Congressional oversight.  As I 
stated the DOD already has its hands tied with intelligence oversight 
and this protects all US citizens.  Additionally, posse comitatus 
prohibits the military from intruding on internal affairs.  Who 
better a guardian than one who may take no action, or limited action 
against a citizen.  Second a Congressional oversight of DOD will 
prohibit a pooling of power in one branch or agency.  Congressional 
oversight may fluctuate, but its conduct will be ultimately 
determined by the voters who send the congressmen.  
    I disagree that private organizations can do better than a 
governmental agency.  With a private concern there is no 
accountability to the users, whereas with a government agency citizen-
users retain a level of control.  The abuse of a private organization 
can go much deeper and do more damage then an agency.  Finally, any 
organization will continue to respond to market forces, either 
survival or profit, which an agency is, at most immune from, or, at 
least insulated from.  
    I humbly submit this dissent for your perusal.
                                Respectfully,
                                Jeffrey Millican
                                milljeff@uofrlaw.urich.edu
                                
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.                 

















From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:21:58 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA29059 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:21:58 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA06185; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:29:31 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:29:31 -0800
Message-Id: <1708131414111994/A82633/PALM/118B738D0600*@MHS>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: BURNST <burnst@am.uwplatt.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:31] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

>>    OF BIG BROTHER: {Response to Mr. Chapman}
>
>>The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.

 The price of freedom is incurred risk.I'm not
>worried about radicals of the left or the right utilizing the internet for
>nefarious means but I am concerned about government using that fear to
>exercise more control.
>Federico Acerri

I agree with Mr. Acerri . . . the last thing we need is censorship on the
Internet.  Regulation of information flow, under whatever guise, amounts to
just that.  Part of the beauty of the net right now is that (unlike in most
other media I can think of) there's no "editor" deciding what goes on, and what
doesn't, what's obscene and what isn't, what's "too potentially dangerous" and
what isn't, etc.  

Terri Burns



From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:24:05 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA36771 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:24:05 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA06668; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:31:32 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:31:32 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.941114191815.20944A-100000@csws15.ic.sunysb.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Obdulio Lopez <olopez@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:32] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

Jeffrey,
You must have forgotten that law enforcement would not be required in 
yous scenario to obtain DOD permission in order to intercept, monitor an electronic 
communication. Present statutory law (USCS @@ 2510 et seq.) requires only 
for law enforcement to obtain a warrent from a judge of competant 
jurisdiction in order to intercept an aural or electronic communication, 
no third party permission is required. And service providers are obliged 
by law to provide the neceesary acces.

From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:24:28 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA15279 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:24:28 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA06744; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:31:59 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:31:59 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.941114193129.20944B-100000@csws15.ic.sunysb.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Obdulio Lopez <olopez@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:33] Re: Electonic Privacy and Regulation
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

Tom, I agree with the danger of allowing too much govt. access to 
the NII. Our constitution was drafted on the basis of the proposition 
that government cannot be trusted. Wiretapping to take an example. was an
illegal activity for everyone including the govt. from 1934 to 1968. Yet 
documents released under the FOIA show that the FBI conducted 14,000 
illegal wiretaps during the Hoover years. 
By increasing the facility for law enforcement to access private electronic 
communications, the likelyhood that abuses will occur is considerably 
increased.
Obdulio


From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:24:56 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA30387 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:24:55 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA06812; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:32:24 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:32:24 -0800
Message-Id: <4468A515891@UOFRLAW>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:34] RE: The Federal Monster in Control of the Net
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Status: RO

    OF CREATION AND CONTROL {Response to Mr. Newmark}
    To deny the history which created the Internet is to deny a 
viable future for the Internet.  ARPANET and its progeny are the 
cutting edge of the CyberFrontier, this is largely due to past and 
current funding by the Department of Defense (DOD).  Control of 
these systems to an extent, rather highly attenuated, remains with 
DOD.  We cannot unilaterally declare electronic independence from 
them or their successors.  We must work with them to insure a 
seamless national information infrastructure, and there must be a 
chief for this tribe.  
    The solution is responsible legislation from Congress, which we 
are all hear to discuss (hopefully it will be passed on to 
legislators so they may better enact laws).  This responsible 
legislation will ensure a smooth seamless net and happy citizen-
users.  By binding a knowingly, already bound agency, DOD, we can 
ensure that the Internet is a lasting domain for all with reasonable 
privacy.  This is why I believe that: 1.) DOD should become the 
controlling agency; 2.) to safeguard against abuses there be 
Congressional oversight; and 3.) statutory jurisdiction exclusively 
for the Article III Federal Courts over Internet disputes are a sound 
foundation from which to build the National Information 
Infrastructure.       
                            Take Care
                            Jeffrey Millican
                            milljeff@uofrlaw.urich.edu
                            
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
                            









From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:25:35 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA26314 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:25:34 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA06876; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:32:52 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:32:52 -0800
Message-Id: <446CDE161DA@UOFRLAW>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:35] RE: Of PhoneCops, Wiretaps, and Jurisdiction
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Status: RO

    OF PHONECOPS: {Response to OLOPEZ@LIBSERV1.IC.SUNYSB.EDU}
    I agree with you, but we are here to discuss the future.  This 
future is about a government run/controlled Internet (to the extent 
that the government is not only planning/implementing the 
architecture, but is also participating/expanding the system daily).  
Unlike the public phone system, which is entirely private with state 
and federal oversight, the Internet is a federal entity.  By putting 
that federal entity in the sunlight it is the citizen-user who can 
prevent abuse.  
    Out of this Virtual Conference can come legislation which puts 
the Internet under control of an accountable federal agency.  We, 
through that same agency, can then mandate that: 1.) in the interests 
of privacy, law enforcement get initial approval from that agency 
BEFORE appearing to the judge; AND 2.) the judge to law enforcement 
must appear be an Article III judge.  It is these mandates which can 
allow the agency and the nation to remain secure, while privacy of 
the citizen-user is retained.  
    What we must prevent is: 1.) a law enforcement agency without 
oversight or accountability to control the Internet; AND 2.) that 
citizen-users start to use unapproved encoding methods on the 
Internet, which is as abusive as the first dilemna which we must 
prevent.  Nobody wants Big Brother or the PhoneCops, the solution is 
putting control in the sunlight with oversight and accountability.  
                            Take Care
                            Jeffrey Millican
                            milljeff@uofrlaw.urich.edu
                            
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
                             












From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:25:49 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA16622 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:25:49 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA06943; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:33:17 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:33:17 -0800
Message-Id: <447463F289E@UOFRLAW>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:36] RE: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Status: RO

    OF MS. RYAN'S IDEAS: {Response to Ms. Ryan}
    I believe that Ms. Ryan is bang on target.  A statutory scheme 
lifted from the current Postal statutes protecting privacy is a great 
idea.  Remember, however, that even the Post Office has police.  In 
fact, the Postal Inspection Service is the oldest, and one of the 
largest Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.  Given our reliance on the 
Postal System for privacy, and the Postal Inspection Service, I think 
there is a firm foundation to build upon here.  

    PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
    I propose to my fellow conferees that the Congress enact the 
following law:
        Part One:
            - JURISDICTION: The Article III Federal judiciary shall 
have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of 
any transaction with or on the Internet.   
        Part Two:
            - INTERCEPTION: The Federal government shall not 
intercept electronic mail sent over the Internet between two or more 
private parties UNLESS, upon approval of an article III federal judge 
with proper jurisdiction, it is a federal law enforcement agency with 
jursidiction to conduct activities, AND it has reason to believe that 
the parties are conspiring or violating another federal law.
        Part Three: 
            -TAMPERING: It shall be a federal offense to tamper with 
in any way electronic mail sent over the Internet.  This section 
shall be enforceable by the any law enforcement agency or by any 
party so aggrieved under this section.  Should a private party 
successfully prosecute under this section they may be awarded all 
attorney's fees in addition to other damages and penalties incurred 
upon the trespassing party.   

I look forward to your comments.
                                   Take Care
                                   Jeffrey Millican
                                   milljeff@uofrlaw.urich.edu
                                   
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
                             
      









From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:26:48 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA36863 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:26:47 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07109; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:34:17 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:34:17 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9411141919.A15618-0100000@pwa.acusd.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:38] Re: Some topics for discussion
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO


This is in response to the moderators' posting.  It seems to me that what 
lies underneath several of your hypothetical examples is a  very 
important issue.  Many people are able to secure some form of privacy by 
"some small cost of personal time."  Privacy is available for those 
able to pay for it, negotiate for it, or who can afford the time and 
expense involved in taking their business elsewhere when displeased with 
a company's bad privacy policy.

But what about those who not in a position to to bargain for this right?  
How will the low income, the homeless, and others who simply cannot 
afford the time and effort, be able to exercise their privacy rights?

If some form of universal service/universal access survives the information 
superhighway revolution, shouldn't the basic right to privacy be a part of 
the package?  Shouldn't access automaticly include access to appropriate 
encryption methods and other privacy safeguards?  

If we are not willing to settle for information "haves" and "have nots," why
should we settle for privacy "haves" and "have nots"?
  
I for one believe that universal access requires some form of universal 
privacy guarentee.

More Later

Barry D. Fraser
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
prc@pwa.acusd.edu
prc@teetot.acusd.edu

From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:27:23 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA15113 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:27:22 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07179; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:34:45 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:34:45 -0800
Message-Id: <9411150537.AA24558@stein1.u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Robert Jacobson <cyberoid@u.washington.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:39] Privacy on the Net
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

We might do well to discuss first principles here (as in other of these
conference sessions sponsored by NTIA).  What do we mean by privacy?
How can we protect it without compromising our "need to know," as
defined by law and the courts?  Whose right to privacy is superior when
rights collide, as they always do?

A good deal of information about telephone users is already passed
around the telephone network for the purpose of coordinating signalling
and billing.  This information can also be used for marketing purposes
(as it is by some companies, not by others) and for sale to third
parties for uses unknown.

CA's Telephone Privacy Act and Cable Television Privacy Act, passed in
the mid-1980s, attempted to set limits on the use of personal telephone
information.  They're not quite obsolete, but amendments made over time
have seriously weakened their protection provisions (for example, those
which prohibit a local telephone company from disclosing telephone
calling patterns to a third party other than for system coordination
with long-distance carriers and other local telephone companies).  Now
new services threaten to further limit these laws' reach.

A broader, those less well-known CA law, the Electronic Commerce Act
of 1984, sets forth obligations of privacy protection and recourses
available to any customer of an interactive online or kiosk-provided
service.  Because it relies on civil law to enforce its provisions, it
is actually more powerful and flexible than a PUC-enforced law like
the Telephone Privacy Act or the criminal-law of the Cable Television
Privacy Act...and it covers a lot more emerging, evolving territory.


Robert Jacobson, Ph.D.

Former Principal Consultant
(Senior Staff Analyst) and
Committee Staff Director,
Assembly Utilities and 
Commerce Committee, CA
Legislature, 1981-1989

From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:28:25 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA38943 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:28:24 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07249; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:35:45 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:35:45 -0800
Message-Id: <9411150544.AA24964@stein1.u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Robert Jacobson <cyberoid@u.washington.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:40] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

Federico Acerri worries about the exercise of invasive power by
the government; he is quite right.  The call to privatization
of the Internet, however, does not reduce this threat:  it
merely creates a number of new entities whose ability to apply
invasive power is, collectively, at least as impressive as the
government's.

Bob Jacobson

From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:29:35 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA38981 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:29:35 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07375; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:36:55 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:36:55 -0800
Message-Id: <199411151424.IAA11284@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:41] RE: Concepts of Property and Privacy
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Status: RO

Jeffrey Millican wrote:

>    I respectfully disagree at a central and conceptual foundation 
>with the analogies put forth by Professor Levine.  
>
>    HOW I READ PROF. LEVINE'S THESIS:
>    Professor Levine urges us to consider our transactions on the 
>Internet as a commercial transaction or as a property transaction.  
>In that we are asked to accept that we are all on equal footing with 
>respect to conducting transactions on the Internet.  The foundation 
>of this, to me, is that we all have a piece of property and with that 
>comes rights which we exercise.  
<<snip>>

Mr. Millican has the right to disagree and makes his points well but I
must point out in rebuttal that he has chosen to do just what I have
asserted as he argues that he does not.  (in all that follows, I
assume that Mr. Millican is who he claims to be and is not forging his
entries)

For example he posts from urich.edu.  I did a "whois" on the site and
found:

>University of Richmond (URICH-DOM)
>Richamond, VA 23173
>
>Administrative Contact:
>Brown, H. Gilpin  (HGB2)  BROWN@URVAX.URICH.EDU
>(804) 289-8259
>Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
>Lundin, John  (JL369)  lundin@urvax.urich.edu
>(804) 289-8779

including the misspelled city name.  He asserted in his first post
that he was a law student and and felt honored to be among us
superwizards.  As a Computer Science Professor and a registered
superwizard I welcome him, no cynicism intended.

What we just did was barter our privacy.  In an effort to be accepted
in a community he volunteered some information about himself, he
presented his credentials.  I checked to see if the credentials seemed
to match what he was, they did, and I responded in kind.  I opened my
bag a bit and let you all look inside.  That is the way it is done.

I must also point out that often on the net people speak in haste and
confuse the speaker with the message.  Mr. Millican never did that,
his arguments about my points were to the _point_ and never to me.  
I respect that and look forward to a continuation of our argument on
that plane.

His other point was to who should control the net.  He argues that the
Department of Defense or some such military agency is best.  I will
take exception to that as we never, in this society, use the military
as a controller in times of peace.  When we call in the national guard
it is because we believe that civil authority has broken down.

I prefer the mix of public and private, much as we now support the
power grid.  In the beginning of the grid (before TVA) the power was
private.  Examination of the record will show that without public
participation the private sector ran the grid to its own economic
advantage, putting lines only where there was immediate profit.  Only
after the introduction of a public equivalent did the private sector
begin to shape up.

A similar case can be made for the Post Office.  Here the public
sector ran wild until private systems were allowed to show the way.

--
Leonard P. Levine               e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu
Professor, Computer Science        Office 1-414-229-5170
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee  Fax    1-414-229-6958
Box 784, Milwaukee, WI 53201       

From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:30:25 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA38989 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:30:24 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07482; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:37:56 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:37:56 -0800
Message-Id: <199411151503.JAA12814@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:42] Anecdotes
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Status: RO


I would like to suggest a thread to this discussion that might bring
forth some interesting responses.  We all know about privacy, many of
us can even define it, I suggest we bring together some information on
the following:

Can you think of an example where your privacy or the privacy of
another was violated?  What did you (or what did they) do? 

I can.  About a year ago one of my graduate students posted a bit of
humor to the appropriate newsgroup.  I did see the humor, found it
offensive, and only then noted that the author was my graduate
student.  It had been posted in the right place and that, I assumed,
was that.  The humor discussed women in a most unfavorable light.

A few days later I found out that the posting, now an email document,
had been mailed to every woman in the Computing Center.  It was posted
in the name of my student.  Alarm bells rang and he lost accounts on
several machines.  

I found out about it when I was contacted by the CS Management.  I
looked at the email, spoke to him, was told that yes, he had posted
the joke, but no, he had not mailed the email.  He knew the
difference.

Examination of the electronic document showed that it had been written
using a version of elm that had a bug (there was a date coded into
early elm that caused one of the headers to show a March date no
matter when the document was mailed).  No machine on our campus was
running that buggy version, but another campus in the city was.

It bacame clear that the mailing had been done by one of his enemies
for personal reasons.  It never was clear to me who or why.

The student's reputation has not recovered.  I tell him not to use
email, except for purely business reasons, his social skills still
allow him to write in far too terse a manner.

--
Leonard P. Levine               e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu
Professor, Computer Science        Office 1-414-229-5170
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee  Fax    1-414-229-6958
Box 784, Milwaukee, WI 53201       

From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:31:28 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA22374 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:31:22 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07562; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:38:49 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:38:49 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941114184737.5453A-100000@crl5.crl.com>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Craig Newmark <cnewmark@crl.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:43] RE: The Federal Monster in Control of the Net
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, Jeffrey Millican wrote:

>     OF CREATION AND CONTROL {Response to Mr. Newmark}
>     To deny the history which created the Internet is to deny a 

I don't know of anyone doing that.

> current funding by the Department of Defense (DOD).  Control of 
> these systems to an extent, rather highly attenuated, remains with 
> DOD.  

Not true.

>We cannot unilaterally declare electronic independence from 
> them or their successors.  We must work with them to insure a 

There is no "unilateral" anything on the Net.

> seamless national information infrastructure, and there must be a 
> chief for this tribe.  

Why?  The net needs nothing like that.

>     The solution is responsible legislation from Congress, which we 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      
How much of that do we get these days, e. g., deficit control?

It looks like you agree with my other points.  Thanks...
___________________________________________
Craig Newmark
cnewmark@well.sf.ca.us
cnewmark@crl.com



From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:32:19 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA22407 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:32:13 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07644; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:39:44 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:39:44 -0800
Message-Id: <199411151839.KAA15885@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: geoffrey@vt.edu (Geoffrey C. Chapman)
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:44] Re: Electonic Privacy and Regulation
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
Status: RO

>>In the words of a great man, (my father), locks and laws were designed to keep
>>honest people honest, neither will stop a criminal. To suggest that our
>>national security will be compromised on the net underestimates the ingenuity
>>of the perpeTRAITORS. Any legislation to provide the government the ability to
>>monitor communications amounts to a sacrifice of privacy for all to provide
>>marginal benefits and a huge opportunity for abuse. Not a good tradeoff!
>>The authorities have as much right to peek into my windows as it does to
>>intercept my communications, electronic or otherwise. That doesn't mean I
>>have to leave my curtains open.
>>
>>I would like the capability to unsubscribe or block communications from
>>specific addresses to keep the unsolicited mail to a manageable level. If
>>there is some questionable content in a communication, a disclaimer on the
>>first page would be adequate. I would think most advertisers would be happy
>>to voluntarily comply with this request as a courtesy.
>>
>>Tom Sullivan
>
>The latest incident of spying didn't involve high tech. It was one
>intelligence guy stealing info and letting his Russian connection know by
>marking an "X" on a mailbox. Not very high tech but effective. Privacy is
>paramount in a democratic society. The ability to communicate freely and
>share information helps everyone.
>
>Privacy is, indeed, paramount in a democratic society. So, however, is 
compromise. As was pointed out, consenual "invasion" of privacy (ie check 
purchases, and--a good one: handgun resgistration) is an acceptable 
compromise. What is NOT acceptable is the unbidden, unknown, reading of 
one's mail, be it electronic or US Postal Service generated. 
>


From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:33:43 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA39567 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:33:43 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07803; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:41:15 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:41:15 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.941115130146.8322A-100000@csws15.ic.sunysb.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Obdulio Lopez <olopez@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:45] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off , Switch
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

Craig,
 Many people including myself do not believe that the telephony Bill is  in the best interest to this nation. For one thing the Bill 
authorizes 500 million initaaly to carry put the provisions of the Act. 
Electronic serveilance is a sparingly used investigative tool, carried 
out mostly in New York and New Jersey. Yet Congress is willing to spend 
billions of tax dollars to assure serveilance viability. Money that can 
be spent in programs that are of more benefit to people; or better yet 
money that can be left in the pockets of taxpayers.
Don't be so quick to give oversight authority to private groups that have 
their own agenda. With all of the imperfections of Congress, they at 
least are and will always remain accountable to the American people.
Yours,
Obdulio

From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:34:49 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA22421 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:34:48 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07891; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:42:10 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:42:10 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.941115132745.8322D-100000@csws15.ic.sunysb.edu>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Obdulio Lopez <olopez@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:46] Secuity needed 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO



Criminals are always looking for new venues in order to operate. There is 
no doubt that as the NII increases in size as well as diversity, security 
will become more and more of a critical issue. It is up to the govt. to 
provide this security, yet historical abuses by govt. causes immediate 
concern. Laws must be drafted in order to balance the competing rights of 
individual privacy and the needs of law enforcement. The ball is in the 
hand of Congress.
Obdulio



From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:35:37 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA20174 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:35:36 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07969; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:43:03 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:43:03 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9411151144.A16186-0100000@mercury>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Genie Stowers <gstowers@mercury.sfsu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:47] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

I agree with the view below.    The thought of DOD regulating the 
Internet is a scary one to me.   But, as much as our concept of Big 
Brother is rooted in that Brother being our government, the private 
sector should not be ignored as a threat to our privacy.   Private firms 
seeking to profit from the Internet are becoming organized (look at the 
recent books on how to profit from the Internet, for instance) and I hear 
that many folks are already receiving "junk" email on commercial issues 
(although I am not one of those recipients).   The private sector's 
ability to work its way into our email accounts is a much broader and 
realistic threat to most of us, though with fewer consequences.   I am 
not arguing that the threat from government is small, nonexistent, or 
unimportant- I am just saying let's not ignore the threat is the faces of 
most of us today.

********************************************************************* 
*  Genie N.L. Stowers, Ph.D.       **   Internet Email Address:     *
*  Public Administration Program   **     gstowers@mercury.sfsu.edu *
*  San Francisco State University  **   Office: 415-338-7501        *
*  1600 Holloway Avenue            **   FAX:    510-891-9013        *
*  San Francisco, CA 94132         **   FAX2:   415-338-1980        *
*********************************************************************



On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, Wayne County RESA wrote:

> >    OF BIG BROTHER: {Response to Mr. Chapman}
> 
> >The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
> 
> I rather see the commercialization of the internet than see the internet
> under DOD and Congressional Oversight neither of which are very reliable or
> harbingers of freedom. The price of freedom is incurred risk.I'm not
> worried about radicals of the left or the right utilizing the internet for
> nefarious means but I am concerned about government using that fear to
> exercise more control. The State does not own the internet. We do or
> should. I think the ability to exchange ideas without fear of big brother
> is a better safeguard for our political freedoms than giving the authority
> to the State that says it will take care of this for us. Granted there are
> risks involved but I think they are minimal. Technology in the hands of the
> people be it a selected few because of economics or demographics is better
> than in the arms of a monolith. I think the real issue is educating people
> about the importance of privacy. The importance of access to information
> and that information is power.
> Federico Acerri
> 
> 
> 

From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:37:34 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA40425 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:37:33 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA08143; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:44:50 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:44:50 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941115135611.6217A-100000@crl.crl.com>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Craig Newmark <cnewmark@crl.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:49] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off , Switch
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Obdulio Lopez wrote:

> Craig,
>  Many people including myself do not believe that the telephony Bill is  in the best interest to this nation. For one thing the Bill 
> authorizes 500 million initaaly to carry put the provisions of the Act. 
> Electronic serveilance is a sparingly used investigative tool, carried 
> 

Obdulio, you might want to read a little more carefully before sending 
out a note like this.  I agree with you wholeheartedly.  It was another 
poster who was expressing the authoritarian position.  I hope the other 
people who read this understand the reasons for this superfluous note;  I 
don't want to be misrepresented.

___________________________________________ 
Craig Newmark 
cnewmark@well.sf.ca.us
cnewmark@crl.com


From daemon Tue Nov 15 20:38:10 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA17928 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:38:09 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA08236; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:45:46 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:45:46 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.941115154223.15693A-100000@efn.org>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Public Terminal 1 <public1@efn.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:50] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO



On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, Wayne County RESA wrote:

> >    OF BIG BROTHER: {Response to Mr. Chapman}
> 
> >The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
> 
> I rather see the commercialization of the internet than see the internet
> under DOD and Congressional Oversight neither of which are very reliable or
> harbingers of freedom. The price of freedom is incurred risk.I'm not
> worried about radicals of the left or the right utilizing the internet for
> nefarious means but I am concerned about government using that fear to
> exercise more control. The State does not own the internet. We do or
> should. I think the ability to exchange ideas without fear of big brother
> is a better safeguard for our political freedoms than giving the authority
> to the State that says it will take care of this for us. Granted there are
> risks involved but I think they are minimal. Technology in the hands of the
> people be it a selected few because of economics or demographics is better
> than in the arms of a monolith. I think the real issue is educating people
> about the importance of privacy. The importance of access to information
> and that information is power.
> Federico Acerri
> 
I'm not sure if DOD is the right agency, but quite frankly I'd rather 
have government in control than the private sector.  The private sector 
has a very nasty habit of eluding accountablity for its actions (allowing 
blind "market forces" to guide it, which tend to reward short term gain 
over long term gain, and tends to advance the interests of the few over 
the interests of the many) and the government, for all its faults, seems
to me to be more accountable than corporations are.  The private sector 
also suffers from a lack of coordination between various entities, 
relying on competition instead.  This can result in different technical 
standards and the creation of stratified classes of communications 
access.  We don't need to recreate our social pathologies in cyberspace.

Gary
OPN observer


From daemon Tue Nov 15 23:42:13 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id XAA31399 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:42:12 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA21212; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:49:07 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:49:07 -0800
Message-Id: <199411160748.XAA21179@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:51] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

To respond flippantly and with a grain of truth as all flippant comments
have, the best way to keep government oversight to a minimum is to 
simply call the whole mess of networks an agency.  Hardly anyone
looks into the activities of agencies and, therefore, they get to
do what they want.  That's what most current users of the internet
want and, besides, the courts would then be obligated to defer to
our collective expertise whenever a legal issue came up.  The only
way we would be different from other agencies is that we would
have no specified organizational pattern (some would say that this
is no difference at all).

My 2 cents worth.

Doug Masson
Indiana University School of Law 
dmasson@indiana.edu

"The price of eternal vigilance is freedom"

From daemon Tue Nov 15 23:59:54 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id XAA27189 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:59:53 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA21907; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:02:15 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:02:15 -0800
Message-Id: <199411160759.XAA21714@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:52] RE: Of PhoneCops, Wiretaps, and Jurisdiction
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

Here is a preliminary idea for creating an accountable body which will
administer the Internet.  How about some sort of body elected by 
registered users of the Net?  One person, one vote, if you thwart
the will of the constituency, you're out.  

---Doug Masson
Indiana University School of Law
dmasson@indiana.edu

From daemon Wed Nov 16 04:41:48 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id EAA35140 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 04:41:38 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA20520; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 04:48:41 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 04:48:41 -0800
Message-Id: <9411160939.AA06709@ua.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: solman@MIT.EDU
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:56] RE: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.4.1 7/21/94
Status: RO

> PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
>     I propose to my fellow conferees that the Congress enact the 
> following law:

>         Part Three: 
>             -TAMPERING: It shall be a federal offense to tamper with 
> in any way electronic mail sent over the Internet.  This section 
> shall be enforceable by the any law enforcement agency or by any 
> party so aggrieved under this section.  Should a private party 
> successfully prosecute under this section they may be awarded all 
> attorney's fees in addition to other damages and penalties incurred 
> upon the trespassing party.   

How can you suggest such a thing? This amounts to requiring other private
citizens to deliver your mail at zero cost lest they face huge penalties.
If you want to ensure that _your_ mail delivered privately and without
tampering, you should A) pay for it, B) check up on it and C) use
encryption. It is possitively trivial to ensure both message integrity
and privacy in electronic media. Why would you want to create an
unenforceable law to do the same?

Cheers,

Jason W. Solinsky

From daemon Wed Nov 16 04:56:56 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id EAA33477 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 04:56:45 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA22209; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:03:45 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:03:45 -0800
Message-Id: <9411160954.AA06749@ua.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: solman@MIT.EDU
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:57] Re: Some topics for discussion 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.4.1 7/21/94
Status: RO

> This is in response to the moderators' posting.  It seems to me that what 
> lies underneath several of your hypothetical examples is a  very 
> important issue.  Many people are able to secure some form of privacy by 
> "some small cost of personal time."  Privacy is available for those 
> able to pay for it, negotiate for it, or who can afford the time and 
> expense involved in taking their business elsewhere when displeased with 
> a company's bad privacy policy.
> 
> But what about those who not in a position to to bargain for this right?  
> How will the low income, the homeless, and others who simply cannot 
> afford the time and effort, be able to exercise their privacy rights?

Privacy is not something you need to bargain for. It is something that
you start off with. Unless you, by your words and actions, communicate
information to others about yourself, nobody will know ANYTHING about
you. Your privacy is yours to sell. And most people _will_ want to sell
it because corporate America values it so highly.

I think that the universal service question is moot for this very reason.
Who gains the most from the installation of the information superhighway?
You might gain a few services and new modes of communication. But corporate
america gains a direct connection to your brain. Your attention and knowledge
about your habbits are worth far more to them, than basic service actually
costs.

Until the development of the information superhighway, it was impossible to
claim a fair price for your privacy. But sitting on the other end of a phone
line in front of a computer, you have absolute control over what information
you let in and what information you send out. Suddenly, the consumer has
gained a very very powerful bargaining position.

JWS

From daemon Wed Nov 16 10:33:55 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA16494 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 10:33:54 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA18710; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 10:40:45 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 10:40:45 -0800
Message-Id: <199411161531.KAA26904@freenet.carleton.ca>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:62] RE: Of PhoneCops, Wiretaps, and Jurisdiction
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

>Here is a preliminary idea for creating an accountable body which will
>administer the Internet.  How about some sort of body elected by 
>registered users of the Net?  One person, one vote, if you thwart
>the will of the constituency, you're out.  

Sounds good, but one problem; isn't this what current democratic
governments are supposed to be?  Yet it doesn't seem to happen.

--

Paul Holden			       "Float like a butterfly,
az908@freenet.carleton.ca		  sting like a bee."

From daemon Wed Nov 16 12:39:20 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA30248 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 12:39:17 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA01151; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 12:46:13 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 12:46:13 -0800
Message-Id: <46EF4F2079B@UOFRLAW>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:63] RE: Of the Soil Conservation Service and Public Works
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Status: RO


    OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (SCS): {Response to Mssrs. 
Masson, Howland, and Holden}
    Mr. Masson suggested that the Internet be under the control of an 
elected, presumably independent, agency of the Federal Government.  
Internet Administrators and Policy Makers would be elected for a term 
to oversee the Internet.  Such operations could even be separated 
amongst many agencies to prevent consloidation of power.  
    I agree with this proposal.  I think a new, independent 
federal agency or agencies with net elected citizen-users at the head 
would be a good idea to govern the Internet.  Elections should be 
staggered between agencies and each elected office so as to keep a 
continious flow of citizen-users overseeing the Internet.  
    To my knowledge, this is to a limited extent practiced by the 
Soil Conservation Service in its rural, public works projects.  A 
drainage, or other project, to benefit rural landowners is concieved 
by the SCS.  Those landowners who will benefit are presented with the 
project and vote upon its adoption.  If approved, the governing body 
is elected from this same electorate, and the same electorate 
oversees financing including federal grants, state grants, and taxes 
levied on this same electorate with its approval.  
    I present this as a possible addition to Mr. Masson's foundation. 

    In response to Mr. Holden, I disagree that democracy does not 
respond to the people.  I would illustrate with an example from Mr. 
Holden's own state: Proposition 187.  Its political volatitity aside, 
the Proposition itself and that democratic process is successful in 
expressing the wishes of the people of California.  Similarly, the 
recent Republican landslide also shows that a mobilized and informed 
electorate can make decisions and influence policy.  It remains to be 
seen whether or not the Republicans will carry through, but my point 
is that democracy is effective in its goverenance.     

    In response to Mr. Howland, I agree that a single agency may not 
be the answer.  However, an agency or agencies must have some control 
and policy formulation.  Many fellow conferees agree that commercial 
regulation is or would be as bad if not worse then federal 
regulation.  I agree with them.  At least a federal agency or 
agencies will always be to some extent accountable to the Congress 
and thusly to the citizenry.  Under Mr. Masson's proposal, thses 
agencies will also be accountable to the Internet's citizen-users.  

    I look forward to your response.
                                    Sincerely,
                                    Jeffrey Millican
                                    milljeff@uofrlaw.urich.edu
                                    
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. 
                            
        


















From daemon Wed Nov 16 13:23:40 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA31336 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 13:23:18 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA06035; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 13:29:33 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 13:29:33 -0800
Message-Id: <46FAEBF7BB2@UOFRLAW>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:64] RE: A Modest Proposal - The First Response
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Status: RO

    OF PROBABLE CAUSE: {Response to Mr. Chapman}
    In response to my first legislative proposal, Mr. Chapman wrote 
that he wanted a more specific statute and argued that the use of the 
"probable cause" standard was to varied within the judiciary to be of 
use.  I explain my use of the general.  Since the Federal Judiciary 
will be deciding such matters, pertinent to the Jurisdiction part of 
my proposal, and since "probable cause" has been refined by that 
judiciary over the years of trying federal criminal cases, I believe 
that such broad terms will allow for quick decisions and reach all 
possible cases.  While the statute is vague, it is not without its 
restrictions.  
    First, the restriction of cases to the Federal, Article III, 
Judiciary will allow for cases to go before a uniform judicial 
system.  A citizen-user in California will go to a judge with the 
same training, approval, life tenure, and power as the citizen-user 
in Virginia.  This will apply in the Court of First Instance, Federal 
District Court, and upon appeal, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  
    Second, the restriction of these cases to the Federal Judiciary 
draws upon a strong base of previous decisions concerning similar 
issues.  The definition of "probable cause" within the Federal Courts 
will only need to be slightly adjusted for application within the 
Internet domain.  
    Third, this generality will reach all possible cases which may 
arise.  No one can reasonably predict all the circumstances which 
will face a court in a trial.  By allowing the judiciary the breadth 
of interpretation we safeguard ourselves from our own tyranny, the 
tyranny of "gosh I hadn't thought of that."   
    Finally, by using the general we allow for a flexible future.  
The Internet itself is an example.  Who among the implementers of 
ARPANET in the 1960's foresaw the electronic domain of today.  Even 
science fiction writers have been astonished at the Internet.  By 
writing a general statute to protect ourselves we allow the courts to 
bend with future developments on the Internet and off of it.  

    OF ITS MY DIME: {Response to Mr. Solinsky}
    In response to my first legislative proposal, Mr. Solinsky 
disagreed and countered that simply paying for my services, checking 
on those services I pay for, and using encryption are ways I my 
counter the evils I proposed to counter with legislation.  I agree 
with Mr. Solinsky that every citizen-user must uphold a certain 
modicum of decorum in maintaining his/er account.  I have never 
proposed otherwise, and do not now do so.  Rather, I propose that 
legislation to accomplish the same goal.  I also believe that this is 
the spirit in which Ms. Ryan made her statement.  
    Basic laws which limit the interception and prohibit tampering 
with electronic mail seek only to provide a level which all citizen-
users of the Internet may not sink below.  It is a legal and binding 
statement from us to ourselves that these are transactions which we, 
in community, abhor.  It does not, and was not meant to, mean that 
any of us are relieved of paying for our mail and checking our 
account.  
    The ability of a citizen-user to enforce this provision makes it 
less trival then it appears.  I agree that for any law enforcement 
agency to enforce the law would be a mounmental task.  I point out 
that the Postal Inspection Service does do an admirable job of this 
with respect to tampering and the Postal System.  By allowing the 
citizen-user to bring this action we allow each of us to enforce our 
own privacy, and to violate others at our own cost.  Such a system 
will not stamp out tampering, but it will deter many who otherwise 
would tamper.  
    With respect to encryption I believe that Mr. Newmark's, and 
other's, proposal for public key encryption may be feasible.  I 
would, of course, like to hear more about it.  I also don't think 
that these laws would conflict with such encryption methods.  

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Jeffrey Millican
                                    milljeff@uofrlaw.urich.edu
                                    
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
                             
              

















































From daemon Wed Nov 16 14:05:49 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA36542 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:05:48 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA11419; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:12:15 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:12:15 -0800
Message-Id: <199411162211.OAA11335@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Tom.Sullivan@oryx.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:65] Encryption
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

Perhaps we should limit e-mail to English ;-&. Absurd, you say? No more
absurd than restricting encryption routines. Will I be arrested for sending
messages in Arabic, Farsi, Navajo, Pig-Latin? Restricting encryption routines
is futile. If the sender and recipient have communicated a key, they can
send encoded messages in English.

Tom Sullivan
. ___ ...

From daemon Wed Nov 16 14:51:48 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA30445 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:51:44 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA16140; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:58:11 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:58:11 -0800
Message-Id: <00541.2867840100.1178@washofc.epic.org>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@washofc.epic.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:66] Summary I 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

Date	11/16/94
Subject	Summary I
From	Marc Rotenberg
To	privacy

        Reply to:   Summary I

MID-WEEK SUMMARY OF NTIA PRIVACY CONFERENCE
	
	Greetings to conferees and those who have just joined.  
Leonard Levine and I co-moderating the discussion.  At the 
beginning we posted a short essay with a few provocative 
questions. Here is a summary of the comments posted so far.  

Marc Rotenberg.


"Privacy is paramount in a democratic society.

	Bob Jacobson starts at the beginning, always a good 
place to start, and asks "What do we mean by privacy? How can 
we protect it without compromising our 'need to know,' as 
defined by law and the courts?  Whose right to privacy is 
superior when rights collide, as they always do?"

	A good example of this type of problem is noted by Gary 
M. Goodlander who says that privacy and the right to know are 
both important but there also sometimes in conflict.  "We 
have always erred on the side of Freedom of Speech. We should 
continue to do so."

	Privacy can also be viewed as a precondition to the 
exercise of other freedoms, including the right to 
communicate.  Barry Fraser say that universal access requires 
some form of universal privacy guarantee. "If some form of 
universal service/universal access survives the information 
superhighway revolution, shouldn't the basic right to privacy 
be a part of the package?  Shouldn't access automatically 
include access to appropriate encryption methods and other 
privacy safeguards?"


Foxes in the Hen house?

	Privacy protection also raises questions about the role 
of government and the role of the private sector.  Here we've 
had a spirited discussion.  Jeffrey Millican, who reminds us 
that the Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance (or perhaps 
eternal e-mailing <grin>), recommends that the DOD govern the 
Internet, that we have strong Congressional oversight, and 
Article III judges resolve disputes.  (For those folks who 
haven't enjoyed the wonders of law school, an Article III 
judge has life-time tenure) 

	Federico Acerri objects to government control.  "The 
ability to exchange ideas without fear of big brother is a 
better safeguard for our political freedoms than giving the 
authority to the State that says it will take care of this 
for us."  Craig Newmark said simply "This puts the foxes in 
charge of the henhouse, which has been overwhelmingly 
rejected."  Terri Burns adds "the last thing we need is 
censorship on the Internet."

	But Bob Jacobson cautions that there are many ways to 
invade privacy.  "Privatization of the Internet, however, 
does not reduce this threat:  it merely creates a number of 
new entities whose ability to apply invasive power is, 
collectively, at least as impressive as the government's."  
And Genie Showers writes "as much as our concept of Big 
Brother is rooted in that Brother being our government, the 
private sector should not be ignored as a threat to our 
privacy."  And Gary, logging in from a public terminal, adds 
"the government, for all its faults, seems to me to be more 
accountable than corporations are. "

	Doug Masson generally agrees that government is more 
accountable but suggests that some agencies escape scrutiny 
with the claim of national security. "A possible solution is 
to put control in the hands of several agencies so that 
organized evasion becomes less of a possibility."

	Sara Ryan takes a holistic approach.  "We must develop 
is a system which ensures privacy  *regardless* of the source 
of the threat." She says this means "not allowing government 
the capacity for an "electronic wiretap, companies tracking 
electronic mail, and penalties for hacking based on an 
understanding of what hacking *means* and the amount of harm 
it can and cannot do. My greater concern is with those 
persons who can access private data such as credit rating, 
bank account data, the contents as well as the address 
headings of e-mail etc. The damage that these people can do 
is monumental."

	Randy Chapman writes that he is no fan of unsolicited 
commercial mail, but asks whether we really need government 
control to stop it.  "I will NEVER buy from a company that 
sends me unsolicited mail to me. . . . Yet, I think it _is_ 
perfectly reasonable to be able to mail to a company and 
request a catalog to be emailed to me."


Cryptography and Privacy

	Will cryptography protect privacy?  This is a popular 
discussion topic across the Net.  Karen Raper writes 
"encryption/decryption requires additional hardware and/or 
software which is not necessarily cheap and accessible to 
all," and asks whether the use of the "internet common" be 
limited to only those applications which are not sensitive to 
privacy. Donald Brown agreed.  Nathaniel McIntosh also agreed 
and noted that "there is the issue of whether vendors can 
pass on 'incidental' information that is obtained as a side 
effect of communication."

	Craig Newmark weighed in to support public key 
cryptography. "the whole Clipper controversy has sensitized a 
lot people to the need for consumer privacy. 

	Tom Sullivan had some doubts about this approach.  He 
said he would like "the capability to unsubscribe or block 
communications from specific addresses to keep the 
unsolicited mail to a manageable level. If there is some 
questionable content in a communication, a disclaimer on the 
first page would be adequate."


Wiretapping and Net-tapping

	So far, this group has not shown much support for 
government surveillance of the Net.  Sara Ryan opts for 
public key encryption. Federico Acerri notes the problems of 
Clipper.  Obdulio Lopez adds "By increasing the facility for 
law enforcement to access private electronic communications, 
the likelihood that abuses will occur is considerably 
increased."  Still Mr. Lopez is not prepared to dismiss 
government completely.  "With all of the imperfections of 
Congress, they at least are and will always remain 
accountable to the American people."  Geoff Chapman says we 
should be more wary of net-tapping than wiretapping.

	Jeffrey Millican takes the side of the Clipper 
proponents, and worries "that citizen-users will start to use 
unapproved encoding methods on the Internet, which is as 
abusive as the first dilemma which we must prevent. "

Identity and Anonymity

	My co-host Leonard Levine raises an interesting question 
in his response to Jeffrey Millican.  He suggests that it is 
helpful to know the actual identity of the sender to evaluate 
his words.  I'm not sure I would agree.  Some of the 
philosophers would tell us that we don't need to know the 
author to appreciate the idea.

     Still, Len's concern is based on an interesting 
experience which he described in a post.  If email is wrongly 
attributed, as happened with one of his students, real harm 
can result.  Accountability and anonymity are closely linked 
to privacy in this networked world.

One Anecdote and A Little Law

	A few years back I worked for the Senate Judiciary 
Committee around the time of Robert Bork's nomination to the 
Supreme Court.  During the course of the hearing, a story 
appeared in a DC weekly describing the video rental tapes 
rented by Judge Bork and his family.  An interesting privacy 
issue.  Does the public have the right to know the movies the 
Borks watched in their home?  Where does the First Amendment 
fit in?

	The legislative response was to write a law which said 
that video stores should not generally disclose this 
information to the public, but also that there should be no 
restrictions on publication in the newspapers if the 
information is disclosed. Pretty good result for both privacy 
and the First Amendment.

	Of course, this is all became a lot more interesting a 
few years later when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the 
Supreme Court and questions were raised about his video tape 
preferences.  I can imagine a few years from now a Senator 
asking a judicial nominee, "Did you really once subscribe to 
the radical newsgroup Computer Privacy Digest?" 

	Just kidding, Len.


Proposals

	We've had a few suggestions for privacy protection.

	Some folks probably favor bartering systems to resolve 
privacy concerns.  "JWS", cleverly hiding his identity, makes 
the interesting point that we now have more control over what 
information we receive and what information we send out. 
"Suddenly, the consumer has gained a very very powerful 
bargaining position."

	Doug Masson writes "How about some sort of body elected 
by registered users of the Net?  One person, one vote, if you 
thwart the will of the constituency, you're out. "  Curt 
Howland votes against the agency, "a single point of failure 
and power susceptible to being corrupted or compromised."

	Doug also urges the learn-by-experience approach. "Let 
the problem present itself before we create its solution.  
This way we do in fact create the solution instead of another 
problem."

	Obdulio Lopez writes that the there "should be an 
intensive effort to focus research on developing new 
technologies that would protect the security of electronic 
communications."  He suggests that we take the $500 million 
authorized to upgrade wiretap capabilities and appropriate 
the money to develop the kind of security software that will 
make the NII safe and secure for business transactions. 



What is To Be Done?

	Over the next few days, we might consider some of the 
current proposals for privacy protection for the network.  
How would you evaluate each idea?  What do you like? What do 
you dislike? The policy folks will probably be very 
interested in what you have to say.

	Here goes.  

-- Well established privacy principles that cover the 
collection and use of personal data across the network, 
possibly as voluntary guidelines, developed by industry, 
possibly as legislation with enforceable rights.

-- A federal privacy office that operates as ombudsman or 
clearinghouse for privacy concerns as opposed to a regulatory 
agency. A privacy 911, so to speak.

-- "Sectoral" laws that cover specific types of data, such as 
medical records, banking records.  We've had some success 
with these laws, such as the Video Privacy Protection Act 
described above.  But there are always questions about 
whether they cover too much, too little, and whether they 
will be enforced.

-- Federal funding for security and privacy technologies. Or 
perhaps keeping the feds out of the security business.  Which 
would you prefer?

-- Data marketplaces, a place where you could go to sell 
personal information. "Bartering for bytes." How will this 
work? 

What did we miss?


Marc Rotenberg.

=============================================================
Marc Rotenberg, director                   rotenberg@epic.org
Electronic Privacy Information Center    tel: +1 202 544 9240
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301      fax: +1 202 547 5482
Washington, DC  200003
=============================================================




From daemon Wed Nov 16 15:33:01 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA18937 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:32:02 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA19883; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:38:10 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:38:10 -0800
Message-Id: <H0000235009442e3@MHS>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:67] PRIVACY digest 6
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 6

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Summary I 
	by Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@washofc.epic.org>
  2) [PRIVACY:66] Summary I
	by Richmeyer_Joseph/GHQ_RAPA@rapa1.sbc.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:10:27 EST    
From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@washofc.epic.org>
To: privacy <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Summary I 
Message-ID: <00541.2867840100.1178@washofc.epic.org>

Date	11/16/94
Subject	Summary I
From	Marc Rotenberg
To	privacy

        Reply to:   Summary I

MID-WEEK SUMMARY OF NTIA PRIVACY CONFERENCE
	
	Greetings to conferees and those who have just joined.  
Leonard Levine and I co-moderating the discussion.  At the 
beginning we posted a short essay with a few provocative 
questions. Here is a summary of the comments posted so far.  

Marc Rotenberg.


"Privacy is paramount in a democratic society.

	Bob Jacobson starts at the beginning, always a good 
place to start, and asks "What do we mean by privacy? How can 
we protect it without compromising our 'need to know,' as 
defined by law and the courts?  Whose right to privacy is 
superior when rights collide, as they always do?"

	A good example of this type of problem is noted by Gary 
M. Goodlander who says that privacy and the right to know are 
both important but there also sometimes in conflict.  "We 
have always erred on the side of Freedom of Speech. We should 
continue to do so."

	Privacy can also be viewed as a precondition to the 
exercise of other freedoms, including the right to 
communicate.  Barry Fraser say that universal access requires 
some form of universal privacy guarantee. "If some form of 
universal service/universal access survives the information 
superhighway revolution, shouldn't the basic right to privacy 
be a part of the package?  Shouldn't access automatically 
include access to appropriate encryption methods and other 
privacy safeguards?"


Foxes in the Hen house?

	Privacy protection also raises questions about the role 
of government and the role of the private sector.  Here we've 
had a spirited discussion.  Jeffrey Millican, who reminds us 
that the Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance (or perhaps 
eternal e-mailing <grin>), recommends that the DOD govern the 
Internet, that we have strong Congressional oversight, and 
Article III judges resolve disputes.  (For those folks who 
haven't enjoyed the wonders of law school, an Article III 
judge has life-time tenure) 

	Federico Acerri objects to government control.  "The 
ability to exchange ideas without fear of big brother is a 
better safeguard for our political freedoms than giving the 
authority to the State that says it will take care of this 
for us."  Craig Newmark said simply "This puts the foxes in 
charge of the henhouse, which has been overwhelmingly 
rejected."  Terri Burns adds "the last thing we need is 
censorship on the Internet."

	But Bob Jacobson cautions that there are many ways to 
invade privacy.  "Privatization of the Internet, however, 
does not reduce this threat:  it merely creates a number of 
new entities whose ability to apply invasive power is, 
collectively, at least as impressive as the government's."  
And Genie Showers writes "as much as our concept of Big 
Brother is rooted in that Brother being our government, the 
private sector should not be ignored as a threat to our 
privacy."  And Gary, logging in from a public terminal, adds 
"the government, for all its faults, seems to me to be more 
accountable than corporations are. "

	Doug Masson generally agrees that government is more 
accountable but suggests that some agencies escape scrutiny 
with the claim of national security. "A possible solution is 
to put control in the hands of several agencies so that 
organized evasion becomes less of a possibility."

	Sara Ryan takes a holistic approach.  "We must develop 
is a system which ensures privacy  *regardless* of the source 
of the threat." She says this means "not allowing government 
the capacity for an "electronic wiretap, companies tracking 
electronic mail, and penalties for hacking based on an 
understanding of what hacking *means* and the amount of harm 
it can and cannot do. My greater concern is with those 
persons who can access private data such as credit rating, 
bank account data, the contents as well as the address 
headings of e-mail etc. The damage that these people can do 
is monumental."

	Randy Chapman writes that he is no fan of unsolicited 
commercial mail, but asks whether we really need government 
control to stop it.  "I will NEVER buy from a company that 
sends me unsolicited mail to me. . . . Yet, I think it _is_ 
perfectly reasonable to be able to mail to a company and 
request a catalog to be emailed to me."


Cryptography and Privacy

	Will cryptography protect privacy?  This is a popular 
discussion topic across the Net.  Karen Raper writes 
"encryption/decryption requires additional hardware and/or 
software which is not necessarily cheap and accessible to 
all," and asks whether the use of the "internet common" be 
limited to only those applications which are not sensitive to 
privacy. Donald Brown agreed.  Nathaniel McIntosh also agreed 
and noted that "there is the issue of whether vendors can 
pass on 'incidental' information that is obtained as a side 
effect of communication."

	Craig Newmark weighed in to support public key 
cryptography. "the whole Clipper controversy has sensitized a 
lot people to the need for consumer privacy. 

	Tom Sullivan had some doubts about this approach.  He 
said he would like "the capability to unsubscribe or block 
communications from specific addresses to keep the 
unsolicited mail to a manageable level. If there is some 
questionable content in a communication, a disclaimer on the 
first page would be adequate."


Wiretapping and Net-tapping

	So far, this group has not shown much support for 
government surveillance of the Net.  Sara Ryan opts for 
public key encryption. Federico Acerri notes the problems of 
Clipper.  Obdulio Lopez adds "By increasing the facility for 
law enforcement to access private electronic communications, 
the likelihood that abuses will occur is considerably 
increased."  Still Mr. Lopez is not prepared to dismiss 
government completely.  "With all of the imperfections of 
Congress, they at least are and will always remain 
accountable to the American people."  Geoff Chapman says we 
should be more wary of net-tapping than wiretapping.

	Jeffrey Millican takes the side of the Clipper 
proponents, and worries "that citizen-users will start to use 
unapproved encoding methods on the Internet, which is as 
abusive as the first dilemma which we must prevent. "

Identity and Anonymity

	My co-host Leonard Levine raises an interesting question 
in his response to Jeffrey Millican.  He suggests that it is 
helpful to know the actual identity of the sender to evaluate 
his words.  I'm not sure I would agree.  Some of the 
philosophers would tell us that we don't need to know the 
author to appreciate the idea.

     Still, Len's concern is based on an interesting 
experience which he described in a post.  If email is wrongly 
attributed, as happened with one of his students, real harm 
can result.  Accountability and anonymity are closely linked 
to privacy in this networked world.

One Anecdote and A Little Law

	A few years back I worked for the Senate Judiciary 
Committee around the time of Robert Bork's nomination to the 
Supreme Court.  During the course of the hearing, a story 
appeared in a DC weekly describing the video rental tapes 
rented by Judge Bork and his family.  An interesting privacy 
issue.  Does the public have the right to know the movies the 
Borks watched in their home?  Where does the First Amendment 
fit in?

	The legislative response was to write a law which said 
that video stores should not generally disclose this 
information to the public, but also that there should be no 
restrictions on publication in the newspapers if the 
information is disclosed. Pretty good result for both privacy 
and the First Amendment.

	Of course, this is all became a lot more interesting a 
few years later when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the 
Supreme Court and questions were raised about his video tape 
preferences.  I can imagine a few years from now a Senator 
asking a judicial nominee, "Did you really once subscribe to 
the radical newsgroup Computer Privacy Digest?" 

	Just kidding, Len.


Proposals

	We've had a few suggestions for privacy protection.

	Some folks probably favor bartering systems to resolve 
privacy concerns.  "JWS", cleverly hiding his identity, makes 
the interesting point that we now have more control over what 
information we receive and what information we send out. 
"Suddenly, the consumer has gained a very very powerful 
bargaining position."

	Doug Masson writes "How about some sort of body elected 
by registered users of the Net?  One person, one vote, if you 
thwart the will of the constituency, you're out. "  Curt 
Howland votes against the agency, "a single point of failure 
and power susceptible to being corrupted or compromised."

	Doug also urges the learn-by-experience approach. "Let 
the problem present itself before we create its solution.  
This way we do in fact create the solution instead of another 
problem."

	Obdulio Lopez writes that the there "should be an 
intensive effort to focus research on developing new 
technologies that would protect the security of electronic 
communications."  He suggests that we take the $500 million 
authorized to upgrade wiretap capabilities and appropriate 
the money to develop the kind of security software that will 
make the NII safe and secure for business transactions. 



What is To Be Done?

	Over the next few days, we might consider some of the 
current proposals for privacy protection for the network.  
How would you evaluate each idea?  What do you like? What do 
you dislike? The policy folks will probably be very 
interested in what you have to say.

	Here goes.  

-- Well established privacy principles that cover the 
collection and use of personal data across the network, 
possibly as voluntary guidelines, developed by industry, 
possibly as legislation with enforceable rights.

-- A federal privacy office that operates as ombudsman or 
clearinghouse for privacy concerns as opposed to a regulatory 
agency. A privacy 911, so to speak.

-- "Sectoral" laws that cover specific types of data, such as 
medical records, banking records.  We've had some success 
with these laws, such as the Video Privacy Protection Act 
described above.  But there are always questions about 
whether they cover too much, too little, and whether they 
will be enforced.

-- Federal funding for security and privacy technologies. Or 
perhaps keeping the feds out of the security business.  Which 
would you prefer?

-- Data marketplaces, a place where you could go to sell 
personal information. "Bartering for bytes." How will this 
work? 

What did we miss?


Marc Rotenberg.

=============================================================
Marc Rotenberg, director                   rotenberg@epic.org
Electronic Privacy Information Center    tel: +1 202 544 9240
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301      fax: +1 202 547 5482
Washington, DC  200003
=============================================================




------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 14:26:37 -0600
From: Richmeyer_Joseph/GHQ_RAPA@rapa1.sbc.com
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: [PRIVACY:66] Summary I
Message-ID: <H0000235009442e3@MHS>

Item Subject: Reply: [PRIVACY:66] Summary I
please unsubscribe me to this list!
jr9283@rapa1.sbc.com


------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 6
***********************

From daemon Wed Nov 16 17:25:11 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA36491 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 17:25:10 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA27753; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 17:20:42 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 17:20:42 -0800
Message-Id: <m0r7sP7-000FJXC@llwsbe.wsbe.org>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:70] PRIVACY digest 7
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.privacy
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 7

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) RE: Of Superwizards and Conceptual Privacy-Word From Richamond
	by Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu>
  2) shotgun
	by jamesm@satyrs.engr.CSUFresno.EDU (James Martin)
  3) Re: [PRIVACY:56] RE: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy
	by crwht001@llwsbe.wsbe.org (William Morris)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 16:12:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu
Subject: RE: Of Superwizards and Conceptual Privacy-Word From Richamond
Message-ID: <472918317B6@UOFRLAW>

    OF RICHAMOND - MY FAIR CITY: 
    I was pleased and honored that Professor Levine responded and 
researched against my arguements made to him.  I apologize that my 
city is advertised on the net in less than perfect form.  Correction 
of this may come after we beat Gary (or is it Garey?), Indiana for 
the highest murder rate in the U.S.  Oh, the noble goals we hold for 
ourselves.  

    OF SUPERWIZARDS: 
    That I am welcomed among the coven of Superwizards of the 
Internet is also an honor.  My decision to come to law school was 
partly based on the fact that I am poor at mathematics, and maybe 
spelling too.  I hope that I can contribute to the Conference and to 
the Superwizards, spelling and math notwithstanding.  

    OF CONCEPTUAL PRIVACY:
    I concede to Professor Levine that, as he wrote [twice], we did 
indeed barter for our privacy.  This can be extended to the Virtual 
Conference itself.  Indeed we all bartered some of our privacy to 
participate in this Virtual Conference.  Our Internet addresses, 
personal information, our viewpoints, etc. have all been brutally 
exposed to more people than we know.  In return we get similar 
information, grow in our knowledge, and, hopefully, affect National 
Information Infrastructure policy.  
    My premise, I believe, goes deeper than that.  When we become a 
citizen-user of the Internet I argue that we get property, to 
illustrate: a bundle of sticks.  Since this property is created 
through an entity, I argue the Federal government, our bundle of 
sticks is limited to what that entity wants us to have.  It is at 
this level which I believe should be the center of our privacy 
arguements.  
    Since the entity is responsive to our needs, government to 
people, the bounds we set on privacy must originate in the bundle of 
sticks which we first recieve when we become citizen users.  This 
privacy stick, part of the bundle, should, for example: 1.) prevent 
tampering with our e-mail, 2.) allow each of us to barter that 
privacy in exchanges, Professor Levine's example, and 3.) prevent 
unwanted governmental/commercial interference with our account.  
    From this springs my driver's lisence analogy.  A driver's 
lisence is a bundle of sticks which allow us to drive on the public 
roads.  
    While, like my fellow conferees, I continue to barter my privacy 
I hope the privacy stick which comes in the bundle remains there as 
the Internet grows into the Information Super Highway.  

                                Respectfully,
                                Jeffrey Millican
                                milljeff@uofrlaw.urich.edu
                                
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
                             
            

























------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 13:19:30 PST
From: jamesm@satyrs.engr.CSUFresno.EDU (James Martin)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: jamesm
Subject: shotgun
Message-ID: <9411162119.AA07725@satyrs.engr.CSUFresno.EDU>

Hmmm. my native voracity is rumbling in discontent at the prospect of
being restricted to concise, logical exposition of a single topic
expounded without resort to inflammatory rhetorical imagery.
However.
I have in the few hours of my occupancy in this cyber-vacuum, noted more
than one topic which arouses my interest, discussed by Mr. Millican &
Mr. Sullivan.  I note with special interest that Mr. Millican (Jeff,
may I call you Jeff?, I cannot resist asking: are you related to the
famous physicist - of the famous Millican's oil drop experiment?  Sorry,
but I am just intrigued.) uses "The Price of Freedom is Eternal
Vigilance" for his sig file.  My impression is that that statement is
at odds with Mr. Millican's proposals.
Firstly, I think that morality is the last refuge of a scoundrel; those
who would (& perhaps WILL) censor my words on the vapid remnant of the
gloriously anarchic internet, which will remain, twitching, on the
ground, after the vultures from the government leave off fighting the
jackels from industry, over the corpse of the internet.  Oops, sorry
about the obvious prejudice peeping out.  But I think you see where I
am coming from: I am certain that the flesh of the internet will be
refined into a more presentable bleached skeleton which will satisfy
both the ever-vigilant guardians of the public morality and the ever
greedy guardians of the private coffers.
 
I think it is possible (although mostly improbable) that a congress of
representatives from commercial interests, academia, and government may
develop a plan to regulate the internet in a mostly harmless way.  But
why?
 
The system has served marvelously without benefit of the attention from
those who claim to be more moral or those who claim to improve service
to the same lofty heights of service enjoyed by many cable TV customers.
That is sarcasm, son.  Cable TV is (it should be apparent) an all too
egregious example of what can happen when the only guarantee of service
is when someone's brother-in-law pays enough money to enough government
officials, such that the government feels obliged to put slight pressure
on cable companies to increase, ever so slightly, the reliability and
quality of service.  The customer is a helpless bystander.  You take
whatever you are given, and like it.  

Of course the internet costs money; if is a vital part of civilization. 
That is why it is under (devious) assault by the same people who cannot
understand why we should continue to pour money into obviously unprofit-
able schools.  They just don't get it!  Schools are an investment which
society makes in its future citizens who will return that investment by
ensuring the enhancement of civilization.  Putting either a school or
the internet in the care of short-sighted barbarians who cannot stand
to see people wasting time on boring stuff which they (the barbarians)
cannot understand, is a very foolish venture.

Encryption is another issue which, like most political themes, has
gotten (& will undoubtedly continue to be) twisted beyond recognition.
(Here in lovely, downtown California, we had a most humorous example:
the tobacco industry sponsored a ballot initiative which, by their
humongous advertising campaign, came to be understood by most people
as being an initiative which was rabidly anti-tobacco; it was quite
hilarious to observe - just an example of what Mr. Millican refers to
as "democracy" in action.  There were, of course, many others, 
including one to which Mr. Millican refers: the SOS (Save Our State)
initiative, which I always called the AFA (Ausland Fur Auslander)
(I can give you umlauts for that, but without a Sun computer, you
would not be able to see them) (That is, as you may recall from the
news stories on the German "Neo"-Nazis a while back: they were shown
chanting,"Ausland Fur Auslander, Auslander Aus!", or, in Californian,
"Foreign lands for the Foreigners, Foreigners Out!!") initiative.
I always enjoy watching barbarians plying their trade, from a safe
distance.)
 
Mr. Sullivan puts it succinctly (sadly, far more so than I); the choice
to encrypt should be the same as the choice of language.  If you want,
you should be able to talk to your accountant or crack dealer in code.
There are, after all, laws making certain commercial transactions not
without penalty, e.g., selling heroin to school kids.  If you want a
ridiculously lengthy exposition of why & how the efforts made by our
legal structure, to make such activities less probable, are not working,
by all means ask me.  For all the good it will do either of us.
But we do not need our personal freedoms trampled on, nor do we need 
to be denied the full benefits of our technology (which could easily
result from the regulatory plans now on the drawing boards).

You probably note that I do not sound somber, sober & profound.  Those
who propose regulation of the internet (to conform to the pet morality
or profitability of whomsoever is pleased to buy off enough legislators)
DO sound sensible.  They are not.  There are too many people behind the
scenes whose age-old agendas are better served by an internet which does
not permit "immoral" activities, or which DOES permit the mass-marketing
which every right-thinking citizen supports.
 
Mark me down for NO. 
(Whatever the question was ... I've forgotten it by now.)
James Milton Martin
                       jamesm@satyrs.engr.csufresno.edu
http://
www.engr.csufresno.edu/personal/ece/students/James_Milton_Martin/Home.html
(which, I have recently been told, is unaccessible off-campus, due to,
you guessed it, "security" considerations!!!)

     Thank you for your attention.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 17:00:36 -0500 (EST)
From: crwht001@llwsbe.wsbe.org (William Morris)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:56] RE: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy
Message-ID: <m0r7sP7-000FJXC@llwsbe.wsbe.org>

> 
> > PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
> >     I propose to my fellow conferees that the Congress enact the 
> > following law:
> 
> >         Part Three: 
> >             -TAMPERING: It shall be a federal offense to tamper with 
> > in any way electronic mail sent over the Internet.  This section 
> > shall be enforceable by the any law enforcement agency or by any 
> > party so aggrieved under this section.  Should a private party 
> > successfully prosecute under this section they may be awarded all 
> > attorney's fees in addition to other damages and penalties incurred 
> > upon the trespassing party.   
> 
> How can you suggest such a thing? This amounts to requiring other private
> citizens to deliver your mail at zero cost lest they face huge penalties.
> If you want to ensure that _your_ mail delivered privately and without
> tampering, you should A) pay for it, B) check up on it and C) use
> encryption. It is possitively trivial to ensure both message integrity
> and privacy in electronic media. Why would you want to create an
> unenforceable law to do the same?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jason W. Solinsky
> 

Today in order to get a marine raido transmitting licence, one need promise
to forward any messages without interference or delay.  I fail to see the
difference. 
Bill Morris
-- 
Bill Morris, Teacher        |
Western Hills Jr. High      |  CHILDREN
Cranston, R.I. 02920        |   FIRST!
CRWHT001@LLWSBE.WSBE.ORG    |

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 7
***********************

From daemon Wed Nov 16 19:14:33 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA35382 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:14:24 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA06078; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:21:19 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:21:19 -0800
Message-Id: <199411170321.TAA06078@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:71] PRIVACY digest 8
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 8

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Yacov Yacobi's Views & Protocol
	by laplsci@CLASS.ORG

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:43:15 -0800 (PST)
From: laplsci@CLASS.ORG
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Yacov Yacobi's Views & Protocol
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411161505.A3624-0100000@class.class.org>

In March 1993, at the Association for Computing Machinery's annual 
conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy (CFP), Bellcore's well-known 
cryptologist Yacov Yacobi [tel. (201) 829-4668; email: 
yacov@bellcore.com] offered some provocative though controversial views 
on the privacy requirements of a video-on-demand service such as  video  
dialtone.

Dr. Yacobi said that market research into consumer attitudes  had shown 
that in order to achieve maximum public acceptance, such a service must 
have at least two privacy attributes:  first, CONTENT PROVIDERS must not 
be able to learn which customers have accessed any specific video 
program.

Second, NETWORK OPERATORS   (such as phone companies) must be unable to 
learn which  videos have been accessed by any specific customer, while 
still keeping an accurate running total of the charges for billing 
purposes.  Yacobi then briefly sketched a cryptographic protocol he had 
designed, which supports both of these privacy features.  Note that those 
seeking to use data from such video services for targeted marketing, 
strongly dispute Dr. Yacobi's views.

This and other privacy issues will be debated at CFP'95 (March 28-31 in 
Burlingame, CA), co-sponsored by Stanford Law School's Law & Technology 
Policy Center.  For information, send email to : 
cfp95@forsythe.stanford.edu  with the word "Information" in the subject 
line; or phone general chair Carey Heckman, (415) 725-7788.

This posting submitted by Myles Losch (Los Angeles ACM Program 
Committee);  tel. (213) 469-8020.


This message was sent from the Los Angeles Public Library
 public access point and does not reflect the opinions of
 the Library itself.


------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 8
***********************

From daemon Wed Nov 16 21:15:50 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA42150 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:15:49 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA15880; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:21:49 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:21:49 -0800
Message-Id: <199411170521.VAA15880@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:76] PRIVACY digest 9
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 9

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
	by spitzl@virgin.uvi.edu (Steven Pitzl)
  2) Re: [PRIVACY:53] RE: Secuity needed 
	by az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)
  3) Re: [PRIVACY:54] RE: Of PhoneCops, Wiretaps, and Jurisdiction
	by az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)
  4) Re: [PRIVACY:55] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
	by az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)
  5) Re: [PRIVACY:12] Passord
	by Privacy <vcpriv@latte.spl.lib.wa.us>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 20:13:21 GMT
From: spitzl@virgin.uvi.edu (Steven Pitzl)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
Message-ID: <1994Nov16.201321.18704@virgin.uvi.edu>


Hello, all. Pleased to be here.

Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu> put forth in [PRIVACY:36]:
: RE: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
:
: [...]
:            -TAMPERING: It shall be a federal offense to tamper with 
: in any way electronic mail sent over the Internet.  This section 
: shall be enforceable by the any law enforcement agency or by any 
: party so aggrieved under this section.  Should a private party 
: successfully prosecute under this section they may be awarded all 
: attorney's fees in addition to other damages and penalties incurred 
: upon the trespassing party.   

This has serious teeth, but its bite might be bigger then it seems...

To a small extent every mailer tampers with its messages; it fiddles with
headers and inserts routing information. Such a statute would have to
specifically address only the _content_ part of the message. This may
seem silly to mention, but there it is: lack of such a distinction could 
allow frivolous prosecution of the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

But on a more serious note. Would NON-DELIVERY of email be considered 
tampering, and what of unintentional "tampering", such as would result 
from program bugs or network problems? How sharply can we draw the line 
here, who draws it, and how much would it cost in the long run?

These are not idle questions. For the internet has grown to this point on
a firm ground of no-liability: when you send email it passes through many
gates and there is no guarantee that will reach its destination intact. 

This statute would seem to give those whose mail has been swallowed (or
even lightly chewed) legal redress. It could make every programmer and
system operator a potential felon, every service provider a _serious_
insurance risk. We may see a new era of "email malpractice insurance." 

Could innovation survive in such an environment? I think not.

I believe that for the net to stay practical and nimble, guarantees of
interception, delivery and unrifled content over internet should _not_ be
mandated by law. Some reasons:

1. It is no longer posssible to rely on physical evidence for such a 
   crime. The mass of unencrypted mail subject to tampering cannot 
   have a fingerprint that would unconditionally identify the 
   person who sent it; and rifling electronic mail leaves no steam 
   stains or eye marks.

2. It is far too easy to plant circumstantial electronic evidence pointing
   to an individual or organization not responsible for the crime.

3. It raises serious liability issues for system operators and information
   providers who process mail. Until now, they have not needed malpractice
   insurance. It is my sincere hope that they never need it.

Where does that leave this issue? In the hands of the users. It may  
never be possible to guarantee delivery. But with the use of public key 
encryption and a trustworthy mechanism to distribute public keys, 
protection against rifling and interception is assured.

To take the position that the government should step in and enforce a 
"people's right" in a case like this where the mechanism for enforcement 
can never be tuned well, is a big step in the wrong direction.

: The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.

Yup.

Regards,
Steven



------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 20:21:35 -0500
From: az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:53] RE: Secuity needed 
Message-ID: <199411170121.UAA16563@freenet.carleton.ca>

>Security might be necessary, but I think that it's probably a good
>idea to deal with this issue as it has been dealt with in other
>times in response to other problems.  That is to say let the problem
>present itself before we create its solution.  This way we do in
>fact create the solution instead of another problem.

Pardon me?  I think I'd rather stick to the saying; "Prevention is better
than cure".  Don't you think that's a little better?  Especially since
current technology makes it so much easier to invade security and privacy.

--

Paul Holden			       "Float like a butterfly,
az908@freenet.carleton.ca		  sting like a bee."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 20:26:15 -0500
From: az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:54] RE: Of PhoneCops, Wiretaps, and Jurisdiction
Message-ID: <199411170126.UAA19294@freenet.carleton.ca>

>What, specifically, is the need or needs for a single
>administrative body?
>
>While creating a central authority might solve some
>few interoperability issues, it creats a single point
>of failure and power succeptable to being corrupted
>or compromised.

Yes, one of the best things about the Internet is that it's decentralized,
so if one part breakes down, the rest can keep going.  Besides, problems
of interoperablity can easily be solved by the admin. of the different
parts of the system getting together and setting standards, there has been
acertain amount of this already hasn't there?

--

Paul Holden			       "Float like a butterfly,
az908@freenet.carleton.ca		  sting like a bee."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 20:31:23 -0500
From: az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:55] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
Message-ID: <199411170131.UAA22812@freenet.carleton.ca>

>compulsion.  However, where the government itself is involved, the
>result is not so convincing; coming to mind specifically are those
>cases where the agency in question wails and moans about national
>security etc.  It's sort of a who watches the watchmen problem.
>A possible solution is to put control in the hands of several
>agencies so that organized evasion becomes less of a possibility.

As long as the agencies involved have different interests at heart, cause
if they have the same interests then they will tend to be corrupt in the
same way.

--

Paul Holden			       "Float like a butterfly,
az908@freenet.carleton.ca		  sting like a bee."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 17:44:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Privacy <vcpriv@latte.spl.lib.wa.us>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:12] Passord
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.941116174400.5028B-100000@latte.spl.lib.wa.us>

?"+: {KOL)IJ.HYGM6Fa2q3wesSO
uy h67ol0=-1/4*-


+98*/@ BECAUSUE YOU SUCK
}
{P)O kijhuybg5tvf` Q
234SO
`1z@
U+59-*/



"The above message was sent from the Seattle Public Library public access
point.  Though the Library is pleased to make this service available, The
views expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the position 
of the Seattle Public Library."

On Mon, 14 Nov 1994 vcpriv@latte.spl.lib.wa.us wrote:

> X-From: JQIANG@CENTER.COLGATE.EDU
> 
> Why do we need to change the password? 
> 

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 9
***********************

From daemon Wed Nov 16 23:16:46 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id XAA31486 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:16:45 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA23900; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:22:09 -0800
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:22:09 -0800
Message-Id: <199411170722.XAA23900@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:77] PRIVACY digest 10
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 10

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: [PRIVACY:61] My Statement
	by howland@nsipo.nasa.gov

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 18:40:06 -0800
From: howland@nsipo.nasa.gov
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:61] My Statement
Message-ID: <199411170240.SAA11469@noc2.arc.nasa.gov>


from: Obdulio Lopez <olopez@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu>
>  In respose to the moderators' request for input regarding their question 
>  of who will be more likely to pose a grteater threat: I think many would 
>  agree that the both govt as well as private individuals pose a threat.

The Government has many different options where
privacy is concerned. One way, with Clipper, DT,
Key Escrow, they take it upon themselves to 
control the method and means by which to avoid
problems posed by threatening individuals. This
centralization does nothing in regard to the
possibility of abuse by government, so it is 
only half an answer and precludes any effective
solutions from 3rd parties.

>  There should be an intensive effort to focus research on developing new 
>  technologies that would protect the security of electronic communications.

It is already occuring. PGP, for example, 
allows for high confidence personal security 
that extends itself seamlessly over any 
existing infrastructure. 

I have seen *old* hardware data scramblers that
could be switched on once a modem connection
was established, making a secure session out
of a call over open lines.

If the Government involvement is limitted to 
conduct standards about the data itself, to 
ensure that information I give to someone in
confidence has legal protections, I believe 
that the market will provide the applications 
to ensure security in the transfer of that
information.

>  The telephony Bill presently in commitee seeks the authorization of an 
>  initial $500 million to upgrade wiretap capabilities so that the FBI can 
>  easily access wiretaps.

The bill (law?) reads that the service providers
will submit a bill to the FBI for the costs of
retrofitting existing hardware/software to 
support what ever standards the FBI, or whoever,
create under the auspices of DT. The $500M is
allowed for this retrofit, and is IMNSHO, a
vast(!) understatement.

>  Why not forget this Bill and appropriate the 
>  money to develop the kind of security software that will assure the 
>  American people that the NII is a safe and secure place to interact as 
>  well carry out business transactions. Then you will see some quick and 
>  serious net growth.

Agreed. Such software already exists.

I don't think our data security needs to depend
on the infrastructure itself being secure. A 
world-spanning system cannot be perfectly secure,
or even modestly so. 

Make the network dumb. Allow the applications to
be smart, and to change as needed to assure 
confidence, and that usage will grow just as you
say.

---
Curt Howland         howland@walrus.mvhs.edu
 What have I done to harm you that you wish 
to take away my ability to posess a firearm?

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 10
************************

From daemon Thu Nov 17 08:52:40 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA23325 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 08:52:38 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA25911; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 08:59:12 -0800
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 08:59:12 -0800
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9411162341.C17910-0100000@Walden.MO.NET>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:85] PRIVACY digest 11
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
MIME-Version: 1.0
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 11

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: [PRIVACY:66] Summary I
	by howland@nsipo.nasa.gov
  2) Re: [PRIVACY:57] Re: Some topics for discussion 
	by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
  3) Re: [PRIVACY:53] RE: Secuity needed 
	by debut@MO.NET
  4) 
	by dii01@interserv.com
  5) send info
	by Peter McArthur <peterm@teleport.com>
  6) Re: [PRIVACY:66] Summary I 
	by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
  7) OZ COMMENT
	by NIGEL.WATERS@AG.ausgovag.telememo.au
  8) Re: [PRIVACY:57] Re: Some topics for discussion 
	by debut@MO.NET

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 20:16:50 -0800
From: howland@nsipo.nasa.gov
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:66] Summary I
Message-ID: <199411170416.UAA11580@noc2.arc.nasa.gov>


>  From	Marc Rotenberg
>  To	privacy

>  -- Well established privacy principles that cover the 
>  collection and use of personal data across the network, 
>  possibly as voluntary guidelines, developed by industry, 
>  possibly as legislation with enforceable rights.

I think the right of privacy must be assumed from the outset, the
medium is irrelevant to the issue. Having your medical records supplied
on paper is just as bad as having them transfered by email, if it is
part of an abuse of those records.

>  -- Federal funding for security and privacy technologies. Or 
>  perhaps keeping the feds out of the security business.  Which 
>  would you prefer?

Out. ...or rather *OUT!!!*       :^>

>  -- Data marketplaces, a place where you could go to sell 
>  personal information. "Bartering for bytes." How will this 
>  work? 

How does it work now?

For a long time National Geographic didn't advertise their magazine.
Yet, they sold millions of copies. 

---
Curt Howland       howland@nsipo.nasa.gov 
The above does not constitute an official
    statement of NASA or anyone else.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 20:55:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:57] Re: Some topics for discussion 
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411162024.A22397-0100000@pwa.acusd.edu>


> Until the development of the information superhighway, it was impossible to
> claim a fair price for your privacy. But sitting on the other end of a phone
> line in front of a computer, you have absolute control over what information
> you let in and what information you send out. Suddenly, the consumer has
> gained a very very powerful bargaining position.

I like the concept, but there is one basic problem-from the time of our 
birth, we are expected to give away our privacy.  We give it away to the 
government, we give it up in return for obtaining credit, in return for 
obtaining insurance, or for the "convenience" of shopping by mail.

Why will taking all these transactions online change the presumption that we 
must give away our privacy in return for certain necessities?


Barry D. Fraser
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
prc@pwa.acusd.edu
prc@teetot.acusd.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:23:45 -0600 (CST)
From: debut@MO.NET
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:53] RE: Secuity needed 
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411162308.B17910-0100000@Walden.MO.NET>



On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, DOUG MASSON wrote:

> times in response to other problems.  That is to say let the problem
> present itself before we create its solution.  This way we do in
> fact create the solution instead of another problem.
> 
But there is a problem, Doug.  What happens when people want to monitor 
every damned thing that I transmit accross the net whether or not I am a 
child molestor.  I mean I hate bring up a very old and tired point here, 
but I thnk we all know that the answers proposed when there was concern 
for young people on the net were too invasive, adn ultimately were not a 
solution.

Privacy is important because we trust each other not to use the net in 
ways might infringe upon it.  Now obviously this is naive, but I trust 
you not to spam me without end.  I also trust that most of my 
transmositions, being essentially pure (un-encrypted) are still secure.

I think that we netters are fairly naive about what the net 
accomplishes.  We see it as a transforming technology that will 
ultimatley giv more people more access to a) their fundamental creative 
abilities, and b) access to people and power in technical and political 
situations which will allow them to grasp the knowledge more fully.

I think that it is kthese fundamental beliefs that drive us to be 
trusting of other net denizens.  So I'm cautious.  I would like to 
explore all these matters as far aas possile, and try to focus on 
solutions so that we dont rush to implement a half bakd solution, or 
re=invent the wwheel.

Yer naive netizen,
Dave

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:21:20 -0800
From: dii01@interserv.com
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Message-ID: <199411170521.AA29989@interserv.com>

subscribe nonlin-l BlackBox

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:27:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Peter McArthur <peterm@teleport.com>
To: intellec@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov, privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: send info
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.90.941116212651.25602A-100000@linda.teleport.com>

send info

--
Peter McArthur   peterm@teleport.com   http://www.teleport.com/~peterm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oceana - oceana.sdsc.edu 4201                  Meadow - iglou.com 7777


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:39:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:66] Summary I 
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411162143.A23095-0100000@pwa.acusd.edu>


Here is something to do if you are interested in becomming a privacy 
advocate.

1. Contact your city to find out if it has an information superhighway 
policy (this is currently the neat thing to do in local government; it 
makes them feel important like the feds :-)).

2. If they don't have one, start lobbying the powers that be to develop 
one ( hint: tell them its a good way to attract new business).

3. If they do have one, find out if it includes a privacy policy (chances 
are it won't).

4. If it doesn't, start lobbying the powers that be to include one.


Beth Givens actually accomplished this in San Diego.  It is now one of 
the few cities with an information superhighway privacy policy.  It is actually 
just a reincarnation of the fair information practices principles: 
Consideration of Privacy Effects, Openness, Collection Limitations, 
Information Integerty, Access and Correction, Secondary Usage, Security, 
and Education.

Now we are all scratching our heads trying to figure out exactly what 
this means.  If nothing else, we believe that the city will have to think 
twice before indiscriminately allowing anyone to just jack in to every 
government record available.

Might there be other roles for local governments in privacy protection?  
We just aren't sure here, but it's a lot easier to get these types of 
policies in place now than in the future, when local governments realize 
the value of online information... 


Barry D. Fraser
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
prc@pwa.acusd.edu
Prc@teetot.acusd.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:13:25 +1000
From: NIGEL.WATERS@AG.ausgovag.telememo.au
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov (Receipt Notification Requested) (Non Receipt 
Subject: OZ COMMENT
Message-ID: <231315171194*/G=NIGEL/S=WATERS/O=AG/PRMD=AUSGOVAG/ADMD=TELEMEMO/C=AU/@MHS>

Hope you don't mind input from down-under.  Have followed with interest since
joining at item 55 and reading mid-week summary.

Issues
Sterile argument whether government/business/individuals pose greatest threat
to privacy - all can do,  but in different ways needing differing responses.
Postal service analogies can be useful but so are others - eg private
conversations in public places, private space etc - dangers in relying on
existing precedents and protections - we are dealing with a new animal.
Essential to design new systems to allow for anonymous transactions, otherwise
we will all be leaving a detailed trail of activity/location, and
temptation/justification for  surveillance (by government and business use)
will be too great to resist.
Anonymity in e-mail - really tricky - should not be forced to identify, but
need accountability to prevent abuses.
Beware barter proposals - unequal power balance and ignorance of consequences
will lead people to sell their privacy rights - then very difficult to
retrieve.  

Solutions:
Experience in Europe/Canada/Australia/New Zealand includes statutory regulation
and watchdog officials as well as attempts at self-regulation eg in telecom and
finance sectors.  Experience suggests dangers of over-regulation (losing hearts
and minds), and limited effectiveness of laws - too often used as smokescreen
for further privacy invasions.  Sectoral approach favoured, but need common
foundation principles;  effective redress mechanisms; and independent
advocates/watchdogs - preferably more than one "in competition" to keep them on
their toes.

nigel.waters@ag.ausgovag.telememo.au



------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:53:34 -0600 (CST)
From: debut@MO.NET
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:57] Re: Some topics for discussion 
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411162341.C17910-0100000@Walden.MO.NET>

> claim a fair price for your privacy. But sitting on the other end of a phone
> line in front of a computer, you have absolute control over what information
> you let in and what information you send out. Suddenly, the consumer has
> gained a very very powerful bargaining position.
> 

I just thought that I would lket everyone know that I feel that this 
really cuts to the core of the issue.  I think this is a very important 
statement.

I wonder if all the standards that are being defined really do give the 
consumer all that much control?  Yes data is packetized, but what if I 
don't want my digital sig. to go out the door, do I have that kind of 
control?

What about people who are not consumers? should a student be forced to 
live with a system that won't let him or her push the edge of the envelope?
Why do people use anaymous re-mailers?  I can mail out, and the consumer 
has no idea wheere the document came from.  Is that control?

Dave

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 11
************************

From daemon Thu Nov 17 10:41:02 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA30991 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 10:41:01 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA04868; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 10:47:02 -0800
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 10:47:02 -0800
Message-Id: <199411171845.KAA04708@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:89] PRIVACY digest 12
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 12

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Is it to late to join?
	by Bill Urban <urbanb@iia.org>
  2) [PRIVACY:63] RE: Of the Soil Conservation Service and Public Works
	by Randolph Langley <langley@dirac.scri.fsu.edu>
  3) UseNet-News
	by innd@virtconf.digex.net
  4) UseNet-News
	by innd@virtconf.digex.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 03:23:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Urban <urbanb@iia.org>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Is it to late to join?
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.90.941117032214.29926A-100000@iia.org>

Is it too late to join the conference?


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:41:59 -0500
From: Randolph Langley <langley@dirac.scri.fsu.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: [PRIVACY:63] RE: Of the Soil Conservation Service and Public Works
Message-ID: <199411171441.AA52668@dirac.scri.fsu.edu>


I don't agree with the obsession with governing. The Internet has been
an amazing anarchic success; let's keep on with a good thing. The IETF
is all we need.

rdl


Jeffrey Millican writes:
 > 
 >     OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (SCS): {Response to Mssrs. 
 > Masson, Howland, and Holden}
 >     Mr. Masson suggested that the Internet be under the control of an 
 > elected, presumably independent, agency of the Federal Government.  
 > Internet Administrators and Policy Makers would be elected for a term 
 > to oversee the Internet.  Such operations could even be separated 
 > amongst many agencies to prevent consloidation of power.  
 >     I agree with this proposal.  I think a new, independent 
 > federal agency or agencies with net elected citizen-users at the head 
 > would be a good idea to govern the Internet.  Elections should be 
 > staggered between agencies and each elected office so as to keep a 
 > continious flow of citizen-users overseeing the Internet.  
 >     To my knowledge, this is to a limited extent practiced by the 
 > Soil Conservation Service in its rural, public works projects.  A 
 > drainage, or other project, to benefit rural landowners is concieved 
 > by the SCS.  Those landowners who will benefit are presented with the 
 > project and vote upon its adoption.  If approved, the governing body 
 > is elected from this same electorate, and the same electorate 
 > oversees financing including federal grants, state grants, and taxes 
 > levied on this same electorate with its approval.  
 >     I present this as a possible addition to Mr. Masson's foundation. 
 > 
 >     In response to Mr. Holden, I disagree that democracy does not 
 > respond to the people.  I would illustrate with an example from Mr. 
 > Holden's own state: Proposition 187.  Its political volatitity aside, 
 > the Proposition itself and that democratic process is successful in 
 > expressing the wishes of the people of California.  Similarly, the 
 > recent Republican landslide also shows that a mobilized and informed 
 > electorate can make decisions and influence policy.  It remains to be 
 > seen whether or not the Republicans will carry through, but my point 
 > is that democracy is effective in its goverenance.     
 > 
 >     In response to Mr. Howland, I agree that a single agency may not 
 > be the answer.  However, an agency or agencies must have some control 
 > and policy formulation.  Many fellow conferees agree that commercial 
 > regulation is or would be as bad if not worse then federal 
 > regulation.  I agree with them.  At least a federal agency or 
 > agencies will always be to some extent accountable to the Congress 
 > and thusly to the citizenry.  Under Mr. Masson's proposal, thses 
 > agencies will also be accountable to the Internet's citizen-users.  
 > 
 >     I look forward to your response.
 >                                     Sincerely,
 >                                     Jeffrey Millican
 >                                     milljeff@uofrlaw.urich.edu
 >                                     
 > The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. 
 >                             
 >         
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 10:15:47 -0800
From: innd@virtconf.digex.net
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: UseNet-News
Message-ID: <199411171815.KAA02029@virtconf.digex.net>

Path: virtconf!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!jcburt
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton)
Newsgroups: alt.ntia.privacy
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
Date: 17 Nov 1994 14:50:06 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Lines: 113
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <JCBURT.94Nov17095006@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov>
References: <1994Nov16.201321.18704@virgin.uvi.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: spitzl@virgin.uvi.edu's message of 16 Nov 1994 19:22:16 -0800

In article <1994Nov16.201321.18704@virgin.uvi.edu> spitzl@virgin.uvi.edu (Steven Pitzl) writes:
   Hello, all. Pleased to be here.

   Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu> put forth in [PRIVACY:36]:
   : RE: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
   :
   : [...]
   :            -TAMPERING: It shall be a federal offense to tamper with 
   : in any way electronic mail sent over the Internet.  This section 
   : shall be enforceable by the any law enforcement agency or by any 
   : party so aggrieved under this section.  Should a private party 
   : successfully prosecute under this section they may be awarded all 
   : attorney's fees in addition to other damages and penalties incurred 
   : upon the trespassing party.   

   This has serious teeth, but its bite might be bigger then it seems...

   To a small extent every mailer tampers with its messages; it fiddles with
   headers and inserts routing information. Such a statute would have to
   specifically address only the _content_ part of the message. This may
   seem silly to mention, but there it is: lack of such a distinction could 
   allow frivolous prosecution of the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

   But on a more serious note. Would NON-DELIVERY of email be considered 
   tampering, and what of unintentional "tampering", such as would result 
   from program bugs or network problems? How sharply can we draw the line 
   here, who draws it, and how much would it cost in the long run?

Perhaps there needs to be a distinction made between intentional and
unintentional modification/tampering/non-delivery etc of the
mail. Also perhaps the current laws protecting snail-mail could be
adapted...basically you would have to prove that the tampering
etc. was intentional and not an accident (the plane carrying the mailbag
crashed, or the network went down and "packets" were lost...)

As an analogy, snail-mail gets "tampered" with during transmission,
i.e. postmarks get put on, bar codes are put on, it might get folded
or dirty...most of this affects the container (the envelope) and not
the message. So for e-mail, as you suggest, distinguish between the
"container" and the "message". The container can be modified as needed
to deliver the "message". The "message" should not be manipulated in
any way by the deliver system. Also there should be a method (say
checksumming) of detecting in changes in the "message". Authentication
schemes (such as PGP or RIPEM) could be included to insure the "message"
is from who it says its from and the "message" is genuine. You could
have several "classes" of e-mail, such as public (i.e. a postcard -
where you don't care who reads it), private (i.e. a letter in an
opaque envelope - you don't want anyone except the recipient to read)
which could be encrypted, registered - where the recipients mail
software automatically sends a reply acknowledging receipt...

   These are not idle questions. For the internet has grown to this point on
   a firm ground of no-liability: when you send email it passes through many
   gates and there is no guarantee that will reach its destination intact. 

This is true, although there are several mail packages available that
use encryption and signature authentication to help ensure that the
e-mail is not tampered with. Since money or monetary value is not sent
via standard e-mail and most information that *is* sent is easily
resent, I think it would be difficult to prove significant damages due
to lost e-mail. If the contents of an e-mail message *must* be
received, then there should be a form of "registered e-mail", as
mentioned above, which would be capable of leaving some form of audit
trail...

   This statute would seem to give those whose mail has been swallowed (or
   even lightly chewed) legal redress. It could make every programmer and
   system operator a potential felon, every service provider a _serious_
   insurance risk. We may see a new era of "email malpractice insurance." 

   Could innovation survive in such an environment? I think not.

Nope, you are right, it wouldn't survive...

   I believe that for the net to stay practical and nimble, guarantees of
   interception, delivery and unrifled content over internet should _not_ be
   mandated by law. Some reasons:

   1. It is no longer posssible to rely on physical evidence for such a 
      crime. The mass of unencrypted mail subject to tampering cannot 
      have a fingerprint that would unconditionally identify the 
      person who sent it; and rifling electronic mail leaves no steam 
      stains or eye marks.

   2. It is far too easy to plant circumstantial electronic evidence pointing
      to an individual or organization not responsible for the crime.

   3. It raises serious liability issues for system operators and information
      providers who process mail. Until now, they have not needed malpractice
      insurance. It is my sincere hope that they never need it.

   Where does that leave this issue? In the hands of the users. It may  
   never be possible to guarantee delivery. But with the use of public key 
   encryption and a trustworthy mechanism to distribute public keys, 
   protection against rifling and interception is assured.

   To take the position that the government should step in and enforce a 
   "people's right" in a case like this where the mechanism for enforcement 
   can never be tuned well, is a big step in the wrong direction.

I couldn't agree more!!!

John



--
--
John Burton                      
jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov     G & A Technical Software, Inc.
jcburt@gats486.larc.nasa.gov     28 Research Dr. Hampton, Va. 23666
(804) 865-7491 (voice)           (804) 865-1021 (fax)
                    

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 10:45:55 -0800
From: innd@virtconf.digex.net
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: UseNet-News
Message-ID: <199411171845.KAA04708@virtconf.digex.net>

Path: virtconf!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!jcburt
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton)
Newsgroups: alt.ntia.privacy
Subject: Re: The Federal Monster in Control of the Net
Date: 17 Nov 1994 15:35:05 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Lines: 102
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <JCBURT.94Nov17103506@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov>
References: <4468A515891@UOFRLAW>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: Jeffrey Millican's message of 15 Nov 1994 20:32:42 -0800

In article <4468A515891@UOFRLAW> Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu> writes:

       OF CREATION AND CONTROL {Response to Mr. Newmark}
       To deny the history which created the Internet is to deny a 
   viable future for the Internet.  ARPANET and its progeny are the 
   cutting edge of the CyberFrontier, this is largely due to past and 
   current funding by the Department of Defense (DOD).  Control of 
   these systems to an extent, rather highly attenuated, remains with 
   DOD. 

Hmmm...this sounds odd...considering the DOD is no longer involved
with the civilian side of the internet and in fact maintains its own
networks. As far as the history goes, ARPA (and later DARPA - under
DOD funding) had a significant impact in the early days of "ARPAnet",
but for several years now "control" and "funding" of the civilian
network has been via NSF and various consortiums of universities and
research organizations such as SURA, CERF, NASA, DOC, etc...while some
funding and control for the internet still derives from the federal
government, DOD has no say in the matter except where connections to
their networks are concerned.
 
        We cannot unilaterally declare electronic independence from 
   them or their successors.  We must work with them to insure a 
   seamless national information infrastructure, and there must be a 
   chief for this tribe.  

Why ? There are several forms of control, one of which currently
exists for the internet, and has existed since the days of ARPAnet
(you know, when the DOD was involved). The various Sys Admins for the
systems connected to the net are responsible for the conduct of their
users. The service providers are responsible for the network traffic
that passes through their service. They can set whatever policies for
"acceptable use" that they want. The backbone providers (SURA, NSF,
etc) are responsible for and set the acceptable use policies for the
information passed through their network backbones...

       The solution is responsible legislation from Congress, which we 
   are all hear to discuss (hopefully it will be passed on to 
   legislators so they may better enact laws). This responsible 
   legislation will ensure a smooth seamless net and happy citizen-
   users. 

Ummmm...are you out of touch with reality? There has yet to be a
smooth seamless anything in this country, be it communication,
transportation, or trash collection...The concept of happy citizen
anything is equally unrealistic. Regardless of what you say or what
you do, there will always be happy citizens and unhappy citizens
(i.e. you can't please *everyone*). As far as responsible legislation
from Congress...I'm trying to think of *any* legislation from Congress
that was *truely* responsible, and not a hodge-podge of compromises
for various special interests groups...

          By binding a knowingly, already bound agency, DOD, we can 
   ensure that the Internet is a lasting domain for all with reasonable 
   privacy.  This is why I believe that: 1.) DOD should become the 
   controlling agency; 2.) to safeguard against abuses there be 
   Congressional oversight; and 3.) statutory jurisdiction exclusively 
   for the Article III Federal Courts over Internet disputes are a sound 
   foundation from which to build the National Information 
   Infrastructure.       

Your statements still do not make clear *why* the DOD should be
responsible for a totally *non* military operation such as the
NII. The basic argument you give is that the DOD was responsible for
some of the early development, and therefore should control it now. By
the same token, the DOD should control virtually *all* communications
in this country since they were involved in the early development of
the base technologies. The interstate road systems was initial funded
to provide easy/rapid transport of military forces in the event of a
national emergency. Should DOD control the roads?

As it currently stands, there already *is* an agency that controls
most of the NII *and* controlled (oversight) by congress...its called
the FCC and basically controls the *media* over which the information
for the NII passes. So, why switch control to the DOD which has 
1) Zero experience in controlling anything that is non-military and 
2) Grossly out of control in many bugetary concerns.

Besides, would you *really* want to give *that* much control to the
DOD ? They currently control the military forces of the country,
should they *also* control the communications of the country? without
communications the country grinds to a halt...I like the military
subserviant to the government, not the other way around....

John










--
--
John Burton                      
jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov     G & A Technical Software, Inc.
jcburt@gats486.larc.nasa.gov     28 Research Dr. Hampton, Va. 23666
(804) 865-7491 (voice)           (804) 865-1021 (fax)
                    

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 12
************************

From daemon Thu Nov 17 16:41:45 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA17710 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 16:41:41 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA02646; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 16:48:50 -0800
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 16:48:50 -0800
Message-Id: <199411180048.QAA02646@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:99] PRIVACY digest 15
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 15

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) XLHE OP
	by "Rapisarda, Alessandra" <SB03004@EXCELINK.MARIST.EDU>
  2) XLHE OP
	by "Bernasconi, Tracy" <SB03010@EXCELINK.MARIST.EDU>
  3) Deepest Apologies
	by Patrick Gallagher <ab238@virgin.uvi.edu>
  4) Re: [PRIVACY:52] RE: Of PhoneCops, Wiretaps, and Jurisdiction
	by BURNST <burnst@am.uwplatt.edu>
  5) Privacy:
	by rpcoffin@dow.com (Robert Peter Coffin 409-238-2928)
  6) -PRIVACY:90- PRIVACY digest 13
	by "PRIVACY" <KLRAPER@ISCEMS.remnet.rockwell.com>
  7) Models for the future
	by Tom.Sullivan@oryx.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:        Thu, 17 Nov 94 14:39:28 EST
From: "Rapisarda, Alessandra" <SB03004@EXCELINK.MARIST.EDU>
To: <PRIVACY@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV>
Subject: XLHE OP
Message-ID:  <17NOV94.15830713.0036.MUSIC@EXCELINK.MARIST.EDU>

this is a test message.

------------------------------

Date:        Thu, 17 Nov 94 14:58:35 EST
From: "Bernasconi, Tracy" <SB03010@EXCELINK.MARIST.EDU>
To: <AVAIL@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV>, <STANDARD@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV>,
Subject: XLHE OP
Message-ID:  <17NOV94.16174809.0031.MUSIC@EXCELINK.MARIST.EDU>

Subject:
>From ID: SB03010
Name:    Bernasconi, Tracy, Marist College - Project Team
Type:    ORG   Class: PVT                       Date:  Thu 17 Nov 1994, 2:58pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
subscribe

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:56:24 -0400 (AST)
From: Patrick Gallagher <ab238@virgin.uvi.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Deepest Apologies
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.941117155246.3507A-100000@virgin.uvi.edu>


All:

My deepest apologies for going off topic.  Please respond via e-mail to 
one of the addresses below to reduce noise in the conference.

1)  Is the NTIA conference being archived?  Where can I pick it up if it is?

2)  The system I am using is only getting the conference pre-digested now.
Have any of my "contributions" made it to the main conference?

Trying a different route,
PG


Patrick Gallagher                |  My opinions are just that...opinions.
   Gallagher@uh.edu              |  Appreciate life, don't depreciate it.
   ab238@virgin.uvi.edu	         |
NeXTmail OK (even appreciated!)  |  Privacy begins at home.


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:38:18 -0600 (CST)
From: BURNST <burnst@am.uwplatt.edu>
To: "privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov" <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:52] RE: Of PhoneCops, Wiretaps, and Jurisdiction
Message-ID: <3918381317111994/A88709/PALM/118B8B660F00*@MHS>

>Here is a preliminary idea for creating an accountable body which will
>administer the Internet.  How about some sort of body elected by 
>registered users of the Net?  One person, one vote, if you thwart
>the will of the constituency, you're out.  
>
>---Doug Masson
>Indiana University School of Law
>dmasson@indiana.edu

Sounds like a good idea . . . if people vote, which most seem not to do.   Then
again, you can make the argument many people make about our current "democracy"
. . . that if people don't vote, then they forfeit their right to complain
about the results of the elections. 
Personally, I doubt that such an organization would work unless people are
REQUIRED to vote, just as they are in (for example) public elections in some
other countries such as Australia.  It seems that democracies have a habit of
turning into democracies-for-those-who've-bought-votes unless there's some
mechanism in place to assure that people actually vote.

BTW, is there any word yet if this conference will continue next week, or does
it end tomorrow?

Terri Burns
University of Wisconsin
BURNST@uwplatt.edu



------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:24:03 -0600
From: rpcoffin@dow.com (Robert Peter Coffin 409-238-2928)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Privacy:
Message-ID: <94111714240369@txpcea.tx.dow.com>

subscribe 

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 1994 10:48:10 CST
From: "PRIVACY" <KLRAPER@ISCEMS.remnet.rockwell.com>
To: privacy@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV
Subject: -PRIVACY:90- PRIVACY digest 13
Message-ID: <ISCEMS.KLRAPER.870635140094321FISCEMS@REMNET.AB.COM>


*** Reply to note of 11/17/94 11:46
I respectfully agree with Mr. Masson that prevention attempts without full
understanding of the effects of those attempts may be more dangerous than
the original problem.  I would suggest looking at a progression from
detection to prevention with consideration of cost and risk.
Kindest regards, -KLR


------------------------------

Date: Thu 17 Nov 1994 14:56 CT
From: Tom.Sullivan@oryx.com
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Models for the future
Message-ID: <199411180005.QAA28469@virtconf.digex.net>

The models that have been identified (post office, telephones, etc.) may be
the goals intended by the legislative initiatives proposed, but a better
model for the current system we have would be CB radios. The FCC dedicated
these frequencies to citizens for casual communication. This is much the
same way the net evolved. I use the net for casual communication. Chatting
on a CB does not include 'the privacy stick' (as Mr. Mullican so quaintly put
it) in the bundle of attributes I have accepted. I can maintain a certain
amount of anonymity by using a handle instead of my call letters or I can
barter my privacy for something else of value. Business is conducted on CB
both legitimate and illicit. I personally would not accept an e-mail as a
binding document any more than I would accept a CB message, good buddy.

The best way to send a secured e-mail is still cryptographically. As to the
owner's 'right to know'... it does not exist! Does your landlord have a
right to know what is in your closet? Does the bank have a right to know
what is in your safe deposit box? A strategy to conduct business is being
studied now that would 'triangulate' (my term) the transaction. I (the
consumer) send you (the vendor) an order and my bank address. You
request payment from the bank, the bank then asks my permission. I must
authorize the transaction before it is completed. Probably less risky
than giving out a credit card number over the phone but I would hesitate
if a large amount of money were involved. If I was a steady customer we
might have a secret handshake (encryption routine) to make the possibility
of fraud even more remote. Why restrict the number of encryption routines
that I can use? As a security measure, it should be changed every few
months, anyway.

With regard to the rush to legislate, I have not yet heard a compelling
reason. I agree that if there is a foreseeable problem, the prudent approach
is to prevent it. The foreseeable problem depends on your vision of the
future. I suggest that the internet is an appropriate medium for casual
communication. Use the post office or courier for secured or sensitive items,
use the net to notify the recipient that it is en-route, then follow up with a
phone call.

Tom Sullivan

The price of laws is loss of freedom.

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 15
************************

From daemon Thu Nov 17 18:42:14 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA17873 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:42:13 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA13085; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:48:53 -0800
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:48:53 -0800
Message-Id: <199411180248.SAA13085@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:102] PRIVACY digest 16
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 16

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) NTIA Public Comment
	by San Francisco Public Libraray <"SFPL::NTIA_PUB"@DRANET.DRA.COM>
  2) Virtual Conference EXTENDED
	by NTIA Virtual Conference <ntia@virtconf.digex.net>
  3) privacy rights, etc., summary
	by Craig Newmark <cnewmark@crl.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:07:40 -0600 (CST)
From: San Francisco Public Libraray <"SFPL::NTIA_PUB"@DRANET.DRA.COM>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: NTIA Public Comment
Message-ID: <941117170740.2021497d@DRANET.DRA.COM>

to what extend it protect individual's privacy
not availabe to junk mailer
From: y chang

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 18:30:38 PST
From: NTIA Virtual Conference <ntia@virtconf.digex.net>
To: avail, privacy, info, standard, redefus, opnacces, intellec
Subject: Virtual Conference EXTENDED
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.2.785125838.ntia@virtconf.digex.net>


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                 CONTACT:  Stephanie Schoumacher        
November 17, 1994                                  Paige Darden
                                                   (202) 482-1551       

	

       CLINTON ADMINISTRATION EXTENDS SUCCESSFUL VIRTUAL CONFERENCE TO 
CONTINUE VALUABLE DIALOGUE ON INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY

WASHINGTON, DC -- Due to strong interest, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is
extending its virtual conference on universal service and open
access to our nation's telecommunications networks until 12:00
midnight EST, Wednesday, November 23, 1994.
      
      As of 2:00 p.m. today, there had been nearly 6000 accesses to
the world wide web server for the virtual conference.  The
conference listservs, which are on topics related to bringing the
benefits of the information superhighway to all Americans, are
averaging 400 subscribers per list.  The conference had originally
been scheduled to conclude tomorrow.

      "We are thrilled with the volume of traffic and quality of the
dialogue on the listservs, and hope that the extension will give as
many people as possible the opportunity to contribute to the
electronic discussion," said Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information and Administrator of NTIA.  

      "Through the virtual conference, the Clinton Administration is
demonstrating how our information infrastructure can be used to
deliver social services and allow greater citizen participation in
the development of government policies," said Irving. 
      
      To view the conference or to get information on subscribing to
a listserv, send an e-mail message to info@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov.
If you would like to read the position papers of experts on the
issue of universal service that were posted at the start of the
conference and the responses that have been generated thus far,
there are electronic archive files for each listserv available via
gopher, www, or telnet access to iitf.doc.gov.  The entire archive
will be available electronically after the conference through the
Clinton Administration's Information Infrastructure Task Force
(IITF) at the same site.  For more information on the conference,
contact Paige Darden at 202-482-1551 (voice) or
pdarden@ntia.doc.gov (e-mail).
                                      ###SYSDBS  DBF               SYSTABLSDBF           ǺTF  SYSCOLAUDBF           źT   AUTOSIGSDBF           -\0  SYSVIEWSDBF           ȺT  SYSVDEPSDBF           ȺT  AUTOGSS DBF           ;\0  CHRTMSTRDBO           )TT  SONGS   DBT           l	 AREACODEDTF           <	 
 DCONVERTEXE           *TK    DBSETUP EXE           ׹Ti ; DBLINK  EXE           T   DBASE   EXE           1\2  < REPORT  GEN           )T	~  DOCUMENTGEN           *T	j  FORM    GEN           )T	   LABEL   GEN           T	y<  MENU    GEN           *T	  QUICKAPPGEN           *T	R  CONFIG  GUD           8_	  DBASE2  HLP           T	c8 DBASE1  HLP           \T
s SONGS   IDN           "
e  AREACODEIDX           <
 F  AUTOGS  MDX           Ga
 @  RESULT  MDX           K
 L  SONGS   MDX           v
  AUTOGRAPMDX           f_t (  SYSTIME MEM           ǺTy)   TITLE   NDX           z J CONFIG  OLD           jdS  DBASE3  OVL            1 L DBASE4  OVL           ǻTV DBASE6  OVL           ĺTX DBSETUP OVL           ׹T B DBASE1  OVL           TS PROTECT OVL           )T K  DBASE5  OVL           Tp DBASE2  OVL           4T- GENERIC PR2           Te  ASCII   PR2           Tf  DBSETUP PRD           ׹Tg  LABEL   PRF           *Tj  REPORT  PRF           _k  TIM-WAY PRN           _l2'  DBLINK  RES           *Tq  DBASE3  RES           Tr  DBASE1  RES           ĺTvb# DBASE2  RES           f DBSETUP RES           ׹Tnj  CONFIG  REY           _w  CONFIG  RO           l_  SQLDBASESTR           źT   SONGSORTTXT           mj AUTOGS  TXT           _m-  SONGS   UDN           's#  TIM-WAY WK1           MtM   8692510FRO           ;   8692510FRO           ;   8692510FRO           ;   0323410FRO           fia$   ONGSORTDBT           x.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .                    !%ividual's privacy
not availabe to junk mailer
From: y chang

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 18:30:38 PST
From: NTIA Virtual Conference <ntia@virtconf.digex.net>
To: avail, privacy, info, standard, redefus, opnacces, intellec
Subject: Virtual Conference EXTENDED
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.2.785125838.ntia@virtconf.digex.net>


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                 CONTACT:  Stephanie Schoumacher        
November 17, 1994                                  Paige Darden
                                                   (202) 482-1551       

	

       CLINTON ADMINISTRATION EXTENDS SUCCESSFUL VIRTUAL CONFERENCE TO 
CONTINUE VALUABLE DIALOGUE ON INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY

WASHINGTON, DC -- Due to strong interest, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is
extending its virtual conference on universal service and open
access to our nation's telecommunications networks until 12:00
midnight EST, Wednesday, November 23, 1994.
      
      As of 2:00 p.m. today, there had been nearly 6000 accesses to
the world wide web server for the virtual conference.  The
conference listservs, which are on topics related to bringing the
benefits of the information superhighway to all Americans, are
averaging 400 subscribers per list.  The conference had originally
been scheduled to conclude tomorrow.

      "We are thrilled with the volume of traffic and quality of the
dialogue on the listservs, and hope that the extension will give as
many people as possible the opportunity to contribute to the
electronic discussion," said Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information and Administrator of NTIA.  

      "Through the virtual conference, the Clinton Administration is
demonstrating how our information infrastructure can be used to
deliver social services and allow greater citizen participation in
the development of government policies," said Irving. 
      
      To view the conference or to get information on subscribing to
a listserv, send an e-mail message to info@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov.
If you would like to read the position papers of experts on the
issue of universal service that were posted at the start of the
conference and the responses that have been generated thus far,
there are electronic archive files for each listserv available via
gopher, www, or telnet access to iitf.doc.gov.  The entire archive
will be available electronically after the conference through the
Clinton Administration's Information Infrastructure Task Force
(IITF) at the same site.  For more information on the conference,
contact Paige Darden at 202-482-1551 (voice) or
pdarden@ntia.doc.gov (e-mail).
                                      ###



------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:37:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Newmark <cnewmark@crl.com>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: privacy rights, etc., summary
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941117150251.2714A-100000@crl.crl.com>

(It looks like about three messages I've sent to this list have been lost, 
although one case was probably my fault.  Please bear with what could be 
repetitive.)

Marc has asked about the role of government in protecting privacy rights.  
Experience has already demonstrated that Federal entities, particularly 
the Congress, NSA and FBI are routinely abusive regarding privacy rights. 

This was illustrated rather frighteningly at the IEEE 
Internet Security seminar held a few days ago 
in San Francisco.  The FBI and NSA representatives were well-intentioned, 
but were apparently in a severe state of denial regarding the history of 
abuse by both agencies.  The message from both was "trust us" with no 
reason to do so.  In fact, both representatives tended to evade the tough 
questions, countering instead with legalese.

Another question involved the role of the Federal government in 
developing privacy technology.  Considering that most of the appropriate 
technology is already available, I don't anyone needs such "help."  
Government assistance has already been rejected by the computer industry 
as ineffective and subject to abuse.  I'm part of that industry from the 
user side (financial services.)  My recommendation is to not use 
Skipjack/Clipper technology, or the Digital Signature Standard, unless 
coerced into doing so.

I am concerned about private abuse of privacy rights, like other 
participate in this discussion.  However, a combination of mechanisms 
seems to be minimizing the opportunity for abuse.  In any case, the 
obvious question is "who protects us from our protectors?"

___________________________________________
Craig Newmark
cnewmark@well.sf.ca.us
cnewmark@crl.com


------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 16
************************

From daemon Fri Nov 18 00:48:59 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id AAA18914 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 00:48:58 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA25629; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 00:54:56 -0800
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 00:54:56 -0800
Message-Id: <199411180854.AAA25629@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:106] PRIVACY digest 17
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 17

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: [PRIVACY:70] PRIVACY digest 7 
	by solman@MIT.EDU
  2) Re: [PRIVACY:31] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
	by BNN Television <bnn@world.std.com>
  3) Re: [PRIVACY:36] RE: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
	by BNN Television <bnn@world.std.com>
  4) Re: [PRIVACY:90] PRIVACY digest 13
	by az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 21:34:11 EST
From: solman@MIT.EDU
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:70] PRIVACY digest 7 
Message-ID: <9411180234.AA13998@ua.MIT.EDU>


> > > PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
> > >     I propose to my fellow conferees that the Congress enact the 
> > > following law:
> > 
> > >         Part Three: 
> > >             -TAMPERING: It shall be a federal offense to tamper with 
> > > in any way electronic mail sent over the Internet.  This section 
> > > shall be enforceable by the any law enforcement agency or by any 
> > > party so aggrieved under this section.  Should a private party 
> > > successfully prosecute under this section they may be awarded all 
> > > attorney's fees in addition to other damages and penalties incurred 
> > > upon the trespassing party.   
> > 
> > How can you suggest such a thing? This amounts to requiring other private
> > citizens to deliver your mail at zero cost lest they face huge penalties.
> > If you want to ensure that _your_ mail delivered privately and without
> > tampering, you should A) pay for it, B) check up on it and C) use
> > encryption. It is possitively trivial to ensure both message integrity
> > and privacy in electronic media. Why would you want to create an
> > unenforceable law to do the same?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Jason W. Solinsky
> > 
> 
> Today in order to get a marine raido transmitting licence, one need promise
> to forward any messages without interference or delay.  I fail to see the
> difference. 
> Bill Morris

The difference is that a marine radio transmitting licence is a government
regulated privilege. Hooking up my possesions to a telecommunications device
is a right. It would be very unfortunate if using the internet required
an expensive license and passing various tests as innumerable hoaxes of
the past have alleged.

JWS

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 22:34:27 +0001 (EST)
From: BNN Television <bnn@world.std.com>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:31] RE: Of Big Brother, Phone Cops, and the On/Off Switch
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411172232.F15548-0100000@world.std.com>



On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, BURNST wrote:

> >>    OF BIG BROTHER: {Response to Mr. Chapman}
> >
> >>The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
> 
>  The price of freedom is incurred risk.I'm not
> >worried about radicals of the left or the right utilizing the internet for
> >nefarious means but I am concerned about government using that fear to
> >exercise more control.
> >Federico Acerri
> 
> I agree with Mr. Acerri . . . the last thing we need is censorship on the
> Internet.  Regulation of information flow, under whatever guise, amounts to
> just that.  Part of the beauty of the net right now is that (unlike in most
> other media I can think of) there's no "editor" deciding what goes on, and what
> doesn't, what's obscene and what isn't, what's "too potentially dangerous" and
> what isn't, etc.  
> 
> Terri Burns
> 
> 
Discussing possible abuses with a non-netter today, we decided that we 
are in essentially the same position our forebears were with the 
telephone; certainly we can imagine terrific abuses, just as our 
forebears must have feared the obscene caller, false alarms called in 
anonymously to the police and fire departments, access by/to our children by 
strangers, but fortunately, we decided to go forward and meet the risks 
as they were realized, rather than overly anticipate them and over-regulate.

The same is certainly true of universal access; while the opportunities 
for abuse are many times multiplied, so is our technological capacity to 
deal with them.  Let's not fight these battles before they materialize if 
to do so is to fail to benefit from the technology around the corner.

The government should exercise power that we the governed determine is 
best sited with the government; generally that has to do with protecting 
us all.  The internet allows layers of protection through selective 
subscription and firewalling that can only improve over time.

Rich Minton
Melrose, MA      
	clcjobs@world.std.com


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 22:40:38 +0001 (EST)
From: BNN Television <bnn@world.std.com>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:36] RE: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411172209.H15548-0100000@world.std.com>

This is an excellent model to use!  It is a framework on which to build.  
However, the eternal vigilance needs to be at the user level as well as 
giving certain controls over to the government agency.

I wish we could impart a sense of personal responsibility for 
safeguarding privacy and other freedoms as readily as we can direct an 
agency to do so.

Rich Minton, Melrose, MA	clcjobs@world.std.com


On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Jeffrey Millican wrote:

>     OF MS. RYAN'S IDEAS: {Response to Ms. Ryan}
>     I believe that Ms. Ryan is bang on target.  A statutory scheme 
> lifted from the current Postal statutes protecting privacy is a great 
> idea.  Remember, however, that even the Post Office has police.  In 
> fact, the Postal Inspection Service is the oldest, and one of the 
> largest Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.  Given our reliance on the 
> Postal System for privacy, and the Postal Inspection Service, I think 
> there is a firm foundation to build upon here.  
> 
>     PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
>     I propose to my fellow conferees that the Congress enact the 
> following law:
>         Part One:
>             - JURISDICTION: The Article III Federal judiciary shall 
> have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of 
> any transaction with or on the Internet.   
>         Part Two:
>             - INTERCEPTION: The Federal government shall not 
> intercept electronic mail sent over the Internet between two or more 
> private parties UNLESS, upon approval of an article III federal judge 
> with proper jurisdiction, it is a federal law enforcement agency with 
> jursidiction to conduct activities, AND it has reason to believe that 
> the parties are conspiring or violating another federal law.
>         Part Three: 
>             -TAMPERING: It shall be a federal offense to tamper with 
> in any way electronic mail sent over the Internet.  This section 
> shall be enforceable by the any law enforcement agency or by any 
> party so aggrieved under this section.  Should a private party 
> successfully prosecute under this section they may be awarded all 
> attorney's fees in addition to other damages and penalties incurred 
> upon the trespassing party.   
> 
> I look forward to your comments.
>                                    Take Care
>                                    Jeffrey Millican
>                                    milljeff@uofrlaw.urich.edu
>                                    
> The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
>                              
>       
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 22:02:28 -0500
From: az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:90] PRIVACY digest 13
Message-ID: <199411180302.WAA24419@freenet.carleton.ca>

You have a good point.  What I'm talking about, is things like the Clipper
Chip Bill that the FBI tried to get congress to pass.  I think this
potential problem is understood and needs to get fixed before it has a
chance to develop.

The poit of not trying to cure something when it's not fully understood,
is a good one, as along as the problem is cured/prevented as soon as it's
understood, and before it becomes an epidemic.

--

Paul Holden			       "Float like a butterfly,
az908@freenet.carleton.ca		  sting like a bee."

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 17
************************

From daemon Fri Nov 18 09:22:37 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA37472 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 09:22:37 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA26859; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 09:29:19 -0800
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 09:29:19 -0800
Message-Id: <199411181729.JAA26859@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:108] PRIVACY digest 19
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 19

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) UseNet-News
	by innd@virtconf.digex.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 09:27:38 -0800
From: innd@virtconf.digex.net
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: UseNet-News
Message-ID: <199411181727.JAA26666@virtconf.digex.net>

Path: virtconf!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!psuvax1!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!wiretap.spies.com!sgiblab!uhog.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!nehrlich
From: nehrlich@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perlick 'Eric' Nehrlich)
Newsgroups: alt.ntia.privacy
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
Date: 17 Nov 1994 18:49:29 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <3ag8jp$77i@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
References: <1994Nov16.201321.18704@virgin.uvi.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: marinara.mit.edu

>Jeffrey Millican <MILLJEFF@uofrlaw.urich.edu> put forth in [PRIVACY:36]:
>: RE: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
>:
>: [...]
>:            -TAMPERING: It shall be a federal offense to tamper with 
>: in any way electronic mail sent over the Internet.  This section 
>: shall be enforceable by the any law enforcement agency or by any 
>: party so aggrieved under this section.  Should a private party 
>: successfully prosecute under this section they may be awarded all 
>: attorney's fees in addition to other damages and penalties incurred 
>: upon the trespassing party.   
>
Just as a point of information, I think we have as much to fear from the
government right now with regard to this as any other agency.  Recently,
it was ruled by an appeals court that according to the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (1984?), that the Secret Service was NOT
guilty of interception of e-mail when they carted off the Illuminati BBS
of Steve Jackson Games, despite several messages never getting
transmitted (i.e. they had been sent, and had not yet been read by the
intended receiver).  It was deemed in the judgment of the court that
since the e-mail had already been "sent" (i.e. reached its destination
computer), that it was merely being stored, and therefore was perfectly
legitimate material for confiscation by the Secret Service.  Hence the
appeal that Steve Jackson Games and a few of its BBS subscribers had
brought forth against the Secret Service for violation of the ECPA was
rejected by the court.  If I remember correctly, SJG did win its initial
suit against the Secret Service under the Publisher's Protection act (I
don't remember the exact name, but it was something like that) -
however, the ECPA charge was rejected - hence the appeal.  Forgive any
errors in this account - this was all my understanding of the decision
based on the articles I saw - if anybody knows more, please say so.

Now if a message has been sent, but not read by its intended receiver, I
would think that deleting it at that point would or should be
interception?  After all, the process of communication has been
interrupted before its completion.  Yet, under current provisions,
despite an act supposedly intended to protect electronic privacy, a
government agency was able to seize the contents of a bulletin board,
including many messages of unread mail, and not be guilty of anything
under that act.  Forgive me for being cynical, but when the government
itself has tampered with e-mail in this way, and then legitimized it by
rejecting an appeal based on an electronic privacy act, why should I
trust it to prevent others from tampering with e-mail?

Thanks for your time,
Eric Nehrlich, Devil's Advocate - These are just my thoughts/flames/ideas
nehrlich@mit.edu - Feel free to disagree
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/user/n/e/nehrlich/www/home.html


------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 19
************************

From daemon Fri Nov 18 14:45:19 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA26579 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 14:45:18 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA19882; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 14:50:13 -0800
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 14:50:13 -0800
Message-Id: <199411182250.OAA19882@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:109] PRIVACY digest 20
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 20

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) RE: [PRIVACY:108] PRIVACY digest 19
	by DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 14:41:34 EST
From: DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: RE: [PRIVACY:108] PRIVACY digest 19
Message-ID: <199411182249.OAA19782@virtconf.digex.net>

In regard to the Steve Jackson Games case discussed by Eric Nehrlich, 
I would like to respond to the finding of the court that the e-mail
had not been intercepted where it had not been read by its addressee
but where it had reached its destination.  While I really don't 
approve of the government's action, I think I do agree that it had
not been intercepted.  I have not read the statute, but if intercept
means the same thing in the statute as it does in everyday life, this
case seems to be analogous to where the government seizes unopened
mail from your dining room table which just "feels" (great reasoning
huh?) different from when the government takes your mail from the
post office.

While it doesn't seem like an interception, it does seem like the case
would raise very interesting 4th Amendment search and seizure issues.
However, I don't remember the specifics of the case (as if the true
specifics are ever contained in a court opinion dealing with police
seizures; somehow the police are always polite, restrain their 
searches from anything unnecessary, and the searchee is always armed,
dangerous, and is capable of reaching any point in the room with 
devastating speed---but I digress).

So to make my point, finally; it does not seem like the same privacy
concerns are raised when the government seizes something from your
home as when they prevent it from ever reaching you.  Other privacy
concerns are raised to be sure, but there are different laws for
different concerns, and that is what the court has to work with.

--Doug Masson
Indiana University School of Law
dmasson@indiana.edu

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 20
************************

From daemon Fri Nov 18 16:45:40 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA42601 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 16:45:39 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA28510; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 16:50:20 -0800
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 16:50:20 -0800
Message-Id: <199411190050.QAA28510@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:111] PRIVACY digest 21
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 21

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) [PRIVACY:109] PRIVACY digest 20
	by Richmeyer_Joseph/GHQ_RAPA@rapa1.sbc.com
  2) Re: [PRIVACY:90] PRIVACY digest 13
	by geoffrey@vt.edu (Geoffrey C. Chapman)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 13:51:17 -0600
From: Richmeyer_Joseph/GHQ_RAPA@rapa1.sbc.com
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: [PRIVACY:109] PRIVACY digest 20
Message-ID: <H00002350094e4b4@MHS>

Item Subject: Reply: [PRIVACY:109] PRIVACY di
Please take me off this mailing list
Joseph Richmeyer   jr9283@rapa1.sbc.com



------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 15:24:25 +0500
From: geoffrey@vt.edu (Geoffrey C. Chapman)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:90] PRIVACY digest 13
Message-ID: <199411182332.PAA22872@virtconf.digex.net>

>			    PRIVACY Digest 13
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
>  1) RE: [PRIVACY:76] PRIVACY digest 9
>	by DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 11:14:58 EST
>From: DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>
>To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
>Subject: RE: [PRIVACY:76] PRIVACY digest 9
>Message-ID: <199411171922.LAA07700@virtconf.digex.net>
>
>Paul Holden suggested "prevention being better than cure" as a reason
>why we should not wait for the problem to present itself before we
>attempt to remedy it.  I would agree with the prevention better than
>cure maxim if we are sure what the problem is.  I do not fully or even
>mostly understand the problem.  Perhaps there are wiser folks than me
>out there who have a clear understanding of the problem, its roots, and
>ramifications.  Reasoning by analogy, however, currently I think that
>innoculation is a good idea.  However, I would not want an innoculation
>for small pox when doctors had never actually seen it, but rather they
>suspected that some new disease was coming but they didn't know 
>exactly how it worked.  In such a case, the innoculation would cause
>harm without actually helping to prevent the future disease.
>But I belabor (sp?) the point;  put simply:  If problem is reasonably
>well understood--prevention good, but if problem only guessed at--
>prevention adds further harm.
>		Very truly yours,
>			Doug Masson
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of PRIVACY Digest 13
>************************
>All this being the case, may I suggest that, as someone previously pointed 
out, this free-wheeling anarchy of a system is doing pretty well on its own 
right now. So perhaps the best thing for now would be to simply leave it 
alone--and government control or oversight simply butt out. If and when 
problems DO arise that warrant action (and who can guess what they might 
be), they can be addressed specifically and one at a time by consensus of 
the best arbiters: those who use the system. On the other hand, I suppose 
consensus in anarchy is somewhat oxymoronic. Still, whatever oversight and 
decision-making there is should definitely NOT be entirely in the hands of 
the government.


------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 21
************************

From daemon Fri Nov 18 18:46:24 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA19543 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:46:20 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA06376; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:50:50 -0800
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:50:50 -0800
Message-Id: <199411190250.SAA06376@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:112] PRIVACY digest 22
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 22

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) boogy men in sheep's clothing
	by jamesm@satyrs.engr.CSUFresno.EDU (James Martin)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 14:13:08 PST
From: jamesm@satyrs.engr.CSUFresno.EDU (James Martin)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: jamesm
Subject: boogy men in sheep's clothing
Message-ID: <9411182213.AA23602@satyrs.engr.CSUFresno.EDU>

    The major point to keep uppermost in mind, when discussing the
various legal & technical entanglements of protecting (or, as is the
probable eventual goal of many who claim to be protecting privacy,
actually attacking) privacy, is that there will always be those who
will want to limit our rights.  Any regulatory entity which initially
is quite acceptable to those (such as me) who are concerned about the
insidious threats to privacy, posed by various authorities, will soon
find itself influenced by people who actually are NOT interested in
retaining every individual's rights.
 
     I would like to opine that I see no need - excepting the need for
a politician to get news coverage for announcing some allegedly new
idea - for an "information superhighway" to be constructed; we already
have one, the internet: the principal problem is one mentioned earlier,
that access to the internet is restricted to the elite.  However, I do
not expect access to be made as easy for the lay populace, as access is
for a highway.  I think that this is the implication of the alleged
policy; that an info-highway will be available to any person & will be
as easy to use as a highway.  It is quite true that our society could
use currently available resources (as one person mentioned, old model
computers are currently being junked for scrap metal; in other words,
we are throwing stuff away that we could possibly use to provide some
sort of program to provide computers for the poor - the image springs
to mind, of the USDA program which buys selected food commodities from
farmers & then gives that food to poor folks) to construct such a
system.  It would undoubtedly benefit society in general, for every
person to have the ability to access the internet from their own home.
The machinery involved would be no more complex or expensive than our
currently widely-used television broadcasting system.  However, as I
said, I sincerely doubt that we will see such a system in our lifetime.
Like any other change which does not principally benefit some entrenched
elite group, it will face too much opposition from our barbarians.

     While many (including George Brett - whose url & e-address both
are, strangely enough, inoperable ... at least from this e-end - the
director of cindr.org) seem to be sincerely working to develop standards
and regulations for networks, there will be far too much pressure from
those whose primary interest is to limit individual rights.  Ostensibly,
the goals of these people will seem innocuous.  Some may take delight
in the intellectual intricacies of the legal system, or they may merely
be delighted at the prospect of increased employment security for the
many lawyers who will specialize in the briar patch of laws which will
entrap many unsuspecting people who try to use the internet's heir.
 
     Far more dangerous are the people who consider their morality to
be superior.  They have been prominently featured in most of the press
coverage of internet issues.  Here a pornographer, there a child
molester.  They have made certain that many people are aware of the
fact that naughty words are sometimes spoken, in the e-literature.
They are dangerous for several reasons. 
 
     They are always going to be with us.  As long as people are
strongly attracted to religions, the authority figures of those groups
will have a strong influence on any public policy.  And, despite the
whinings from such as I, who complain that sex is nowhere near as bad
for grown or growing children, as killing is, they can get a lot of
valuable (for them) publicity from someone who writes a naughty word
in one state, & someone else in another state reads that word.  So
those who appoint themselves to ensure that I conform to their version
of morality, are going to always be stirring up whatever trouble they
can.
 
     The keepers of our "morality" are insidious; their influence is
felt in a variety of surprising venues, and their agenda is promoted
by seemingly harmless ventures.  It will provide them with many new
opportunities, by starting up a commission to "reform" the internet.

     Certainly we will need to accommodate new technologies as the
decades pass, and we really should try to eliminate the info-have-nots
from the fringes of our society.  But the "improvements" are certain
to be defined by the wrong people.
                                         James Milton Martin

jamesm@satyrs.engr.csufresno.edu
http://
www.engr.csufresno.edu/Personal/ECE/Students/James_Milton_Martin/Home.html


------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 22
************************

From daemon Fri Nov 18 20:43:55 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA27091 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 20:43:54 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA13529; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 20:51:10 -0800
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 20:51:10 -0800
Message-Id: <199411190451.UAA13529@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:114] PRIVACY digest 23
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 23

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) NTIA Public Comment
	by San Francisco Public Libraray <"SFPL::NTIA_PUB"@DRANET.DRA.COM>
  2) NTIA Public Comment
	by San Francisco Public Libraray <"SFPL::NTIA_PUB"@DRANET.DRA.COM>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:32:22 -0600 (CST)
From: San Francisco Public Libraray <"SFPL::NTIA_PUB"@DRANET.DRA.COM>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: NTIA Public Comment
Message-ID: <941118183222.20216603@DRANET.DRA.COM>

Please deifne privacy with PGP, and remailers. thank you
From: 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:38:49 -0600 (CST)
From: San Francisco Public Libraray <"SFPL::NTIA_PUB"@DRANET.DRA.COM>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: NTIA Public Comment
Message-ID: <941118183849.2021381a@DRANET.DRA.COM>

>your assumptions that corporations ahve the right to define privacy
based on figuring out new information on pooled resources
defines privacy away. First define privacy as something stolen
by pooled resources, then ask for commentary.
From: 

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 23
************************

From daemon Fri Nov 18 22:44:44 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA27199 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 22:44:39 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA20890; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 22:51:46 -0800
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 22:51:46 -0800
Message-Id: <199411190651.WAA20890@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:115] PRIVACY digest 24
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 24

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) .
	by Patrick Gallagher <ab238@virgin.uvi.edu>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 22:14:47 -0400 (AST)
From: Patrick Gallagher <ab238@virgin.uvi.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: .
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.941118221148.9833C-100000@virgin.uvi.edu>


Doug Masson <dmasson@ucs.indiana.edu> said, with some munching:

--Begin Paste
In regard to the Steve Jackson Games case discussed by Eric Nehrlich,   
I would like to respond to the finding of the court that the e-mail             
had not been intercepted where it had not been read by its addressee            
but where it had reached its destination.  While I really don't                 
approve of the government's action, I think I do agree that it had              
not been intercepted.  I have not read the statute, but if intercept            
means the same thing in the statute as it does in everyday life, this           
case seems to be analogous to where the government seizes unopened              
mail from your dining room table which just "feels" (great reasoning            
huh?) different from when the government takes your mail from the               
post office. 
--End Paste                

I believe that the Illuminati BBS was not a networked system.  In other 
words, the mail that was sent on it never left the computer it was sent from.
Doesn't this interpretation imply that only mail sent across a network is
protected by the ECPA?  To extend your analogy, the mail sent on the 
Illuminati BBS, when it was posted, never left the house, even though it
had been posted.  In other words, just because it was sitting on the kitchen
table does not imply that it was not still in the postal system.

--Begin Paste
While it doesn't seem like an interception, it does seem like the case          
would raise very interesting 4th Amendment search and seizure issues.           
However, I don't remember the specifics of the case (as if the true             
specifics are ever contained in a court opinion dealing with police             
seizures; somehow the police are always polite, restrain their                  
searches from anything unnecessary, and the searchee is always armed,           
dangerous, and is capable of reaching any point in the room with                
devastating speed---but I digress). 
--End Paste

It did.  That's where EFF-Austin and others got involved.  That whole 
operation (Operation:  Sundevil, the Chicago Task Force, etc.) seems to have
been a bit lax in its interpretations of the 4th Amendment and how it 
applies to technology.  ECPA was supposed to clear some of that up, but
apparently did not, though I had not heard of this ruling.  For an 
interesting discussion of these and related events, read Bruce Sterling's
_The Hacker Crackdown_ (ISBN:  0-553-56370-X).  It's an interesting book 
which actually piqued my interest in this area.

--Begin Paste
So to make my point, finally; it does not seem like the same privacy            
concerns are raised when the government seizes something from your              
home as when they prevent it from ever reaching you.  Other privacy             
concerns are raised to be sure, but there are different laws for                
different concerns, and that is what the court has to work with.                
--End Paste

I agree.  The government seems much less concerned about violating individual
privacy than people seem concerned about it violating their privacy.  I
guess that makes sense, if you look at it from their perspective.  However,
I am not and do not wish to be a government, so my feeling is, keep them and
everyone else out of my mail.

I'm not sure if it made it here before, but my opinion is that, with the
network structured as it is, the only way to even hope to assure one's 
privacy is to take appropriate measures one's self.  Don't rely on the
network or your SysAdmin or anyone, encrypt your outgoing mail, set 
permissions on your home directory, etc.

Geoffrey C. Chapman <geoffrey@vt.edu> said:

--Begin Paste
All this being the case, may I suggest that, as someone previously pointed     
out, this free-wheeling anarchy of a system is doing pretty well on its own     
right now. So perhaps the best thing for now would be to simply leave it        
alone--and government control or oversight simply butt out. If and when         
--End Paste

I agree.  It's the one working anarchy on the face of the planet (well,
kind of on the face of the planet).  Let's leave well enough alone.  It has
managed to adapt so far.  When it proves that it can not longer do so, let's
change it then.

--Begin Paste
problems DO arise that warrant action (and who can guess what they might        
be), they can be addressed specifically and one at a time by consensus of       
the best arbiters: those who use the system. On the other hand, I suppose       
consensus in anarchy is somewhat oxymoronic. Still, whatever oversight and      
decision-making there is should definitely NOT be entirely in the hands of      
the government.                                                                 
--End Paste

1) Why are anarchy and consensus mutually exclusive?  Isn't consensus 
required for viable anarchy?
2) I agree with your last statement with every fiber of my being.

PG


Patrick Gallagher                |  My opinions are just that...opinions.
   Gallagher@uh.edu              |  Appreciate life, don't depreciate it.
   ab238@virgin.uvi.edu	         |
NeXTmail OK (even appreciated!)  |  Privacy begins at home.

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 24
************************

From daemon Sat Nov 19 02:36:52 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id CAA22597 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Sat, 19 Nov 1994 02:36:51 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA04863; Sat, 19 Nov 1994 02:44:05 -0800
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 02:44:05 -0800
Message-Id: <199411191044.CAA04863@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:116] PRIVACY digest 25
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 25

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
	by "Alexander T. Fader" <afader01@ccsf.cc.ca.us>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 23:34:41 -0800
From: "Alexander T. Fader" <afader01@ccsf.cc.ca.us>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal - Federal Internet Privacy Statutes
Message-ID: <199411191043.CAA04781@virtconf.digex.net>


I am unable to post messages to news groups due to local system operators 
continuting to develop our local system.  However, I am mailing you my 
response to your message:

I think that the proposal lack substance.  There are clear areas where 
viloations can be observed.  However, clairty must be made-first system 
administrators and hackers should be persecuted for tampering with mail.  
However, I agree it is not easy to prove and so, the law should read when 
demostrated evidence exists that a person has acted upon knowledge which 
was transmitted through their system...
	That is, for example: if my school decided to expel me because I
wrote a note via email to a friend that I cheated on an exam the 
administrator had better be able to prove that they had this information 
from some other source.  (There is no law that I had to tell my friend 
the truth.)
	When one review insider trading cases, there are clear links.  So 
if one is suspected of insider trading, a through examination of phone 
records and computer records could be admissible evidence for illegal 
activites --- such as fradulent access to corporate email...  (Where the 
evidence would reside primarily in the actions take trading stocks, 
the circumstantially linked to compter access...)

But, then again there are laws against the latter...

Alexander T Fader

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 25
************************

From daemon Sun Nov 20 12:10:21 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA33785 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 12:10:20 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA03153; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 12:17:33 -0800
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 12:17:33 -0800
Message-Id: <199411202017.MAA03153@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:118] PRIVACY digest 27
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 27

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Privacy (imagine that)
	by ab238@virgin.uvi.edu (Patrick Gallagher)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:32:08 GMT
From: ab238@virgin.uvi.edu (Patrick Gallagher)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Privacy (imagine that)
Message-ID: <1994Nov16.233208.27547@virgin.uvi.edu>



First of all, I'll say that I've been trying to cram the last two days worth
of messages into my hour of online time, plus mail, plus posting, so if I
misquote or misinterpret anyone's remarks, I apologize wholeheartedly and
trust that this is not a forum for flaming.

A few random comments:

Can anyone paraphrase the Electronic Communications Privacy Act for me and
summarie its impact in this area and potentially on this discussion?

Gary (sorry, missed that last name):  I agree.  One of the nice things about
the net as it currently stands is that it is effectively blind.  There are
no colors, races, creeds, etc. that pop up to "stratify by social pathology."
Sure, they still exist, but unless someone is forthcoming (willing to barter)
with this information, it generally has little or no effect on communications.
That's not to say there aren't problems (witness the Floating Homosexual Flame
War), but people seem to deal with these things better in netspace than in
realspace.  I would argue because they are not as easily perceived.  Short
form:  Keep stratification by social pathology out of the net.  Let's
evolve, not continue in a new medium.

Doug Masson:  How does one enforce one person, one vote in the net?  Most
people have more than one identity.  I alone have at least six.
Also, I liked what you said about government forcing private industry into
line, but who can force the government into line.

Curt Howland:  You said something about the failure and corruptibility of
a single governing body.  I agree.  Please read on.

Barry D. Fraser:  Here, here!  The guarantee of the right to privacy should
go along with, no, actually be part of the guarantee of right to access.

Jason Solinsky:  Here, here!  Encryption is (not quite) trivial (but
getting better).  Read on.

Anti-tampering laws (Jeffrey Millican):  When mail is passed, under current
standards, from one machine to another, it is inherently tampered with.
Each machine adds its own stamp to the message.  Sure, this is analogous,
to the computer literate, to the stamps the postal service puts on the outside
of the envelope in snail mail, but how does the computer illiterate (i.e.
Congress) differentiate this in a meaningful way?


The Main Part:

The Internet has been, up to now, wonderfully anarchistic.  The net has been
largely self-policing, using social pressure instead of statute to maintain
the status quo.  Because I'm running out of time, I'll stop making a point
(there is one here) and post a question instead (hopeing someone else will
have more time to make my point).

What's wrong with an Internet anarchy where everyone takes responsibility for
their own privacy?

Privacy begins at home.  Take responsibility and encrypt your mail if
necessary.

PG

-- 
Patrick Gallagher                |  My opinions are just that...opinions.
   Gallagher@uh.edu              |  Appreciate life, don't depreciate it.
   ab238@virgin.uvi.edu	         |
NeXTmail OK (even appreciated!)  |  Privacy begins at home.


------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 27
************************

From daemon Sun Nov 20 14:12:24 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA31746 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 14:12:22 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA09890; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 14:19:27 -0800
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 14:19:27 -0800
Message-Id: <199411202219.OAA09890@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:121] PRIVACY digest 28
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 28

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Continued
	by ab238@virgin.uvi.edu (Patrick Gallagher)
  2) RE:  OZ COMMENT
	by ab238@virgin.uvi.edu (Patrick Gallagher)
  3) Privacy and the Public's Right to Know...
	by ab147@virgin.uvi.edu (Gary M. Goodlander)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 00:24:03 GMT
From: ab238@virgin.uvi.edu (Patrick Gallagher)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Continued
Message-ID: <1994Nov17.002403.592@virgin.uvi.edu>



I managed to get back on, so I shall continue.

The Internet is the venue of human interaction most closely suited to anarchy
that we as a species have developed to date.  Oddly enough, the government,
of all entities, developed it so that it would be that way.  A decentralized
structure was best suited to a period of time when people believed that
nuclear bombs could be hurled across the world in a "limited, winnable
nuclear war."  If one node got taken out, the flow of data would not be
interrupted as the data would just be rerouted.  That same structure is still
needed today, though for different reasons.  Image the scenario of some 
construction crew working on a street accidentally slicing through the
transcontinental T3.  Suddenly, decentralization becomes a pleasant thought.

As far as policing itself, much of the net had chosen to do so out of self-
preservation.  I'm no longer talking about social pressure.  I'm talking
about SysAdmins with responsibilities to their users to protect them from
outside invaders (hhmmm, sounds like one of the fundamental purposes of
government).  We run into the same problem, of course:  Who watches the
watchers?  What's to stop the local SysAdmin from reading your mail and
leaving not the faintest electronic trail that indicates she or he has
done so?  Well, if the people who have mailed to you used your public key
to encrypt the message, let the SysAdmin peek at your messages.  You've
got your key (presumeably locked away on your own single-user machine).

OK, maybe public key encryption isn't so bad.  Let's make it a standard.
Let's have the government get together with industry and develop the
"Internet Standard Public Key Encryption Technology" and build it around
a keystoned algorithm so that the government, when duely authorized, may
simply pull the keystone out and read whatever it likes.  Nice scenario, eh?

Plan on changing the algorithm yearly?  How about every six months?  How
is that algorithm going to get disseminated to every user of the net every
time it changes?

The problem is, the keystone exists.  It is there and everyone knows it.
It would take a year tops for anyone who is determined to figure out what it
is.  Once one person does, everyone who is willing to pay for it does.

Change algorithm, repeat ad nauseam.

Public key cryptography is already available and is stronger than the
standards the government has cared to share with the masses.  If they want
to read my mail they can either a) ask me, or b) feed it through their
Crays.  They'll get there...eventually.

The fact is, the net is based on a whole bunch of interconnected multiuser
computers which the fine people at CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team)
will quickly agree means that it is inherently insecure.  Swim at your own
risk.  Bring your own life preserver.

That is the essential argument from me.  We all know it is insecure (or should
be made aware of the fact if we do not) and therefore take responsibility
for protecting our own privacy.

Which brings us back to bartering and anarchy.  If we all agree that it is
a problem, we can all work together to fix it.  The Internet is a global
place, in many respects it IS another world.  In many ways it transcends our
existing ideas of law, government, and jurisdiction.

Perhaps the US government is on the right track (here I go contradicting
myself again).  Maybe there does need to be intervention.  Maybe, however,
it is trying to stake out a fiefdom.  "This is my net."  Maybe the true
solution is some sort of world body to oversee the net.  Turing police, to
borrow (as everyone does nowadays) from William Gibson, with jurisdiction
everywhere in the world, but only pertaining to the net.

Enough of that.  Run with it.


Now, to nod to our moderators:

A lot of their "suggestions" take on different meanings or become meaningless
given some of the above arguments, so I'll leave them be.  However this
deserves some attention:

-- Data marketplaces, a place where you could go to sell                        
personal information. "Bartering for bytes." How will this                      
work?                                                                           

Data marketplaces and data havens will play a very important role in the
evolving "infoconomy."  There will be, and are, companies whose sole
business is the collection and sale of information, personal and otherwise.
To date, this has been fairly limited, i.e. mailing lists, financial info,
1-800-Doctors.  In the future, as information becomes synonymous with
currency, data brokerages will become common and, since data is the blood of
the net, they will naturally live in "cyberspace" (thanks again, Gibson).
Should this be regulated?

In many ways, it already is.  Intellectual property rights, copyright, trade-
mark, patent, all of these areas of law impinge upon the free trade of
information.

That's another 55 gal. drum of worms.  To focus on privacy, I like the
European model, "I give you permission to sell certain information about
me," as opposed to the U.S. model, "I didn't revoke your right to sell the
information, so I guess you can."

A related issue is the unprecedented ability for monitoring that is available.
Packet sniffers, traffic monitors, all kinds of fun toys that either do exist
or could be written fairly easily to collect huge amounts of data about the
day to day behavior of average netizens.  Boring?  Probably.  A marketer's
dream?  Definitely.


Conclusion, such as it is.

I'm afraid I posed more questions than I sought to answer.  Hopefully,
however, I have caused at least one person to say either, "Hey!  Now that's
got some merit!" or, "This guy's obviously out of his gourd."


One last thing:

I hope this whole conference is being archived.  Can someone tell me where
I can find it when all is said and done?

Thanks.

Happy thinking.

PG

-- 
Patrick Gallagher                |  My opinions are just that...opinions.
   Gallagher@uh.edu              |  Appreciate life, don't depreciate it.
   ab238@virgin.uvi.edu	         |
NeXTmail OK (even appreciated!)  |  Privacy begins at home.




------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:55:45 GMT
From: ab238@virgin.uvi.edu (Patrick Gallagher)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: RE:  OZ COMMENT
Message-ID: <1994Nov17.155545.28779@virgin.uvi.edu>



nigel.waters@ag.ausgovag.telememo.au said:

>Hope you don't mind input from down-under.  Have followed with interest since
>joining at item 55 and reading mid-week summary.

The net is a global place, regardless of its origins and peoples desires to
treat it as part of a given country.  In many ways it transcends the concepts
of nationalism, political boundries, and ownership.  As someone who is,
presumeably, not a citizen of the United States, you may have a bigger stake
in all of this than us citizens.  I, for one, greatly appreciate your input,
especially since you probably wear glasses of a different shade from those of
us who are down under from you.

>Issues
>Sterile argument whether government/business/individuals pose greatest threat
>to privacy - all can do,  but in different ways needing differing responses.

I agree, though I still argue that the best way to protect oneself from these
threats is to take the responsibility upon oneself.  We can not each of us
control the net or the individuals on it.  In order to protect what is ours
(privacy) we must assume that we are the only ones with an interest in doing
so.  In other words, _I_ am most concerned about protecting _my_ privacy.
Therefore, _I_ should take responsibility to protect what _I_ consider
important.  Regulations and laws and nice, but they don't work nearly as well
as PGP.

>Postal service analogies can be useful but so are others - eg private
>conversations in public places, private space etc - dangers in relying on
>existing precedents and protections - we are dealing with a new animal.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is _KEY_.  This is unlike any other medium that has ever existed.  As
was mentioned before, current laws were not written to accomodate this
technology.  To be done properly, it seems that a comprehensive effort must
be made to overhaul the existing statutes and bring them up to date with
existing levels of technology.  It's now a cliche point, but it is still an
important one:  What does copyright mean when to read something over the net,
you _have_ to make a copy?

>Essential to design new systems to allow for anonymous transactions, otherwise
>we will all be leaving a detailed trail of activity/location, and
>temptation/justification for  surveillance (by government and business use)
>will be too great to resist.

Agreed.  However, with current technologies, if one has the time, patience,
and motivation, one can follow this trail, I'm willing to say, even through
anonymous re-mailers and the like.  Look at what it took Cliff Stoll to catch
Jaeger and his band in Europe.  He went from a stolen account to a ring of
espionage-minded hackers, just by following the electronic trail.  Is this
good or bad?  Perspective.

>Anonymity in e-mail - really tricky - should not be forced to identify, but
>need accountability to prevent abuses.

Accountability can come from the above bit trail.  Given the effort involved,
it is unlikely that people would bother to try to track down anonymous
parties without the motivation of catching perpetrators of some harm.

>Beware barter proposals - unequal power balance and ignorance of consequences
>will lead people to sell their privacy rights - then very difficult to
>retrieve.

Agreed.  As is usually the case, much of this could probably be thwarted
through having an informed consumer base.

>Solutions:
>Experience in Europe/Canada/Australia/New Zealand includes statutory regulation
>and watchdog officials as well as attempts at self-regulation eg in telecom and
>finance sectors.  Experience suggests dangers of over-regulation (losing hearts
>finance sectors.  Experience suggests dangers of over-regulation (losing hearts
>for further privacy invasions.  Sectoral approach favoured, but need common
>foundation principles;  effective redress mechanisms; and independent
>advocates/watchdogs - preferably more than one "in competition" to keep them on
>their toes.

Hmmm.  We again reach the issue of jurisdiction.  This is a difficult issue
because of the inherently multi-jurisdictional (as currently defined) nature
of the net.  If someone here had taken offense at one of your statements,
found it to be obscene, whose jurisdiction is it?  Should it be under
Virgin Island jurisdiction (my current location and where I'm reading your
material), U.S. jurisdiction (because St. Croix is a U.S. Territory), 
Australian jurisdiction (because that is where it was composed)?  Or what about
any other countries, states, counties, parishes, provinces, or municipalities
your note happened to pass through?  It seems to me that the current judicial
systems are simply not designed to deal with this rather complex problem.
Perhaps there needs to be a Cyberspace Judiciary?  Or perhaps even a Nation
of Cyberspace?

Just a few thoughts.

PG

-- 
Patrick Gallagher                |  My opinions are just that...opinions.
   Gallagher@uh.edu              |  Appreciate life, don't depreciate it.
   ab238@virgin.uvi.edu	         |
NeXTmail OK (even appreciated!)  |  Privacy begins at home.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:17:54 GMT
From: ab147@virgin.uvi.edu (Gary M. Goodlander)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Privacy and the Public's Right to Know...
Message-ID: <1994Nov15.141754.16668@virgin.uvi.edu>


Privacy is important. 

So is the public's right to know. 

American has always held both in high esteem, and will
continue to do so.

Sometimes, of course, they are in conflict. 

We have always erred on the side of Freedom of Speech. 

We should continue to do so. 

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 28
************************

From daemon Sun Nov 20 21:10:23 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA36993 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 21:10:22 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA04188; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 21:17:41 -0800
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 21:17:41 -0800
Message-Id: <199411210517.VAA04188@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:122] PRIVACY digest 29
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 29

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: [PRIVACY:118] PRIVACY digest 27
	by howland@nsipo.nasa.gov

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 18:07:58 -0800
From: howland@nsipo.nasa.gov
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:118] PRIVACY digest 27
Message-ID: <199411210207.SAA05668@noc.arc.nasa.gov>


>    1) Privacy (imagine that)
>  	by ab238@virgin.uvi.edu (Patrick Gallagher)
>  The Internet has been, up to now, wonderfully anarchistic.
..
>  What's wrong with an Internet anarchy where everyone takes responsibility for
>  their own privacy?

Right now, whatever your node (or account) does depends
on your agreement with the connection next up the chain.
Like, to connect to a Government funded net, one has to
abide by the Suitable Use Policy of the Federal Government.

Likewise, the security measures one takes on ones own node
are up to that administrator, or your account to yourself. 

I don't think the "Privacy" issue is answered by just
making the effort of encrypting ones own files and mail,
any more than placing documents in a safe, or using an
envelope for your snail-mail instead of postcards, is
all that is needed for Privacy.

Privacy is something that each person/group/entity must
take into account. It's not that the police CAN'T search
you without cause, it's that there are penalties if they
do. It's not that the mail-order company is incapable of
selling your address, phone number, what was ordered and
your credit card number, to someone. It's that we expect
they won't, we have penalties for their doing so, and if
people were aware of a company doing that, they would not
be in business long.

I don't believe the rules need to be changed to account
for the new medium, the existing rules need to be 
extended to explicily include it. Rather than limit the
intercept of mail to physical letters, make it intercept
of "communications". After all, what is the difference
between intercepting an envelope, a box, or an email?

>  Privacy begins at home.  Take responsibility and encrypt your mail if
>  necessary.

Use encryption as an envelope, as a safe. Security works
best when the keys are your own, and no one elses 
responsibility. For that reason I loath Clipper.

Privacy, on the other hand, is making sure that information
you provide in confidence remains that way. Those laws
already exist, from the 4th amendment on down.

Let's use them.

---
Curt Howland                howland@nsipo.nasa.gov 
"Laws do not persuade just because they threaten."
                 -Seneca, 65 AD


------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 29
************************

From daemon Mon Nov 21 12:18:49 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA32200 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 12:18:45 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA25231; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 12:25:32 -0800
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 12:25:32 -0800
Message-Id: <199411212025.MAA25231@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:123] PRIVACY digest 30
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 30

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) RE: [PRIVACY:121] PRIVACY digest 28
	by DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 11:20:31 EWT
From: DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: RE: [PRIVACY:121] PRIVACY digest 28
Message-ID: <199411211929.LAA22155@virtconf.digex.net>

Addressing the question of jurisdiction in net related cases, perhaps
the idea of whether the net is going to be pervasive and large enough
to deserve its own jurisdiction should be considered.  This sort of
thinking is not totally without precedent, after all, any suit brought
against a federal administrative agency can be brought in the D.C. 
Circuit.  Technically, this is because all agencies are based in
D.C., but, as a practical matter, it means that the D.C. Circuit has
great expertise in handling administrative matters, and the geographic
location is largely a sham because the cases and controversies which
arise, do so in all parts of the country.

Therefore, my thought is that there should be a jurisdiction for net
related matters; a sort of cyberspace jurisdiction.  The argument could
be made that standard rules of jurisdiction, namely the geographical
requirement, should be ignored since, as a practical matter, space is
no longer a properly limiting factor in such instances.  Extending this
logic, of course, could lead to the conclusion that it should be a
global matter, but, countries being what they are, I believe that such
a jurisdiction should only be national in character in order to remain
practical.

Just a few thoughts,
Doug Masson
Indiana University School of Law
dmasson@ucs.indiana.edu

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 30
************************

From daemon Mon Nov 21 20:52:55 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA33752 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 20:52:54 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA23611; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 20:59:57 -0800
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 20:59:57 -0800
Message-Id: <199411220459.UAA23611@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:124] PRIVACY digest 31
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 31

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Whew!
	by Patrick Gallagher <ab238@virgin.uvi.edu>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 21:38:46 -0400 (AST)
From: Patrick Gallagher <ab238@virgin.uvi.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Whew!
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.941121212114.3205A-100000@virgin.uvi.edu>


All:

Sorry to have taken up so much space all at once.  Those messages which 
were just digested were all sent over the last several days.  Again, all
I'm seeing is digests, so I'm not sure what this looks like to the rest 
of the world.

Let's see now...

Curt Howland <howland@nsipo.nasa.gov> put forth:
--Begin Paste
Use encryption as an envelope, as a safe. Security works 
best when the keys are your own, and no one elses
responsibility. For that reason I loath Clipper.    
--End Paste

I agree.  Encryption and personal responsibility are the starting place,
not the ending place.  But, it _is_ an inherently insecure system, so
personal responsibility _is_ important.  I also concur completely with you
on Clipper.

--Begin Paste
Privacy, on the other hand, is making sure that information     
you provide in confidence remains that way. Those laws                          
already exist, from the 4th amendment on down.                                  
                                                                                
Let's use them.                                                                 
--End Paste

Unfortunately, the government has shown a marked reluctance to do so.  
The most obvious case in point is the Steve Jackson Games/Hacker Crackdown
fiasco.  Also, as with most laws that were written to deal with realspace,
I'm willing to bet that a few definitions need to be clarified.

..and around the same time, Doug Masson <dmasson@ucs.indiana.edu> quoth:

--Begin Paste
Therefore, my thought is that there should be a jurisdiction for net            
related matters; a sort of cyberspace jurisdiction.  The argument could         
be made that standard rules of jurisdiction, namely the geographical            
requirement, should be ignored since, as a practical matter, space is           
no longer a properly limiting factor in such instances.  Extending this         
logic, of course, could lead to the conclusion that it should be a              
global matter, but, countries being what they are, I believe that such          
a jurisdiction should only be national in character in order to remain          
practical.                                                                      
--End Paste

Agreed.  Up to the point where you say that national boundaries (should?)
make a difference.  What's the difference between a state boundary and 
national boundary in a world that can not (or maybe just does not) see 
any of these geo-political fictions?  How would one draw the lines?  And 
then, what about foreign nationals operating in the U.S.?  Under what
jurisdiction would they fall?  Would there be diplomatic immunity?

Here's a better set of questions for everyone:

1)  Does this sound at all feasible?
2)  What form could it take?
3)  How could people propose, prosecute, and defend cases?
4)  How would judgment be passed?
5)  What forms could punishment take in such an anonymous world?

Given the present state of anarchy, some very interesting answers to 
these questions could evolve.

PG


Patrick Gallagher                |  My opinions are just that...opinions.
   Gallagher@uh.edu              |  Appreciate life, don't depreciate it.
   ab238@virgin.uvi.edu          |
NeXTmail OK (even appreciated!)  |  Privacy begins at home.


------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 31
************************

From daemon Mon Nov 21 22:52:46 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA40593 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 22:52:45 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA01304; Mon, 21 Nov 1994 23:00:06 -0800
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 23:00:06 -0800
Message-Id: <199411220700.XAA01304@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:125] PRIVACY digest 32
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 32

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Something to think about.
	by az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 21:06:15 -0500
From: az908@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Holden)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Something to think about.
Message-ID: <199411220206.VAA29222@freenet.carleton.ca>

to those who like the idea of government intervention:

doesen't the digital telephony bill, the clipper chip and the possibility
of video-confrencing remind you of the book 1984?  It's not impossible you
know.

--

Paul Holden			       "Float like a butterfly,
az908@freenet.carleton.ca		  sting like a bee."

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 32
************************

From rbarry Tue Nov 22 09:23:27 1994
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:127] PRIVACY digest 33
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:23:27 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199411220901.BAA08386@virtconf.digex.net> from "privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov" at Nov 22, 94 01:01:36 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 826       

> We just happen to have a great blueprint for consumer education
> here at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.  We would be happy to
> share.
> 
> Barry D. Fraser
> prc@pwa.acusd.edu
> prc@teetot.acusd.edu

Please do.  If not on the forum (first choice), can you email it?

There's a time issue involved. My free, local public access server was
scheduled to die 7 days ago and only got a brief reprieve to the 25th to
carry these forums.  Being rural in a cost-per-Internet-minute sense and
self-employed and having a kid in college to be followed by a second, I
don't have the budget to be around after Friday.

-- 
 
 rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu          Freeware Hall of Fame BBS  
    The only thing Americans       Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 
   have in common is paranoia.       Free BBS - 1st call downloads  

From daemon Tue Nov 22 00:54:29 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id AAA42589 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:54:23 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA08386; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 01:01:36 -0800
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 01:01:36 -0800
Message-Id: <199411220901.BAA08386@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:127] PRIVACY digest 33
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: ROr

			    PRIVACY Digest 33

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: [PRIVACY:123] PRIVACY digest 30
	by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
  2) Education
	by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 20:29:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:123] PRIVACY digest 30
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411212058.A9535-0100000@pwa.acusd.edu>



> From: DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>
> 
> Addressing the question of jurisdiction in net related cases, perhaps
> the idea of whether the net is going to be pervasive and large enough
> to deserve its own jurisdiction should be considered.  This sort of
> thinking is not totally without precedent, after all, any suit brought
> against a federal administrative agency can be brought in the D.C. 
> Circuit.  Technically, this is because all agencies are based in
> D.C., but, as a practical matter, it means that the D.C. Circuit has
> great expertise in handling administrative matters, and the geographic
> location is largely a sham because the cases and controversies which
> arise, do so in all parts of the country.
> 

There is also a Federal Circuit which handles virtually all of the 
federal patent, trademark and copyright cases.  Given the recent trend 
towards judicial efficiency, I would be concerned that someone might get 
the idea that the Internet is close enough to "patent, trademark and 
copyright" and suggest just expanding the Federal Circuit to include 
Internet claims.  Why does this bother me???

Barry D. Fraser
prc@pwa.acusd.edu  

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 20:36:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Education
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411212022.A9535-0100000@pwa.acusd.edu>


An essental prerequisite to adequate privacy is education.  

We at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse can attest to the fact that
most consumers do not know: (1) what the laws are regarding
confidentiality and disclosure of personal information (what few
there are), and (2) that methods of self-help do exist to protect
personal privacy. Many consumers simply believe that the laws are
much more protective than they really are, and will
indiscriminately give out sensitive personal information to third
parties, with no thought as to the consequences.

We can never hope to have sufficient privacy safeguards on any
network unless its users are fully informed and aware of what the
information handling rules are and what _the user_ should be doing
to protect information she does not want disclosed.

Even if we have adequate encryption technology available, we will
not have privacy if we are not educated as to _how_ to use the
technology and _why_ it is important to use the technology.

I would call on the NTIA and the Dept. of Commerce to develop and
implement comprehensive consumer privacy education programs,
_before_ the expressway opens.  I would also urge that these
education programs be substantially decentralized and localized,
because both privacy laws and privacy attitudes vary greatly across
this country.

We just happen to have a great blueprint for consumer education
here at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.  We would be happy to
share.

Barry D. Fraser
prc@pwa.acusd.edu
prc@teetot.acusd.edu

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 33
************************

From daemon Tue Nov 22 02:54:19 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id CAA33591 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 02:54:19 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA16080; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 03:00:42 -0800
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 03:00:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199411221100.DAA16080@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:130] PRIVACY digest 34
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 34

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Education
	by howland@nsipo.nasa.gov
  2) Re: [PRIVACY:123] PRIVACY digest 30
	by geoffrey@vt.edu (Geoffrey C. Chapman)
  3) UseNet-News
	by innd@virtconf.digex.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 22:10:26 -0800
From: howland@nsipo.nasa.gov
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: Education
Message-ID: <199411220610.WAA07992@noc.arc.nasa.gov>


>  Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 20:36:10 -0800 (PST)
>  From: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>

>  An essental prerequisite to adequate privacy is education.  

Perhapps even the primary one.

>  I would call on the NTIA and the Dept. of Commerce to develop and
>  implement comprehensive consumer privacy education programs,
>  _before_ the expressway opens.

I see by your comments, included below, that your
group is working on such material. That the 
blueprint is free for the asking. So, why are
you waiting for the government to do something?

Flesh out your blueprint. Offer your services.
Provide the information and do what you see 
needs doing. Waiting for the goverment to do 
something that is counter to their making all
information and communications open to snooping
by them, in the name of National Security, will 
only leave you old and bitter.

>  We just happen to have a great blueprint for consumer education
>  here at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.  We would be happy to
>  share.
>  
>  Barry D. Fraser
>  prc@pwa.acusd.edu
>  prc@teetot.acusd.edu

Left in so they will be deluged with requests.

Curt-

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 01:29:29 +0500
From: geoffrey@vt.edu (Geoffrey C. Chapman)
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:123] PRIVACY digest 30
Message-ID: <199411220938.BAA10681@virtconf.digex.net>

>			    PRIVACY Digest 30
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
>  1) RE: [PRIVACY:121] PRIVACY digest 28
>	by DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 11:20:31 EWT
>From: DOUG MASSON <DMASSON@ucs.indiana.edu>
>To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
>Subject: RE: [PRIVACY:121] PRIVACY digest 28
>Message-ID: <199411211929.LAA22155@virtconf.digex.net>
>
>Addressing the question of jurisdiction in net related cases, perhaps
>the idea of whether the net is going to be pervasive and large enough
>to deserve its own jurisdiction should be considered.  This sort of
>thinking is not totally without precedent, after all, any suit brought
>against a federal administrative agency can be brought in the D.C. 
>Circuit.  Technically, this is because all agencies are based in
>D.C., but, as a practical matter, it means that the D.C. Circuit has
>great expertise in handling administrative matters, and the geographic
>location is largely a sham because the cases and controversies which
>arise, do so in all parts of the country.
>
>Therefore, my thought is that there should be a jurisdiction for net
>related matters; a sort of cyberspace jurisdiction.  The argument could
>be made that standard rules of jurisdiction, namely the geographical
>requirement, should be ignored since, as a practical matter, space is
>no longer a properly limiting factor in such instances.  Extending this
>logic, of course, could lead to the conclusion that it should be a
>global matter, but, countries being what they are, I believe that such
>a jurisdiction should only be national in character in order to remain
>practical.
>
>Just a few thoughts,
>Doug Masson
>Indiana University School of Law
>dmasson@ucs.indiana.edu
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of PRIVACY Digest 30
>************************
>Well, heck, why not just declare the net a state unto itself. After all, it 
would already be bigger than a lot of countries. And its national debt at 
the outset would be just about zero! Seriously, though. I think Mr. Masson's 
thoughts point what has disturbed me almost form the outset: why, folks, are 
we trying so hard to make this whole situation so bloody complicated? We 
Americans especially seem to be amazingly adept at taking the most elemental 
issue or situation and, perhaps fearing simplicity (or simple elegance), 
compulsively making a full-fledged bureaucracy out of it. And THAT's when 
the problems we predict begin to pop up. We predict and/or anticipate 
problems and then we make our predictions/anticipations self-fulfilling 
prophecies.

I suppose I'm digressing too much here, but let me conclude simply by 
quoting somebody I've never cared for but who, in this month's issue of PC 
computing, said it all quite simply and eloquently. Penn Jillette: 

"Computers gave me hope for the simple pure freedom that I love about this 
country, and I can't just watch it slip away....I'm sick of writing about 
this freedom stuff, so let's just get the goernment out of our Net once and 
for all, and I'll get on to writing some computer jokes."

As for me, I prefer the above to his computer jokes.


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 02:21:27 -0800
From: innd@virtconf.digex.net
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: UseNet-News
Message-ID: <199411221021.CAA13430@virtconf.digex.net>

Path: virtconf!miwok!well!pacbell.com!uop!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!caen!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!uunet.ca!uunet.ca!torfree!gts!feline!halt!castanets!incessantly!oro.net!smudge.oro.net!smj
From: smj@smudge.oro.net (Scott Jennings)
Newsgroups: alt.ntia.privacy.ctl
Subject: cmsg rmgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Control: rmgroup alt.ntia.privacy
Date: 20 Nov 1994 03:22:40 GMT
Organization: "OroNet, Penn Valley, CA"
Lines: 2
Approved: smj@oro.net
Message-ID: <3ajr20$6s42@ag.oro.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: smudge.oro.net

These groups were created
a mere four days ahead of schedule.

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 34
************************

From daemon Tue Nov 22 09:25:37 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA42533 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:25:31 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA09299; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:31:45 -0800
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:31:45 -0800
Message-Id: <199411221731.JAA09299@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:132] PRIVACY digest 36
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 36

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: [PRIVACY:127] PRIVACY digest 33
	by Rey Barry <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:23:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Rey Barry <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:127] PRIVACY digest 33
Message-ID: <199411221423.JAA35713@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU>

> We just happen to have a great blueprint for consumer education
> here at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.  We would be happy to
> share.
> 
> Barry D. Fraser
> prc@pwa.acusd.edu
> prc@teetot.acusd.edu

Please do.  If not on the forum (first choice), can you email it?

There's a time issue involved. My free, local public access server was
scheduled to die 7 days ago and only got a brief reprieve to the 25th to
carry these forums.  Being rural in a cost-per-Internet-minute sense and
self-employed and having a kid in college to be followed by a second, I
don't have the budget to be around after Friday.

-- 
 
 rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu          Freeware Hall of Fame BBS  
    The only thing Americans       Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 
   have in common is paranoia.       Free BBS - 1st call downloads  

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 36
************************

From daemon Tue Nov 22 17:56:46 1994
Received: from virtconf.digex.net (virtconf.digex.net [204.91.18.2]) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA36497 for <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 17:56:44 -0500
From: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA09836; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 18:03:53 -0800
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 18:03:53 -0800
Message-Id: <199411230203.SAA09836@virtconf.digex.net>
Reply-To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Originator: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Sender: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Precedence: first-class
To: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: [PRIVACY:135] PRIVACY digest 38
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Due to server load, all subscriptions converted to DIGESTS
Status: RO

			    PRIVACY Digest 38

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: [PRIVACY:130] PRIVACY digest 34
	by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 11:36:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
To: privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <privacy@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Re: [PRIVACY:130] PRIVACY digest 34
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411221109.A9801-0100000@pwa.acusd.edu>

>=20
> >  I would call on the NTIA and the Dept. of Commerce to develop and
> >  implement comprehensive consumer privacy education programs,
> >  _before_ the expressway opens.
>=20
> I see by your comments, included below, that your
> group is working on such material. That the=20
> blueprint is free for the asking. So, why are
> you waiting for the government to do something?
>=20
> Flesh out your blueprint. Offer your services.
> Provide the information and do what you see=20
> needs doing. Waiting for the goverment to do=20
> something that is counter to their making all
> information and communications open to snooping
> by them, in the name of National Security, will=20
> only leave you old and bitter.

Actually we have been offering free services to consumers for two years now=
.=20
The only reason to get the goverment involved is for _funding_ purposes. =
=20
We have to limit our scope to California for budgetary reasons, and it is=
=20
still difficult making ends meet.

Also, attached is information about our organization, for those who are=20
interested.  Or who wish to make a donation!
Barry D. Fraser
---------------
About The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

**************************************
The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
The Center for Public Interest Law
5998 Alcala Park=20
San Diego, CA  92110
(619)260-4806
(619) 260-4753 (fax)
e-mail prc@teetot.acusd.edu

Hotline: +1 800-773-7748 (Calif. only)
         +1 619-298-3396
***************************************


The real danger is the gradual erosion of individual liberties
through the automation, integration, and interconnection of many
small, separate record-keeping systems, each of which alone may
seem innocuous, even benevolent, and wholly justifiable.

--U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977


**The Privacy Debate**

Privacy has been hailed a major consumer issue of the 1990s. Four
out of five respondents to a 1993 Louis Harris poll expressed
concern about threats to their personal privacy.=20

Advances in technology are at the heart of the privacy issue.
They present consumers with a double-edged sword, offering
exciting new services while at the same time posing serious
threats to personal privacy.

**Educating Consumers**

The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse offers consumers a unique
opportunity to learn how to protect their personal privacy. The
Clearinghouse provides a toll-free hotline for Californians who
seek information about technology-related privacy issues. It is
the first endeavor of its kind in the nation.

The Clearinghouse is administered by the University of San
Diego's Center for Public Interest Law. It is funded by the
Telecommunications Education Trust, a program of the California
Public Utilities Commission. It has been in operation since July
1992.

**Clearinghouse Services**

o    A toll-free hotline for California consumers to report
     privacy abuses and request information on ways to protect
     their privacy. Assistance is available in English and
     Spanish. Since it was launched in October 1992, the hotline
     has received calls from 17,000 consumers.

o    A series of free fact sheets on privacy issues, available in
     English and Spanish.

o    A computer bulletin board (BBS) accessible via Internet and
     by direct modem connection. The BBS includes the texts of
     all fact sheets and provides updates on state and federal
     privacy legislation, as well as other information.

o    Publication of an annual report that analyzes the data
     gathered by the project. The report is widely distributed to
     federal and state policymakers and consumer advocates.

**Purposes of the Clearinghouse**

o    Raise consumers' awareness of how technology affects
     personal privacy.

o    Empower consumers to take action to control their own
     personal information by providing practical tips on privacy
     protection.

o    Respond to specific privacy-related complaints from
     consumers and, when appropriate, refer them to the proper
     organizations for further assistance.

o    Document the nature of Californians' concerns about privacy
     in regular reports and make them available to policymakers,
     industry representatives and consumer advocates.


**The Center for Public Interest Law**

Created in 1980, the University of San Diego School of Law's
Center for Public Interest Law serves as an academic center of
research, learning, and advocacy in administrative law. The
Center:

o    Teaches direct clinic skills in public interest law to
     students at the USD School of Law.=20

o    Represents the interests of the unorganized and
     underrepresented in state regulatory proceedings.

o    Makes the regulatory functions of state government more
     efficient and visible by serving as a public monitor.

o    Publishes the _California Regulatory Law Reporter_ , a
     quarterly journal which covers the activities of
     state regulatory agencies.=20

*Publications*

Fact Sheets:
1.  Privacy Survival Guide
2.  Cordless and Cellular Phones: Is Everybody Listening?
3.  How to Put an End to Harassing Phone Calls=20
4.  Junk Mail: How Did They All Get My Address?
5.  Telemarketing: Whatever Happened to a Quiet Evening at Home?
6.  How Private Is My Credit Report?   =20
7.  Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the Workplace?
8.  How Private Is My Medical Information?
9.  Wiretapping and Eavesdropping: Is There Cause for Concern?
10. My Social Security Number: How Secure Is It?
11. From Cradle to Grave: Government Records and Your Privacy
12. A Checklist of Responsible Information-Handling Practices
13. What To Do When Your Wallet Is Stolen
14. Are You Being Stalked? Tips for Prevention
15. Paying By Credit Card or Check: What Can Merchants Ask?
16. Employment Background Checks: A Job Seeker's Guide

Other Publications:
A.  The Privacy Computer Bulletin Board: User's Guide =20
B.  Privacy Reminder "Merchant Card" (indicates merchants' limits
    to your personal information under California law when you
    pay by check or credit card)
C.  Annual Report: 1992/1993

* To order, please call the Hotline.

**For More Information**

To learn more about the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, write or
call us at:

   Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
   University of San Diego School of Law
   Center for Public Interest Law
   5998 Alcal=A0 Park
   San Diego, CA 92110-2492

   Telephone: 619-260-4806
   Fax:       619-260-4753

   Hotline:    800-773-7748 (California only)
               619-298-3396


Access by Computer

Internet

   E-mail:     prc@teetot.acusd.edu

   Gopher:     gopher  gopher.acusd.edu

   Ftp:        ftp  ftp.acusd.edu

               user name: anonymous
               password: guest
               ftp>cd pub/privacy

   Telnet:     telnet teetot.acusd.edu
               login: privacy

Direct dial:   619-260-4670 (2400 baud, 8,N,1)
               local> c teetot
               login: privacy
  =20
    =20

Copyright June 1994  Center for Public Interest Law

=20

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Digest 38
************************

