Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 17:33:22 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V2#051 Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 14 Jun 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 051 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Clipper/Eric S. Raymond/Dr. Dorothy Denning Re: Those UPS clipboards again Post Office Boxes Re: Clipper -- SJ Merky News Re: Retaliatory Crimes The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 19:27:28 EDT From: "George T. Talbot" Subject: Clipper/Eric S. Raymond/Dr. Dorothy Denning Last month in the RISKS forum (comp.risks) Eric S. Raymond had an article which discussed the Clipper proposal. He raised many issues of the relationship between government and the individual in the context of this proposal. In the next digest, Dr. Dorothy Denning rebutted his article with an article which was basically a small technical correction to his discussion of the actual algorithm, and a dismissal of everything else as "wild speculation". I became interested in hearing her actual views on the "wild speculation" so I came up with the following article. She found it to be rather prejudiced and inappropriate for distribution in the forum. -----------------------CUT HERE------------------------------- Date: May 23rd, 1993 From: ugtalbot@mcs.drexel.edu (George Thomas Talbot) Subject: Clipper/Eric S. Raymond/Dr. Dorothy Denning I have been following the discussions on the Clipper chip and NIST's proposal since it started in this group. There have been many impassioned assertions and counter assertions by the two groups that have formed on either side of this issue. It is my concern that we, as a society, are drifting from some of the under- lying principles of government that were intended by the framers of the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution, after the Revolutionary War had a well justified distrust of large power structures. This was well- evidenced in the initial form of government which granted excessive powers to states. This experiment failed because of the conflicting interests of the states. The essential lesson that was learned at this time was one of balance between interests of the individuals and of interests of the country as a whole. It is my concern that we all search to find the appropriate balance point on this issue. When NIST introduced this proposal, and Dr. Denning made her initial post to this group describing it, the government made it very clear that their major public concern was one of monitoring communication for suspected criminal activity. I don't think that the necessity for the government to be able to pursue and stop criminal activity is the major issue here. It is understood by members of our society that one of the reasons which we agree to have a government serve us is to protect us from ourselves. The issue here is the relationship between individuals and a large power structure. That was what Mr. Raymond was addressing in his post. There is a large amount of truth in the notion that the government in the past 80 years has drifted from the idea of service of the individual to service of only the large power blocs among the individuals. The government has also become much more adept at manipulating opinions in recent years. It is important for all of us as a society to learn to find balance points when dealing with issues such as electronic privacy. This will not be accomplished by confrontation, but by cooperation. The private sector has, on this issue, been more than willing to work out solutions which are agreeable to both sides. On this particular issue it has been the government and the persons espousing the government's position who have been less than forthcoming on this issue. Part of it is the sensitive nature of privacy and national security. However, I feel that Mr. Raymond's fears do have significant justification. As an example, take the response by Dr. Denning to Mr. Raymond's post. It deals with a possible technical inaccuracy of his description of the security of the DSS algorithm, while dismissing the more important societal and governmental concerns as "wild speculations". Sure, sometimes people's fears may seem "wild", but it is the government's responsibility for addressing the fears of the individual and possibly modifying government action when the individual fears have sufficient justification. It is also the obligation of those who speak for the government and/or hold the government's opinion to carefully consider and discuss the fears of the individuals as to how the government's proposed action may affect them. Simple dismissal as "wild" or "crazy" or "fringe" as I have read in government/authority position on this issue is not conducive to finding the appropriate balance point when discussing future government action. I would appreciate a carefully considered reply to the societal issues raised in this forum from Dr. Denning. George Thomas Talbot ------------------------------ From: John Starta Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 07:46:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Those UPS clipboards again Organization: GO SUNS! In Carl Oppedahl writes: >Remember those UPS clipboards, the ones where the recipient of a >package is asked to sign on a touch pad rather than on a piece >of paper? Well, today's Network World (June 7, 1993) describes >Maxitrac, said to have debuted in 1991, which lets users employ >their own PCs to tie into UPS's computer network to instantly >check the status of any package they have shipped. Users can >display actual receipt signatures on their PC screens for confirmation >of delivery. To clarify, Maxitrac is intended to help _businesses_ (the "users" Network World is referring to) track their large quantity of packages through the UPS shipping network. Joe Average customer doesn't have access to Maxitrac; if he wants to find his package he must call a [human] UPS customer service representative. john -- *** PHOENIX SUNS * 1993 WESTERN CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS * PHOENIX SUNS *** ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Subject: Post Office Boxes Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 11:03:22 -0500 (CDT) Phones: (414) 229-5170 office; 962-4719 home; 229-6958 fax My wife is responsible for a Post Office Box at the Shorewood Wisconsin Post Office. That office is located at 1620 E Capitol Drive and they accept mail addressed like the following: Joe Doaks 1620 E. Capitol Drive #12345 Shorewood, WI 53211 (her box number is not #12345) + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu | | Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 | | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 | | Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + ------------------------------ From: "Michael T. Palmer" Newsgroups: alt.privacy.clipper,alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy Subject: Re: Clipper -- SJ Merky News Date: 11 Jun 1993 11:39:54 GMT Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA In article strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes: >[etc] >As far as the details, as long as the offer is voluntary and alternatives >are not prohibited, I don't see why the big flap about public involvement. >The government makes a zillion voluntary programs available under the laws >and their general mandates without the need for public involvement. It was >an OFFER, boys and girls. >[etc] I think what most people object to is that the feds have a habit of making "offers" with a club in the hand behind their back. Which means that your qualifiers above ("voluntary and alternatives are not prohibitied") are likely to be the very things that disappear with the NEXT Executive Order -- why bother with messy legislative battles? It appears to many people that the problem with this proposal is that it lays the foundation for future action to: (1) prohibit the use of alternative cryptographic technology -- after all, only *criminals* would need better code capability than Clipper provides; and (2) establish the precedent that all future systems MUST use key escrow systems to provide the feds a way to eavesdrop if they want to. I recently saw about the best quote I can think of for this situation, spoken by none other than the "illustrious" LBJ himself: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon Johnson If you start to view things in this light, I think you'll see VERY QUICKLY why so many people are opposed to this "generous offer." Michael T. Palmer | "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov | other way than one which will conceal it RIPEM key on server | from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon, 1220-1292 ------------------------------ From: George Crissman Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 22:57:45 GMT Organization: Brooktree Corporation Subject: Re: Retaliatory Crimes Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego In article Geoffrey Kuenning writes: > This, according to Justice Scalia, is precisely the reason >the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits excessive >fines: to remove the profit motive from classifying certain behavior >as criminal. >-- If this is true, how come the fines for exceeding the posted speed limit are so high? How come they have a new photo-speed-trap, in which they take a picture of you & your car & the radar-indicated speed and _mail_ the picture to you, requesting the payment of a fine? Low-posted speed limits are a primary method of income to the various municipal governments lately.... -- George Crissman ********************************************************************* Opinions Expressed Are Not Necessarily Those Of Brooktree Corporation George Crissman San Diego, California ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #051 ******************************