Date: Thu, 05 May 94 10:58:20 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#063 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 05 May 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 063 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Military and Law Enforcement Re: Ethics and the Law What the IRS is up to Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted DOJ Clipper Documents: Summer Release Under FOIA The Clipper Debate CFP: The Information Society (long) 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@uwm.edu and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp" with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "John A. Thomas" Date: 3 May 94 17:36:52 CDT Subject: Military and Law Enforcement Timothy A. Brown cites two articles in one issue of the Army Reserve magazine. I haven't seen the articles. From his discription, the first, about military operations in urban terrain, sounds innocuous; armies have always had to fight in urban areas. The second, about the use of the Army Reserve for duties similar to those of the National Guard is more troublesome, but not of major concern. The National Guards are the militia of the several states, but also subject to "federalization" as part of the Army Reserve. There doesn't seem to be any involvement of the active Army in day-to-day law enforcement in these proposals. Timothy also states: The Army has no power to make arrests? Maybe not, YET. On the subject of key escrow encryption(Clipper), who do you think will be performing the wire taps? It will be the FBI, BATF, DEA, Dept. of Treasury, Dept. of Justice, etc., not the NSA. The real threat (to liberty) is from "federalizing" the law-enforcement system, in combination with the increase in power. When the local police are more accountable to Washington D.C. than to the local mayor and the local citizens, "Lord Have Mercy On Us All." The Army *doesn't* have power to make arrests. Why should we believe it will? The rest of the comment is exactly my point. The additional remark about "federalizing" the law-enforcement system is well taken. New monitoring technologies may tend to move more evesdropping to the feds, since local police will not have the technical resources, even though they have the authority. This in turn may lead to Congress to try to expand federal criminal jurisdiction, since the "tools" are available. John A. Thomas b858jt@utarlvm1.uta.edu ------------------------------ From: austin@netcom.com (Tony Austin) Date: 4 May 1994 04:08:36 GMT Subject: Re: Ethics and the Law Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) WHMurray@dockmaster.ncsc.mil wrote: Tony Austin writes (on Privacy): It's ethical because it violates no laws. Ethics is defined as "the study and philosophy of human conduct, with emphasis on the determination of right and wrong." I differ with you. If you look at the word "ethos" and "ethic" you will see that derivation of the words are both latin AND greek and they both summize to moral custom. To equate ethical with legal is to give to the state the right to decide all issues of right and wrong. While most states are more than anxious to arrogate this authority to themselves, few of was would like to live in the world in which they were permitted to do so. Custom applies to the individual and the group or profession he is in. The ethics of sending out promo violated no "carved in stone custom;" like the law, or personal custom I believe. Ergo, I found it ethical. Many things are perfectly ethical, moral, and right but are illegal under the laws of many states. The concept of privacy vs ethics vs morals vs the law is a can of worms which this newsgroup is in the act of formulating so we can influence custom/law in the United States. Likewise, many things that are generally accepted to be unethical, But for how long. Custom and society are not finished. It's growing and will change to suit the needs of the people. I do not know where this idea came from, but it is particularly dangerous and ought to be resisted at every opportunity. Neither the state nor even the law are the appropriate arbiters of right and wrong. While we may have to live with the law, we do not have to accept it as ethical and moral when it is not. We are the "arbiters of right and wrong." We encourage policy and we, through representatives, delete laws. Sending out promo to immigrants violates no law/custom henceforth it's okay. (n.b. As far as ethos goes.) The morals of it are individual. -- Tony Austin ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Date: 4 May 94 1:56:09 EDT Subject: What the IRS is up to Here's some excerpts from a speech by Coleta Brueck, Project Manager, Document Processing system, at the Internal Revenue Service, that she gave at the Computer Press Association Awards luncheon in New York on April 15th. I was at the lunch, but the transcript of the speech just arrived today. The ellipses are mine, but I think I'm not distorting what she said. She started by explaining that their current systems are functionally based on punch card systems from the 1950s, and they want to get more stuff on-line so that when you call with a question, the person at the IRS can retrieve a copy of your records while you're still on the phone. But then: "We should be able to provide you on-line access to that information. ... You will have the availability to know what your current account information is, very much like if most of us who have an American Express Card, you can call -- you don't really know where that 800 number goes, but what you do know is when that person answers your call, they have your complete account information. ... They can give you information on your account, they can update your account, or they can provide you futuristic looks into your account as to where you might be next year, even, for filing tax returns. We've often talked about, and this is the terminology that I used when I was in on a task group, we've talked about the "golden eagle" return. This is the golden -- or gold American Express Card return. At the end of each year, if you have an American Express Card, you get a gold account summary of what you've done for the year. ... Basically, what I say is that if I know what you've made during the year, if I know what your withholding is, if I know what your spending pattern is, I should be able to generate for you a tax return so that I only come to you and tell you, 'This is what I think you should file for the next year, and if you agree to that, then don't bother sending me a piece of paper.' ... But I am an excellent advocate of return-free filing. We know everything about you that we need to know. Your employer tells us everything about you that we need to know. Your activity records on your credit cards tell us everything about you that we need to know. Through interface with Social Security, with the DMV, with your banking institutions, we really have a lot of information, so why would you, at the end of the year or on April 15th, today, do we ask the post office to encumber themselves with massive numbers of people out there, picking up pieves of paper that you are required to file? ... We could literally file a return for you. This is the future that we'd like to go to." Lest there be any doubt, she was entirely serious, and she clearly expected that that we'd all think this is as wonderful as she does. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: rivaud@rain.org (L. E. de Rivaud) Date: 3 May 1994 23:33:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted Organization: wherever.com Poivre (poivre@netcom.com) wrote: Is it possible NOT to give them your license?? Also, if my license # is not my SSN, is it possible for them to still check my report?? If i were a rich kid and i could buy a car with cash without loans, leases, etc, would i be able to buy one without a credit check?? You may not be allowed to test drive the car without showing a licence. TRW does cross reference driver's licence numbers and social security numbers. How did they get MY DL #? I live in CA and my DL # is different from my ss #. Well, try and open a bank account without a DL or state ID card. Forget it. So the bank writes my DL # down somewhere and there it goes off into circulation out of my control. While working at the dealership I saw TRW's run on only name, DOB, and city of residence. It's just a database: how many Joe Foobars live in Miami that are born on the exact same day. ALSO: at the dealership they ran two different kinds of TRW's, "on screen" and "printed." An on screen was run if the sale associate wasn't sure you were going to buy a car. S/he just wants to see if you are worth spending time on. An on screen is just that: on screen, you can't print it out, (well, I suppose you could do a screen capture, but it isn't the real thing for credit purpose.) An on screen DOES NOT show up on your credit report. I don't care what TRW says, but everyone and their mother ran on screens on themselves and their friends and no one ever had it show up on a credit report. If you are going to buy a car AND finance it through the dealership they do a TRW "printed." This is where the form gets spit out of a printer, and is the actual piece of paper that gets sent to the bank with your loan application so that the dealer can arrange financing. ------------------------------ From: Lee Tien Date: 4 May 1994 08:00:28 -0700 Subject: DOJ Clipper Documents: Summer Release Under FOIA As you know, there has been much debate about the Clipper Chip initiative, but relatively little hard information. John Gilmore, member of the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed FOIA requests to numerous government agencies last April after the Clipper plan was announced. In June 1993, he filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department ("DOJ") and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). Gilmore v. FBI, et al, C-93-2117, U.S. District Judge Charles Legge, Northern District of California. As a result of this lawsuit, the Justice Department has agreed to a staggered release of some documents about Clipper and Digital Telephony. The Justice Department and Gilmore signed a joint stipulation and agreement on Friday, April 29, 1994, in which the Justice Department and several other federal agencies agreed to release documents over the next several months: a) DOJ's Office of Information and Privacy ("OIP") will transmit all documents recovered in its search for responsive documents that it has identified as requiring referrals or consultations to the appropriate agencies or DOJ components by May 31, 1994. OIP will complete processing of all documents that it has identified as not requiring referrals or consultations to other agencies or DOJ components by June 20, 1994. b) DOJ's Justice Management Division ("JMD") will complete processing of all documents recovered in its search for responsive documents, excluding documents which have been referred for processing to other agencies, by July 30, 1994. c) The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which OMB had received as of April 20, 1994 by May 20, 1994. d) The National Security Agency ("NSA") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which it had received as of April 20, 1994 by July 18, 1994. NSA will complete processing of all documents which had been referred to it by DOJ as of April 20, 1994 for direct response to plaintiff by July 18, 1994. e) The National Security Council ("NSC") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which NBC had received as of April 20, 1994 by July 29, 1994. f) The Department of Commerce and National Institute of Standards and Technology (collectively "Commerce") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which Commerce had received as of April 20, 1994 by August 7, 1994. Commerce will complete processing of all documents which had been referred to it by DOJ as of April 20, 1994 for direct response to plaintiff by August 7, 1994. The documents being processed by the NSC include the Presidential Review Directive and Presidential Decision Directive which started the Clipper initiative. We have been informed that NSC is processing the two final versions as well as 68 draft versions. We have also been informed that documents produced in the course of the OMB legislative clearance process for the Digital Telephony Bill are being processed. This should provide insight into how the government decided to proceed with this bill. We have also been informed that there are approximately 25 documents produced in the course of the government's solicitation of industry views on Clipper. Obviously, we do not know how much useful information will be released. It is probable that the documents will be heavily redacted. Given the recent directives from the President and the Attorney General that all possible discretionary disclosures of information should be made, we hope, optimistically, that these disclosures will prove illuminating. Unfortunately, the FBI is not a party to this agreement. We are in the process of attempting to obtain the release of about 3000 pages of FBI records. FBI has told the Court that it will be approximately 2 years and 8 months before it will even begin processing Gilmore's request, and that actual processing will take about a year, if not more. We believe that this delay is unlawful and cannot be countenanced. Lee Tien Attorney for John Gilmore tien@well.sf.ca.us PLEASE REDISTRIBUTE IF YOU THINK IT'S WORTH IT. (feel free to edit any obvious typos, too) ------------------------------ From: agrosso@access.digex.net (Andrew Grosso) Date: 4 May 1994 11:02:11 -0400 Subject: The Clipper Debate Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA The Great Clipper Debate: National Security or National Surveillance? Sponsored by: The Georgetown University Law Center Space Law Group and Communications Law Forum In Coordination with: The George Washington University Institute for Computer and Telecommunications Systems Policy, the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group for Computers and Society, and the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section. Date and Time: May 9, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. Place: The Georgetown University Law Center (Moot Court Room) 600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. The Administration, through the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency, has proposed a standard encryption algorithm for both the public and commercial marketplace, with the goal of making this algorithm the method of choice for persons wishing to encode their telephone and other voice and data communications. The FBI and the NSA are concerned that the increasing availability, and affordability, of encryption mechanisms will make it difficult and in some cases impossible for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tap into and to understand the communications of criminals and other pertinent groups. This proposal has become known as the "Clipper Chip," in that it would be implemented by the voluntary insertion of a computer chip into telephone, fax machine, and other communications systems. The Clipper Chip has generated considerable controversy. Opposing it are various civil libertarian groups, as well as telecommunications companies, software and hardware manufacturers, and trade associations. The debate has raged behind closed doors, and openly in the press. On Monday, May 9, at the Georgetown University Law School, a round table debate will take place on this controversy. The participants represent both sides of the issue, and are illustrative of the various groups which have taken a stand. The participants are: Dorothy Denning, Chairperson of the Computer Science Department of Georgetown University Michael Godwin, Legal Counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Geoffrey Greiveldinger, Special Counsel to the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section of the U.S. Department of Justice; Michael Nelson, of the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the White House; Marc Rotenberg, Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center; and Stephen Walker, President of Trusted Information Systems, Inc., and a former cryptographer with the National Security Agency In addition, there will be two moderators: Dr. Lance Hoffman, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at The George Washington University, and Andrew Grosso, a former federal prosecutor who is now an attorney in private practice in the District of Columbia. The program will last approximately two and one half hours, and will be divided into two parts. The first half will offer the panel the opportunity to respond to questions which have been submitted to the participants beforehand; the second will present the panel with questions from the audience. There is no charge for this program, and members of the public are encouraged to attend. Reservations are requested in advance, and should be directed to one of the following individuals: - C. Dianne Martin, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The George Washington University, Phillips Hall, Room 624-C, Washington, D.C. 20052; telephone: (202) 994-8238; E mail: diannem@seas.gwu.edu - Sherrill Klein, Staff Director, ABA Criminal Justice Section, 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; telephone: (202) 331-2624; fax: (202) 331-2220 - Francis L. Young, Young & Jatlow, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20037; telephone: (202) 663-9080; fax: (202) 331-8001 Questions for the panelists should be submitted, in writing, to one of the moderators: - Lance Hoffman, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052; fax: (202) 994-0227; E mail: ictsp@seas.gwu.edu - Andrew Grosso, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C., 20037; fax: (202) 663- 9042; E mail: agrosso@acm.org PLEASE POST ------------------------------ From: Rob Kling Date: 4 May 94 23:59:29 GMT Subject: CFP: The Information Society (long) This posting contains: 1. Information and CALL FOR PAPERS for "The Information Society" journal, published quarterly by Taylor & Francis 2. Titles of recent articles published Vol. 8 (1992) and Vol. 9 (1993) 3. Subscription Form ----------------------------------------------------------- THE INFORMATION SOCIETY An International Journal An "information revolution" is clearly underway. The exponential growth in computational capability per unit dollar will continue at least for the next several decades. Communication bandwidth is undergoing simultaneous exponential growth. Connectivity among individuals, companies and nations is forming what some are calling "worldnet", "cyberspace", "global grid" or "the matrix." These combined trends are leading us into an Information Society in which wealth, power and freedom of action derive from access to, and effective use of, information. "The Information Society" journal, published since 1981, is a forum for thoughtful commentary about impacts, policies, system concepts and methodologies related to these trends. It is a refereed journal that publishes scholarly articles, position papers, short communications and book reviews on these topics. "The Information Society" is a multidisciplinary journal whose audience includes policy- and decision-makers and scientists in government, industry and education; managers concerned with the effects of the information revolution on individuals, organizations and society; and academic researchers and others with an interest in issues regarding the Information Society. Among the topics addressed within the journal are: * the implications of the coming surge in electronic data interchange (EDI) among businesses globally, * the ability of companies to "outsource" portions of their information processing to different countries around the world, creating transborder data flow issues for the countries involved and increasing the rapidity with which jobs migrate globally, * fear of cultural imperialism and inundation, * options for, and implications of, various forms of "electronic democracy", * the rise of "virtual communities" of persons worldwide engaging in "many-to-many" communication among their participants, irrespective of borders or corporate structures. +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The journal is currently seeking papers for Volume 11 (1995). | | Manuscripts should be sent in triplicate (or electronically by | | Internet) to the editor-in-chief. For manuscript format details,| | contact the editor or see the inside back cover of an issue of | | the journal. | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ editor-in-chief: Dr. Robert H. Anderson tel: (310) 393-0411 x7597 RAND Corporation fax: (310) 393-4818 1700 Main Street internet: anderson@rand.org Santa Monica CA 90407-2138 Articles published in Vol. 8 (1992) and in Vol. 9 (1993) include: Bankes, S., Builder, C. Seizing the moment: harnessing the information technologies. 8(1), 1992. Chartrand, R.L. Dreams and realities: the international dimension of the 1991 white house conference on library and information services. 8(2), 1992. (summary of conference proceedings, with brief articles by Bearman, T.C., Duncan, J.W., Rowe, G.R., Young, E.L., Bleakley, K.W., Kroloff, G.M., Ganley, O.H., Horton, F.W.) Forester, T. Megatrends or megamistakes: what ever happened to the information society?. 8(3), 1992. Parker, E.B. Developing third world telecommunications markets. 8(3), 1992. Swatman, P.M.C., Swatman, P.A. EDI system integration: a definition and literature survey. 8(3), 1992. Markus, M.L., Bikson, T.K., El-Shinnawy, M., Soe, L.L. Fragments of your communication: email, vmail, and fax. 8(4), 1992. Boon, J.A. Information and development: some reasons for failures. 8(4), 1992. Ronfeldt, D. Cyberocracy is coming. 8(4), 1992. Ciborra, C.U. From thinking to tinkering: the grassroots of strategic information systems. 8(4), 1992. Foegen, J.H. From Cobol to diction. 8(4), 1992. Kling, R., Dunlop, C. Controversies about computerization and the character of white collar worklife. 9(1), 1993. Calantone, R.J., Holsapple, C.W., Johnson, L.E. Communication and communication support: an agenda for investigation. 9(1), 1993. Schoonmaker, S. Trading on-line: information flows in advanced capitalism. 9(1), 1993. Arthur, C. Zen and the art of ignoring information. 9(1), 1993. Mankin, D. Review of Peter G.W. Keen, "Shaping the future: business design through information technology". 9(1), 1993. Kling, R. Organizational analysis in computer science. 9(2), 1993. Bikson, T.K., Law, S.A. Electronic mail use at the World Bank: messages from users. 9(2), 1993. Bikson, T.K., Law, S.A. Electronic information media and records management methods: a survey of practices in United Nations organizations. 9(2), 1993. Martin, W.J., McKeown, S.F. The potential of information and telecommunications technologies for rural development. 9(2), 1993. Lincoln, T.L., Essin, D.J., Ware, W.H. The electronic medical record: a challenge for computer science to develop clinically and socially relevant computer systems to coordinate information for patient care and analysis. 9(2), 1993. Kling, R., Covi, L. Review of Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler "Connections: new ways of working in the networked organization". 9(2), 1993. Ware, W. The New Faces of Privacy. 9(3), 1993. Soe, L.L., Markus, M.L. Technological or social utility? Unraveling explanations of email, vmail, and fax use. 9(3), 1993. Orlikowski, W.J. Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation. 9(3), 1993. Katz, J.E. and Hyman, M.H. Dimensions of concern over telecom privacy in the United States. 9(3), 1993. Chen, Z. Intelligence and discovery in an information society: an essay in memory of Derek de Solla Price. 9(3), 1993. Allen, J.P. Review of "Microcomputers in african development: critical perspectives". 9(3), 1993. Rosenberg, R.S. Free speech, pornography, sexual harassment, and electronic networks. 9(4), 1993. Dedrick, J., Kraemer, K.L. Caught in the middle: Information technology policy in Australia. 9(4), 1993. Kraemer, K.L., Dedrick, J. Turning loose the invisible hand: New Zealand's information technology policy. 9(4), 1993. Medina-Mora, R., Winograd, T., Flores, R., Flores, F. The action workflow approach to workflow management technology. 9(4), 1993. To subscribe, the following form may be clipped and mailed to the address below: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE INFORMATION SOCIETY Published quarterly, ISSN 0197-2243 ___ Please enter my institutional subscription to Volume 10 (1994) at US$92 ___ Please enter my personal subscription to Volume 10 (1994) at US$46 ___ Please send me a free sample copy Payment options: ___ Check/Money Order Enclosed (please make checks payable to Taylor & Francis, in U.S. funds only) ___ Please charge my: ___ VISA __ MC ___ Amex Card # ________________________________ Exp date: _________ Signature: _________________________________________________ Telephone: ____________________________________ (required for credit card purchases) or BILL TO: (please print) Name _________________________________________________ Institution __________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________ City _________________________________________________ State ____________________________ Zip _______________ SHIP TO (if different): Name _________________________________________________ Institution __________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________ City _________________________________________________ State ____________________________ Zip _______________ Mail this form to: Taylor & Francis Inc. 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101 Bristol PA 19007-1598 toll free: 1-800-821-8312 or fax: 1-215-785-5515 Outside the U.S. contact: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Rankine Road Basingstoke, Hampshire RG24 8PR, United Kingdom tel: +44 (0) 256 840366 fax: +44 (0) 256 479438 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #063 ****************************** .