Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 08:45:33 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V5#034 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 15 Sep 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 034 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Afraid of Big Brother? Re: West Publishing - Permanent Injunction Regarding Legal Text Re: Some Privacy Notes Government Survailance Re: Bank Account Numbers Privacy and the IRS PGP Back Door Reason 52: Cost Reason 55: Extent Network Security Journal --------------------------------------------------------------------- Housekeeping information is located at the end of this Digest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: v-one!dgthornton@uunet.uu.net (Daryl George Thornton II) Date: 13 Sep 1994 13:02:16 Subject: Afraid of Big Brother? Organization: V-ONE funny to see this big brother(s) observation posted here. I was about to post an open question to biz.smartcards (promotion plug) which I started a few weeks ago. I market smartcards blah blha bhal blah....but No one ever asks or mentions or voices corncern (though it would seem obvious to do so) the big brother-national ID aspects of smartcards EXCEPT government employees and in particular military employees. IMHO It would seem to me that government employees are the most aware of the abuse possibilities. Most likely from thier own day to day inside view of the government at work. When I started this job I expected resistance from commercial users but instead have found them the most interested and embracing of SmartCard technology. also see : Forbes ? Fortune? mining the datadump? American Expresses use parallel computer processing machines to figure when you would buy something in the future from what you have purchased in the past and send coupons/discounts etc. to entice to repeat such purchase again. (i.e. ever three months you buy XXX you have not purchased XXX in 9-months send discounts/promo.) In short business loves big brother(s). Is the government big brother Is the government afraid of big brother(s)? Can any one big brother control/influence thousands of big brothers? Can thousands of big brothers control/influence one big brother? -- If I had onions, I am not sure who would own them but, since all have are opinions, I will claim them as my own. ------------------------------ From: robert@unlv.edu (Robert Cray) Date: 13 Sep 94 17:42:08 GMT Subject: Re: West Publishing - Permanent Injunction Regarding Legal Text Organization: Information Science Research Institute Prof. L. P. Levine (levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu) wrote: According to the atty, OPS had obtained copies of West publications then tore the pages from the spine then scanned in the printed matter. OPS, apparently, deleted any material copyrighted by West then made the CD-ROM's from what was probably public domain material. Can anyone tell me the name of the case, case number, court it is in, name of defense lawyers or any other information? I am currently involved in trying to get the Nevada Revised Statutes released so they can be made available to the Internet. My situation is a little different than that of OPS since I am doing this in cooperation with the state attorney generals office and with the state agency who publishes the statutes, and I am not at all interested in violating anyone's copyright including West's. None the less the attorneys involved would like to take a look at this case before we proceed with any action. Thanks in advance. -- robert@cs.unlv.edu ------------------------------ From: parris@sbt.tec.sc.us Date: 13 Sep 1994 17:47:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Some Privacy Notes Organization: SC Board for Tech $ Comp Ed "Prof. L. P. Levine" writes: "Kentucky's data base showed that only 350,000 of the 2.5 million Canadians who drove through the state last year stayed overnight. I wonder if anyone could explain how it is that Kentucky determined the number of Canadians who *DROVE THROUGH* the state during a year. Does someone sit by every highway/state border crossing and tally the occupants of each vehicle which bears Canadian tags? Or is that 2.5m figure the product of some bureaucratic imagination? ------------------------------ From: anonymous Date: 13 Sep 1994 12:50:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Government Survailance The following excerpt is from the newsgroup: sci.military Subject: AF News Svc 30 Aug 94 Sender: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login) Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCX Date: 31 Aug 1994 16:19:13 GMT 616. Rome to aid highway managers GRIFFISS AFB, N.Y. (AFNS) --- America's highways should become less congested as the result of signal processing and computer technologies developed at the Air Force Material Command's Rome Laboratory here. Rome Laboratory entered into an agreement in July with federal and New York transportation agencies to pioneer development of an automated traffic monitoring system. The system will assist traffic managers in planning for --- and relieving --- congestion on major U.S. highways. The system will make use of advanced signal processing, neural network and distributed systems technology, all of which are major technology areas to Rome Laboratory. By employing video sensors, processors, communications services, and a closed-loop feedback system to monitor expressway traffic, engineers will be able to gain insight into congestion build- up, officials say. This will permit early action --- such as electronic messages to motorists or altering traffic signals --- to reduce or eliminate problems caused by accidents, poor weather conditions or peak driving periods. Rome Laboratory will serve as the executive agent and will have the primary responsibility for managing the program. The Federal Highway Administration will provide funding, while the New York transportation department will provide housings for the monitoring sensors, technical services and expertise to assist with the operational aspects of installing and testing the system. [Obviously the USAF is putting a "government is your friend" spin on this story, but this program is just a small step from more draconian forms of surveillance.] I have noticed, and you may also have noticed, this form of surveillance going on right here in Milwaukee. On I-94 and I-43 I have noticed communication towers and surveillance cameras that have been erected within the past two months. It makes me a bit paranoid too. ------------------------------ From: clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp) Date: 13 Sep 94 15:18:16 CDT Subject: Re: Bank Account Numbers wayne@arrow.HIP.berkeley.edu (Wayne Christian) writes: Actually, there is no difference although I do understand the point you are trying to make. Reversal of charges by the Credit Card company is subject to the discression their customer service office, just like the Very true. Years ago we had our Visa number misused just after ordering a diet scale from a TV offer (which never arrived). We called the issuer of the card, who proceeded to give us the third degree and to sound VERY skeptical... until we pinned down the fact that the $1000 worth of clothes the thief bought were size 10, and my wife was a size... well, let's just say a bit large for size 10 clothes. They didn't seem to notice that 1) we had a separate credit card for the merchant at which the clothing was purchased, 2) this would have been the first and only time we ever would have ordered anything by phone for delivery (much less from a local store), 3) our buying patterns didn't show us buying $1000 of _anything_ at once (much less clothing), 4) the stuff was delivered to an address about 15 miles from our home of 13 years, etc. etc. -- Cliff Sharp Whatever it is that hits the fan, WA9PDM it will not be evenly distributed. clifto@indep1.chi.il.us --The Third Law of Reality ------------------------------ From: John Medeiros <71604.710@compuserve.com> Date: 14 Sep 94 00:23:19 EDT Subject: Privacy and the IRS Following are excerpts from "Privacy becomes an IRS Priority" by David Skidmore, Associated Press, published 9/11/94: No government agency knows more about American citizens than the IRS...By law, that information must be kept private and confidential. Now it's Robert N. Veeder's job to make sure it stays that way. Restrictions on the use of taxpayer data go back as far as 1939 and were toughened by Congress in 1976 in reation to President Nixon's use of his prolitical enemies' tax returns. But the agency moved to extablish Veeder's office only after it became clear that rapidly advancing techmology made it possible to manipulate masses of information. Veeder arrived at the IRS just a month before Sen. John Glenn D-Ohio, revealed that 1,300 agency employees had been investigated since 1989 for illicitly snooping into the tax returns of celebrities and others. The new computers that will make it easier for the IRS' 115,000 employees to serve the tax-paying public also will, by necessity make it easier for them to call up taxpayers' records on a computer screen instantly. "You have to ...empower the employees in order to get the answer to the question the taxpayer is asking," Veeder said. But, he said, new computer technology also will allow agency managers to limit file access more effectively to those who need to know and to detect a suspicious pattern of information use by employees with wider access. A far tougher issue, Veeder said, will be deciding what is a legitimate use of taxpayer data by other agencies. The IRS is already obliged to supply state agencies with information that could help them track dwon parents delinquent on child-support payments and information used to verify applications for food stamps, Medicaid and other welfare programs. And agencies administering federally guaranteed student, veterans and farm loans have the right to intercept defaulters' tax refunds. ------------------------------ From: ryan_wilson@kvo.com (Ryan Wilson) Date: 15 Sep 1994 00:29:33 GMT Subject: PGP Back Door Organization: RGNET Sorry if this has been rehashed here before. I infrequently come here and might have missed it, but... Is there any truth to the rumor that certain versions of PGP, released after a certain date or version number, contain a back door which is accessible by the NSA or other so-called intelligence entities? -- Ryan Wilson/Portland, OR | BOYCOTT CLIPPER TECHNOLOGY ryan_wilson@kvo.com | CLIPPER = BIG BROTHER All these opinions, humble or otherwise, are my own. ------------------------------ From: Marc Rotenberg Date: 13 Sep 1994 23:24:38 EST Subject: Reason 52: Cost Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center from CPSR Reason 52: Cost ======================================================================== 100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill Reason 52: The FBI wiretap bill will cost taxpayers at least $500,000,000. The FBI wiretap bill authorizes the expenditure of $500 million over the next four years to reimburse private firms for complying with the FBI's "capacity requirements" for electronic surveillance. But that amount may not be enough to satisfy the FBI's goal. The General Accounting Office estimates that the cost could run as high as $2 billion to $3 billion. Roy Neal, the President of the United States Telephone Association estimated that it could cost as much as $1.8 billion just to redesign call forwarding to satisfy the FBI's concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What To Do: Fax Rep. Jack Brooks (202-225-1584). Express your concerns about the FBI Wiretap proposal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100 Reasons is a project of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC. For more information: 100.Reasons@epic.org. ======================================================================== ------------------------------ From: Marc Rotenberg Date: 13 Sep 1994 23:14:30 EST Subject: Reason 55: Extent Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center from CPSR Reason 4: S. 266 ======================================================================== 100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill Reason 55: The FBI wiretap bill now under consideration by the Congress is far more sweeping than the original plan proposed in 1991. In 1991 the FBI proposed a one-paragraph Sense of the Senate Resolution commonly known as S.266 that asked telecommunications firms to provide the plaintext of encrypted communications to law enforcement agents upon presentation of a lawful warrant. That proposal was quickly withdrawn once the privacy implications became known to the public. The current FBI Wiretap Bill, (H.R. 4922 and S. 2375) runs 29 pages. It includes sweeping new powers for the Attorney General to develop surveillance standards for communications networks, new technical requirements to facilitate network monitoring, and stiff penalties for non-compliance. It limits the use of encryption. If S. 266 could be easily defeated, should this wiretap bill be allowed to pass? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What To Do: Fax Rep. Jack Brooks (202-225-1584). Express your concerns about the FBI Wiretap proposal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100 Reasons is a project of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC. For more information: 100.Reasons@epic.org. ======================================================================== ------------------------------ From: subnso@aol.com (Subnso) Date: 15 Sep 1994 03:24:02 -0400 Subject: Network Security Journal Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) A n n o u n c e m e n t November 1994 Network Security Observations will be out with its inaugural issue. Network Security Observations is expected to be the leading international journal on computer network security for the science, research and professional community. Every annual volume contains five issues, each offering ample space for vigorously reviewed academic and research papers of significant and lasting importance and a wealth of other network security information, including network security patches and other technical information, related governmental documents (international), discussions about ethics and privacy aspects, the 'Clipper chip' and other cryptologic issues, viruses, privacy enhanced mail, protocols, international data security and privacy legislation, harmonization of computer security evaluation criteria, information security management, access management, transborder dataflow, edi security, risk analysis, mission critical applications, integrity issues, etc. Its Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Bertil Fortrie, also the Chairman of Working Group 11.9 - IT Related Crime Investigations - of the International Federation for Information Processing, is assisted by a team of international seasoned experts forming the Journal's prestigeous Review Board. Among them: Emeritus Prof. Dr. Harold Highland (Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Elsevier Advanced Technology's Computers & Security Journal and President of Compulit Inc., United States), Dr. Willis Ware (Security Counsel, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, United States), Prof. Dr. William Caelli (Head - School of Datacommunications, Faculty of Information Technology of the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia), Prof. Eugene Spafford (Faculty of Computer Science of the Purdue University, West Lafayette, United States), William List (Partner, The Kingswell Partnership, London, United Kingdom), John Beatson (Manager Information Security & Risk Management, Databank Systems Ltd., Wellington, New Zealand), Ross Paul (Manager Corporate Information Security, The Worldbank, Washington D.C., United States). If and when appropriate reports of major international conferences will be included, as well as information made available by governments, agencies and international and supranational organizations. Network Security Observations is published in the English language, and distributed Worldwide. The publication does not feature commercial announcements. National and international organizers of dedicated conferences, congresses and seminars can offer calls for papers and invitations to participate. Relevant posting from other publishers announcing new books, etc. are welcomed as well. Network Security Observations provides the in depth and detailed look that is essential for the network system operator, network system administrator, edp auditor, legal counsel, computer science researcher, network security manager, product developer, forensic data expert, legislator, public prosecutor, etc., including the wide range of specialists of the intelligence community, the investigative branches and the military, the financial services industry and the bank community. Network Security Observations serves as the primary source of dedicated information for every governmental department, service, branch and office, directly or indirectly involved with computer networks, in every country. Subscriptions are available as of now. The inaugural issue will be available by November 1, 1994. Applicants ordering subscription by electronic mail before November 1, 1994 are entitled to a special inaugural rebate of 30 %, paying only US $ 195. Special academic/educational discounts and membership discounts for members of IEEE, IFIP (Technical Committees and Working Groups) and governmental agencies and branches are available upon request. Since Network Security Observations is a not-for-profit journal, we are sorry to reject requests for trial orders. Order now by sending an email message to subnso@aol.com . Alternatively applicants may write to: Network Security Observations, suite 400, 1825 I Street, NW. Washington DC 20006, United States. Network Security Observations is the only authoritative international research journal fully dedicated to the security and protection of computer networks. As a courtesy to your fellow computer network users, please forward this announcement to any list service and netnews board available to you. ------------------------------ The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy or vice versa. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@uwm.edu and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. 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". People with gopher capability can access the library at gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #034 ****************************** .