Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 26 Sep 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 038 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Reason 16: Expense The Future of the Internet is Secure: Press Conference Outlaws on the Net Another Group Opposes Wiretap Bill Merrill Lynch's "Anonymous" Client Survey Digital Telephony: Shifting the Burden Re: Anti-Clipper T-shirts Telephone Background Noise Risks Computer Privacy Digest Informaton --------------------------------------------------------------------- Housekeeping information is located at the end of this Digest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marc Rotenberg Date: 26 Sep 1994 13:15:12 EST Subject: Reason 16: Expense Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center 100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill Reason 16: Wiretapping is a particularly expensive investigative method. According to data obtained from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the cost for each Title III intercept in 1974 was about $7,500. The average cost for all intercepts in 1993 was $57,000 per order. Federal orders were more expensive, each costing an average of $66,323. Since 1970, the average cost per order has increased 1,100 percent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What To Do: Fax Senator Biden (202-224-0139) 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: "Winn Schwartau" Date: 23 Sep 94 17:03:58 -0500 Subject: The Future of the Internet is Secure: Press Conference Organization: Inter.Pact F O R I M M E D I A T E R E L E A S E DISTRIBUTE WIDELY: The Future of the Internet is Secure! On October 11, 1994, The Internet Will Become A Safe Place To Do Business. Sidewinder: Internet Security That Strikes Back The Internet is a dangerous place. Ask anyone. * Between 85-97% of all computer break-ins go undetected. * Industrial espionage is up 400% since the late 1980's. * Hacker attacks increase exponentionally: * Over 1 million computer break-ins last year alone. * Theft of confidential information costs billions to Am erica's financial infrastructure * Privacy is almost nonexistent. Yet, the Internet is the fastest growing segment of the National Information Infrastructure. Over 20 million users and businesses conduct global affairs on the Internet today, and over 125 mil lion will by the year 2000. Join us to witness the technological breakthrough in inter- networking which finally makes the Internet a safe place to be. The future of the Internet is secure. Come see how. October 11, 1994 10:00 AM National Press Club Zenger Room 529 14St. NW Washington, DC 20045 _Continental Breakfast_ RSVP Presented by: Secure Computing Corporation 2675 Long Lake Road Roseville, MN 55112 For more information contact: Interpact, Inc. Winn Schwartau 813.393.6600 P00506@Psilink.Com Secure Computing: Kevin Sorensen 1.612.627.2800 1.800.692.LOCK Sorensen@Sctc.Com ------------------------------ From: Andrew Grosso Date: 23 Sep 1994 17:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Outlaws on the Net District of Columbia Bar Association The New Technology Committee of the Computer Law Section, and the Criminal Law and Individual Rights Section, invite you to a Panel Discussion entitled: CRIMINAL LAW IN CYBERSPACE: OUTLAWS ON THE NET Speakers: Scott Charney, Chief, Computer Crimes Unit of the U.S. Department of Justice Mike Godwin, Counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation Mark D. Rasch, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn Moderator: Andrew Grosso, Co-Chair, New Technology Committee Whenever a new technology becomes prevalent, the law enters a period of struggle during which it tries to find adequate means for resolving disputes involving that technology, and for protecting the rights of people affected by it. We are now in such a period for the Internet and the developing National Information Infrastructure (NII). Of all legal fields, the struggle concerning the criminal law is the most pronounced, since old statutes must be narrowly construed to protect civil liberties, while used in a creative fashion in order to deter malevolent acts which have never before been seen. This program focuses on computer network crime having national and international ramifications, including several recent investigations and prosecutions. This panel brings together noted experts in the field of civil liberties and computer crime to discusses the issues presented by the latest developments in this area. Scott Charney is the Chief of the Computer Crimes Unit of the U. S. Department of Justice, and is actively involved in the formulation of federal policy with regard to computer-related crimes. Mike Godwin is the On Line Legal Counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation who is a respected defender of civil liberties for telecommunications users. Mark D. Rasch is prominent defense attorney who, while an attorney with the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice, prosecuted the "Internet Worm" case in 1989. Andrew Grosso, the panel moderator, is a Co-Chair of the New Technology Committee and a former federal prosecutor. Written materials by the panelists will be distributed. Date: Thursday, October 27, 1994 Time: 12:00 Noon Place: D.C. Bar Headquarters 1250 H Street, N.W. Cost: Box Lunch: $25.00 for Section members and students; $30.00 for Non-Members. Program Only: $19.00 for Section Members and students; $24.00 for Non-Members. ____________________________________________________________ REGISTRATION FORM ____________________________________________________________ Mail to: Computer Law Section D.C. Bar, 1250 H Street, N.W. 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005-3908 Please reserve ____________ spaces(s) for me at the October 27 program. Enclosed is my check for __________ made payable to the DC Bar. Checks must be received by October 25. Sorry, phone reservations cannot be accepted. Name(s) Phone(s) Bar No(s). Bar Member? _____________ ____________ ___________ Yes/No _____________ ____________ ___________ Yes/No _____________ ____________ ___________ Yes/No Please notify the Sections Office (202-626-3463) if you require any special dietary or physical accommodations. ------------------------------ From: Dave Banisar Date: 23 Sep 1994 20:07:10 EST Subject: Another Group Opposes Wiretap Bill Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center Another Civil Liberty Group Opposes Wiretap Bill The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today wrote to Rep. Jack Brooks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, "to express the ACLU's opposition to the FBI Wiretap Access Bill, H.R. 4922." The organization's position is the latest indication that the legislation is running into serious trouble in Congress for several reasons, including strong opposition from civil liberties and privacy advocates. The bill's proponents had initially hoped to bring it to a vote on the floors of the House and Senate by mid-September. Instead, the bill remains in committees of both houses and is the object of a grassroots campaign to prevent its enactment. Excerpts from the ACLU letter: "The principal problem remains that any digital telephone bill which mandates that communications providers make technological changes for the sole purpose of making their systems wiretap- ready creates a dangerous and unprecedented presumption that government not only has the power, subject to warrant to intercept private communications, but that it can require private parties to create special access. It is as if the government had required all builders to construct new housing with an internal surveillance camera for government use. ... "Moreover, the FBI has not borne the burden of proving why such an extraordinary requirement is necessary. ... "H.R. 4922 proposes a radical and expensive change in our telecommunications structure. The threats it poses, now and prospectively, are real, but the need for it is far less than evident or proven. We urge that your Committee not rush into consideration of this far reaching measure with so little time left in the session." The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is urging all concerned individuals and organizations to contact the following members of Congress immediately: Rep. Jack Brooks Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (202) 225-6565 (voice) (202) 224-7494 (voice) (202) 225-1584 (fax) (202) 224-5474 (fax) For more information about the FBI Wiretap Bill, check the Voters Telecomm Watch (VTW) gopher site (gopher.panix.com) or send e- mail to . ------------------------------ From: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) Date: 24 Sep 1994 11:59:59 GMT Subject: Merrill Lynch's "Anonymous" Client Survey Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA A few weeks ago, Merrill Lynch sent me a "1994 Private Client Survey." It was supposed to be anonymous. I was, however, intrigued by the presence of a six-digit number on the survey form, printed in the upper-right hand corner in what looked to me like high-density dot-matrix and a fabric ribbon (i.e. it did NOT look to me like part of the preprinted form). I filled out the survey, but I also tore off the corner on which the number was printed, noting that I did not believe the survey was really anonymous. The result? A follow-up letter from Merrill Lynch with another copy of the form and a letter saying "If you have already completed and returned [the first survey,] we thank you very much. If not, we have enclosed another survey in case you did not receive or have misplaced the first one." Funny thing... the number that I was probably supposed to ignore, or believe was part of the survey form, was printed in a different ink and style from the rest of the form... yet... you'll never believe this... William Henkel's very own personal signature on the follow-up letter is in ink that's an absolute dead-perfect match for printing in the letter. :-) -- Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Andrew Grosso Date: 25 Sep 1994 16:39:48 -0400 Subject: Digital Telephony: Shifting the Burden Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee The March 1993 issue of Communications of the ACM (pages 24-44) included an editorial debate on the merits of Digital Telephony Legislation. As part of that debate, the following commentary by Andrew Grosso* appeared**: The year was 1928, long before the dawn of digital networks, infrared nightvision, or reconnaissance satellites. In a now famous dissenting opinion, JusticeLouis D. Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court gave identity to the most precious rightheld by any citizen, that of the right to protection from governmental intrusion, or inhis words, "the right to be alone - the most comprehensive of all rights and the rightmost valued by civilized man."*** Our system of jurisprudence has long recognized that this right is notabsolute, and must sometimes bend to other concerns, one of which is lawenforcement. Thus, arrest warrants, search warrants, and wiretaps have their placein our Constitution and in our laws. However, the burden of carrying out suchintrusions has always rested with the agency or person seeking the warrant or tap. The digital telephony legislation seeks to change that. Because of advances in technology, the value of a significant investigatorytool - the wiretap - is now compromised. The legislation seeks to rescue that tool bypoking holes in the security of the "common man's" privacy. Think of opaque wallsbuilt around a person's life, protecting the details of that life. Such walls make thesedetails accessible only to those with the means and determination, as well as the rightto make a key which will open a door through those walls. This is as it should be,if the protection of privacy is to have any meaning to the common citizen. Instead, the legislation would shift the burden. It would require all to livewithin transparent walls. The value to law enforcement is obvious; it need not expendresources in order to design and make a key to open the door. The harm to theindividual is enormous. In one's own mind, one can never be sure who is outside,peering from a distant hideaway, watching every move. In place of opaque walls, the legislation proposes that law enforcement and industry shall make a promise: no oneshall look through those walls unless a court approves. However, the history of politics and civilizations makes it clear that promises are broken, by individuals aswell as by governments. People know this. Advances in technology are not all harmful to the goals of law enforcement. The rapist who escaped last year will be caught today because of DNA matching; thedrug smuggler will be captured because of satellite surveillance; the terrorist will beidentified and tracked down using an international network of computers processingmegafiles of data. Law enforcement often gains from technology. It is notunreasonable to acknowledge that, sometimes, it will lose. Our jurisprudence recognizes that in order to protect certain critical socialvalues, some criminals will remain uncaught and unpunished. This is the price wepay for living in a nontotalitarian state. If Congress, law enforcement, and society-at-large conclude the wiretap an indispensable part of our national safety and must bepreserved, then a remedy is to provide the financing which will enable lawenforcement to effectively tap digital telephony. If this costs hundreds of millionsof dollars, then so be it. Our nation has spent untold more in the defense of our rightsin the past, and will continue to do so in the future. It is worth the price so that we, as free individuals, can be sure of being leftalone. _____________ * Then an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and now in private practice in Washington, D.C. ** @ Communications of the ACM, 1993. Reprinted with permission. *** Olmstead v. United States, 227 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (dissenting opinion). ------------------------------ From: jhendrix@panix.com (Josh Hendrix) Date: 23 Sep 1994 19:38:28 -0400 Subject: Re: Anti-Clipper T-shirts Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Norman J Harman wrote: I would like to offer an anti Clipper/Skipjack T-shirt. They would be white with black printing and cost approximately $5.00 plus $2.90 shipping to US locations. That is the cost to produce one shirt. I am I need to know if people are interested in this idea and what should the shirts say? How about: Get Hipper Oppose Clipper -- A man said to the Universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation." - Stephen Crane ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 24 Sep 1994 07:50:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Telephone Background Noise Risks Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Taken from RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Friday 23 September 1994 Volume 16 : Issue 42 ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator Telephone Background Noise Risks (Michael P. Gerlek) Date: 22 Sep 1994 13:57:26 -0700 From: "Michael P. Gerlek" Subject: telephone background noise RISKS Just another horror story: I called a major airline the other day to make reservations. In the course of my dialog with the agent she put me on hold for a minute or so while she checked something, and I listened to the usual canned music interspersed with promos for the airline. Then, after more dialog with the agent, again she put me on hold... but this time didn't switch on the music. As I waited, I could clearly make out another reservations agent working in the background: "yes, Mr. Smith, flight 234 from Portland to San Francisco..." "thank you, Mr. Smith -- to confirm, that was a charge of $567.89 to your Mastercard, account number 1234-5..." I discussed this with my agent when she came back on the line. She said it was her mistake (she didn't press the right button or something), and that the official policy was to switch the line to hold, so as to allow the customer to hear the promotional ads while waiting. I pointed out the privacy advantages, too, and she agreed this was a good thing and promised to be more careful next time. :-) -- mpg ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:45:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Computer Privacy Digest Informaton Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy or vice versa. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@uwm.edu and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. If you read this from the comp.society.privacy newsgroup and wish to contribute a message, you should simply post your contribution. As a moderated newsgroup, attempts to post to the group are normally turned into eMail to the submission address below. On the other hand, if you read the digest eMailed to you, you generally need only use the Reply feature of your mailer to contribute. If you do so, it is best to modify the "Subject:" line of your mailing. Contributions generally are acknowledged within 24 hours of submission. An article is printed if it is relevant to the charter of the digest. If selected, it is printed within two or three days. The moderator reserves the right to delete extraneous quoted material. He may change the subject line of an article in order to make it easier for the reader to follow a discussion. He will not, however, alter or edit or append to the text except for purely technical reasons. A library of back issues is available on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp" with password identifying yourid@yoursite. The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy". People with gopher capability can most easily access the library at gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Older archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu | Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu levine@cs.uwm.edu | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #038 ******************************