December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

In response to Declan's questions about crypto.com
by Jonah Seiger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This morning, a private note from me to Declan -- part of an ongoing personal conversation between Declan, CDT, and his editors at Time -- was forwarded to several public lists. It was not, as some have assumed, an attempt to obscure the substantive issues he raised. Unfortunately, this whole thing explored before CDT had a chance to respond to Declan's questions directly. I hope that the points below will help to clarify the issues: 1. CDT, along with VTW, EFF, ATR and Wired, spent the last two weeks rallying Internet users to call the Committee in opposition to Oxley-Manton. We generated thousands of phone calls from constituents to the Committee, which we believe was a decisive factor in the defeat of Oxley-Manton. 2. CDT rallied support among the computer and communications industries, including many companies that have not yet weighed in yet on this issue. Opposition from the baby bells, along with companies who have in the past been favorable to the Administration's position (like IBM and TIS), probably made the difference in defeating Oxley-Manton 3. CDT did NOT support, nor work on, the White-Markey proposal. We strongly oppose the increased criminal provisions (as well as the criminal provisions in the original SAFE bill). We are also concerned about the role of the NET Center and the proposed liability limitations for key recovery agents (though we do not believe that any liability limitations were included in the final bill) 4. CDT continues to support efforts to relax encryption export controls. We believe that export relief is critical to promoting privacy and security on the Internet, both at home and abroad. We are steadfastly opposed to ANY domestic requirements, mandatory or "voluntary", to incorporate key-escrow, key-recovery, or other "immediate access" requirements. 5. We expect that all efforts to enact encryption reform legislation are stalled for the remainder of this year, and we do not support any effort to bring SAFE to the House floor. All our efforts are focused on stopping Congress from passing any bill in the foreseeable future, unless and until it is clear that domestic law enforcement access requirements will NOT be a part of any legislation. 6. We are not working for a "compromise" with the FBI or any other supporters of domestic encryption controls. We also recognize the realities of politics. No matter how much any of us might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not willing to stand up and simply oppose everything. It was not in the cards. White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while throwing a small bone to law enforcement. We believe that passage of SAFE with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption policy reform. That's why we have described the vote on cryto.com as a "vote in favor of privacy". I do not expect that this will convince all of our detractors, but I do hope this clarifies the substance of Declan's criticism. As always, I am happy to respond to queries about CDT's positions and tactics, but I am not interested in engaging in public flame throwing. Best, Jonah * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt -- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800 Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151 <jseiger(a)cdt.org> PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger

5 4

No Subject
by CDR Filter Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Plea from a parent who wants to keep their kid free of SSNs
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- John Bishop wrote: >Well, seeing how Mr. Treibs is not a Nazi, satan worshipper, or pagan >fundamentalist, I doubt that the ACLU will want much to do with him. This slur is unwarranted. The ACLU has a long tradition of defending religious rights, even those of Christians. My personal favorite is the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1950s. The Witnesses believe that they cannot honestly pledge allegiance to the flag. They believe that they owe allegiance to God. Were the government to act in a way that was other than God's intention, they would be unable to cooperate. This had to go all the way to the Supreme Court and it was the ACLU that did it when nobody else would. Be my guest to criticize the ACLU, but you'd do better to pick one of their weak points. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCtLP5aWtjSmRH/5AQG45Qf8Doesmpghrdt572xVCXtTCy1K/TY0h75I OwJV4hG/NHo/QnUyD2m3qoH0GzAPntCEyDcg8J5BLBJlkYPQXS8yDZu6irHtstIj 3gLSbL8sXQQ+0SfFPt4iRQPFd8x0erjZE7MH8wxvZGwUQJfHnUtrG8PaOdFWyzpg tg9/lBet+GAM18DtQhqYPN1/eJ+bkoW6MBq83ncSVJ2CD90mGQBK7/Ifunn8jLUG fZ1CMdanJjjCOhLOEWIGqx6kJXZQhmol3DMrCDYTYXemP3GNoaPeHScZJB5GsiPF WFzqzgyakncp+P1EGWqr+2+TG+4LV1cXg9kJOfD3q9z1uz+/n4CRvA== =9B3r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RE: Re: How the FBI/NSA forces can further twist SAFE
by jay holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================== >From: "Paul Spirito" <berezina(a)qed.net> >Date: Thu, Sep 25, 1997 11:58 PM > >And next year *is* an election year. If nothing awful happens, it shouldn't be much of an issue, but sooner or later there'll be a big bang made by terrorists who've used crypto in the plotting, & then anyone who opposed the FBI line will get drubbed, perhaps fatally (i.e. they'll lose their seat). On the other hand a publicized security disaster or "infowar" attack could spin things in the other direction. Jay

2 1

Technology center
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One of the parts that got added to the SAFE bill is this new Technology center. It is supposed to help the FBI when they run into encryption. We all know that's not going to work. Not very well anyway. Maybe if it's some bogus encryption like the SMIME that has a new crack program out for it, they'll get through it. But if it is real crypto then there's no way the Technology center is going to be cracking keys. What I think they'll do is work on virus software. They can write something which will hack the crypto on your PC and make it weak. If they want to wiretap some drug dealer, they get him to download one of their programs somehow. Maybe they've got a Java bug which lets them hack files when he goes to a certain web page. Or maybe they get him to download some free demo of a game or interaction service (hotchicks.com) Whatever, the program actually looks for PGP and other crypto software and hacks it. Now the FBI can read his stuff. This is probably even legal. If they could break into his house and stick a bug in his computer, why can't they do the same thing electronically. They might even want to set things up ahead of time so that crypto software gets hacked for everyone. They won't look, see, unless they get a judge to OK it. But they get some utility that everybody uses like realaudio or winzip, and they convince the author to put in their hack. Now everybody who uses this has their crypto broken. The FBI promises not to do any decryption without a warrant, so they haven't actually stolen anyone's privacy. Maybe they could even set it up so that it was only broken for the FBI, that anybody else wouldn't be able to read it. Do you think would try this? What would you do if you were an a**hole and ran the Technology center? "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re: Chutzpah! FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist
by Jay Holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:54 PM 9/25/97 -0400, David HM Spector wrote: > >The absolute positions "handcuffed" law enforcement while also raising >rights for citizens to levels that were unreasonable and that would >have been foreign to the nation's founding fathers. Extreme privacy >positions were ultimately elitist and nondemocratic in that they >presumed the views of a knowing privacy cognoscenti should pre-empt >the views of the nation's elected officials and the Supreme Court, >McDonald said. Elected officials? FBI and NSA lifers are about as far as possible from accountable elected officials. (And the whole point to elected officials is that they can be influenced by the constituents) I was told by a House staffer (a relative) that within the FBI many of the agents resent Freeh, they feel he is giving away the store (!!!) because of some policies he supposedly has taken to prevent another JE Hoover (though I can hardly imagine what). Anyhow this staffer said, he would really worry about such gung-ho agents having access to private communications. > Jay

1 0

Re: In response to Declan's questions about crypto.com
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jonah Seiger didn't have any better sense than to write: > We also recognize the realities of politics. No matter how much any of us > might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not > willing to stand up and simply oppose everything. It was not in the > cards. White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while > throwing a small bone to law enforcement. We believe that passage of SAFE > with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal > provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption > policy reform. ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY!!!!????!!!!???? Do you remember the NRA? You know, the organization that used to refuse to compromise on defending the Constitution? Well, they decided to play DC's game, and now they are nothing more than a bunch of lame fucks who spend their time trying to explain to their dwindling membership that people with half-a-brain and a modicum of common sense need to give up their right to self-defense so that brainless retards won't get murdered with their own guns. Louis Freeh wants cryptographers' nuts and the CDT wants to tell us that giving him *one* nut is "a step forward." NEWS FLASH FOR THE LAME FUCKS AT CDT!!!! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights *do*not* end with the words: "...just kidding!" "...unless it's too much trouble." "...except for drug dealers, pedophiles, pornographers and terrorists." "...except for niggers, spics, wops and kikes." "...except for women." "...except for communists." "...except for Dr. Dimitri Vulis, KOTM." "...unless the 'legitimate needs of law enforcement' necessitate the abandonment and/or abrogation of all basic human rights." "...up until the time comes when people purporting to defend basic human rights guaranteed under the Constitution decide to support the compromise of the rights of others." > That's why we have described the vote on cryto.com as a "vote in favor of > privacy". I do not expect that this will convince all of our detractors, > but I do hope this clarifies the substance of Declan's criticism. Declan's criticism does not *need* clarifying. What needs clarifying is how CDT and it's bum-buddy organizations can possibly claim to justify the turning of 'rights' into 'privleges' which can then be revoked by those who claim to 'grant' them. Is CDT going to desribe the vote for the law allowing the citizens of the US to take 'reasonable' breathes of air as "a vote in favor of breathing?" Do us all a favor and stand next to the lawyers so that Shakespeare doesn't have to waste bullets when people of reason get tired of letting the lame fucks rule the planet. Toto (posting anonymously) > As always, I am happy to respond to queries about CDT's positions and > tactics, but I am not interested in engaging in public flame throwing. > > Best, > > Jonah > > * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * > Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt > > -- > Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800 > Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151 > <jseiger(a)cdt.org> > PGP Key via finger > http://www.cdt.org > http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger

1 0

OpenPGP approved for standards track by IETF
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- forwarded message -- Path: wmich-news!gumby!newspump.wustl.edu!rice!bcm.tmc.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:51:52 -0600 From: nospam(a)synernet.com Subject: OPEN-PGP" APPROVED FOR STANDARDS TRACK BY IETF Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.security.pgp.discuss,alt.security,talk.politics.crypto,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server Message-ID: <875299757.20568(a)dejanews.com> Reply-To: nospam(a)synernet.com Organization: Deja News USENET Posting Service X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 26 18:49:17 1997 GMT X-Originating-IP-Addr: 166.82.194.182 (estone.vnet.net) X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; U) X-Authenticated-Sender: nospam(a)synernet.com Lines: 99 Xref: wmich-news comp.security.pgp.discuss:5111 "OPEN-PGP" APPROVED FOR STANDARDS TRACK BY INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE Working Group formed to pave worldwide protocol for secure communication SAN MATEO, Calif. (Sept. 25, 1997) -- In a milestone decision for the standardization of secure electronic communications worldwide, the Internet Engineering Steering Group today unanimously approved the formation of an official IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) Working Group to develop a secure email specification called "Open-PGP." The proposed Open-PGP standard will build on Pretty Good Privacy, Inc.'s (PGP) encryption technology, which already is used by millions of individuals around the globe. To facilitate an international standard and promote growth of the Internet, as well as related industries worldwide, PGP released change-control of its technology to the Internet Society (ISOC), and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). "As the IETF Security Area Director, I'm very pleased that PGP Inc. yielded change control to the standards body," said Dr. Jeff Schiller, manager of Computer Services at MIT. "MIT has been a proponent of PGP from the very start -- in 1991, MIT distributed the first non-commercial version of PGP for free, and since then, has been hosting the public key (certificate) server for worldwide access," he said. Phil Dunkelberger, president of PGP, said, "This development is in keeping with PGP's commitment to protecting security of business and personal communications, and our founding principal of the universal right to privacy. We've never been interested in industry domination at the expense of the users." According to Charles Breed, director of security technology, PGP, and co-chair of the IETF Working Group, "Despite the industry's reputation for aggressive competition, there was unilateral support when Open-PGP was first proposed at the Munich IETF meeting a month ago. More than 150 people representing US companies were present, as well as businesses from Singapore, Japan, the UK and Europe." "Open-PGP" will tackle a major obstacle to the growth of the Internet, plagued at present by policy and technical incompatibilities from country to country. The proposed standard is an unencumbered, non-proprietary specification that will guarantee interoperability of encrypted and digitally signed messages, and provide strong encryption and non-repudiation with digital signatures. Open-PGP will be developed by a consortium of experts, using technology that has provided privacy to Internet email and electronic files since 1991 in products from more than 80 manufacturers worldwide. The Open-PGP specification will be available for peer and public review as it develops. Alternative proposals that have failed in the past, such as PEM (Privacy Enhanced Mail), MOSS (MIME object Security Systems) and most recently, S/MIME (Secure MIME from RSA), depended on complex infrastructures or were encumbered by legal patents, royalties, and export restrictions forcing the use of weak encryption practices. "I expect the Open-PGP specification will progress quickly, because it's well understood, simple and our mailing list on the topic suggests it has a great deal of vendor support already. It has all the elements for a comprehensive solution: trust models, certificate infrastructure, encoding rules, securing MIME and the cryptographic algorithms," said Paul Hoffman, director of the Internet Mail Consortium (IMC), a non-profit organization that promotes the growth of Internet protocols. "Open-PGP applications will be easy for corporations and individuals to use, and will be based on strong, freely available, well-known cryptographic techniques that are the foundation of PGP's technology," said John Noerenberg, senior development manager at Qualcomm's Eudora Division. "Eudora is the top-selling Internet mail application and our users are very pleased with the PGP-based security component." For more information about Open-PGP or subscribe to the IMC mail list, visit the IMC worldwide web site at http://www.ietf-open-pgp.imc.org. About PGP San Mateo-based, Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. (PGP), is the pioneer and worldwide de facto standard for business security and personal privacy, with an estimated four million users of its encryption products, including more than half of the Fortune 100 companies. PGP is committed to providing the most advanced security products for the digital age, safeguarding the communication and storage of information. For more information, visit our website at http://www.pgp.com. Contact: Robin Rootenberg/Monika Madrid Access Communications 1-800-393-7737 ext. 282/227 rrootenberg@accesspr.com/mmadrid@accesspr.com" -- ---------------------------- Ed Stone estone(a)synernet-robin.com remove "-birdname" spam avoider ---------------------------- -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet -- end of forwarded message --

1 0

We're in BIG trouble now! / Re: CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Graham-John Bullers autobot wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Declan is smart. > > I think Vulis needs each of us to send ten copies of this back to him. > > Do you understand why now. Shit! The Graham-John Bullers autobot has learned how to think in a rudimentary fashion that allows it to respond to posts in a manner that comes close to imitating rational thought. How long, I ask you, until it decides to run for President? Igor (posting anonymously)

2 1

EPIC Alert 4.13 on crypto and more
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note this excerpt on the problems of Markey-White: >While surviving the draconian Oxley-Manton amendment, the SAFE bill, >originally introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to relax U.S. >export controls on encryption products, did not emerge from the >Commerce Committee unscathed. The committee adopted an amendment >offered by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rick White (R-WA) that would >create a new National Electronic Technologies (NET) Center within the >Justice Department. The NET Center would engage in research and >"examine encryption techniques and methods to facilitate the ability >of law enforcement to gain efficient access to plaintext of >communications and electronic information." The NET Center would be >authorized to seek the assistance of "any department or agency of the >Federal Government" in support of its mission, thereby providing >explicit statutory authority for National Security Agency involvement >in domestic law enforcement activities. The Markey-White amendment >also doubles the penalty for the use of encryption in furtherance of a >felony and provides that "No person shall be subject to civil or >criminal liability for providing access to the plaintext of encrypted >communications or electronic information to any law enforcement >official or authorized government entity, pursuant to judicial >process." Question to ponder for the weekend: if it took this kind of "compromise" for a bill to clear the unabashedly pro-business Commerce committee, what will it take for a bill to become law? -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 17:33:43 -0400 From: Electronic Privacy Info Center <info(a)epic.org> To: List <info(a)epic.org> Subject: EPIC Alert 4.13 ============================================================== @@@@ @@@@ @@@ @@@@ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@ @@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@ @ @@@ @@@@ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ ============================================================== Volume 4.13 September 26, 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/ ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] House Committee Rejects Domestic Crypto Ban [2] HHS Releases Medical Privacy Recommendations [3] Employment Eligibility Pilot Programs Begin [4] White House Commission Urges Scrutiny of Private Employees [5] ID Cards to Cost $10 Billion [6] Imagine: FBI Finally Releases John Lennon Files [7] New Bills in Congress [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= [1] House Committee Rejects Domestic Crypto Ban ======================================================================= The House Commerce Committee has rejected an FBI-backed proposal to impose the first-ever domestic controls on encryption. In a 35-16 vote on September 24, the committee defeated an amendment to the SAFE crypto bill offered by Reps. Michael Oxley (R-OH) and Thomas Manton (D-NY) that would have banned the domestic manufacture and sale of encryption products that do not provide law enforcement agencies easy access to encrypted information. Speaking in opposition to the amendment, many committee members cited the unprecedented assault on privacy and civil liberties that would result if the FBI proposal was adopted. While surviving the draconian Oxley-Manton amendment, the SAFE bill, originally introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to relax U.S. export controls on encryption products, did not emerge from the Commerce Committee unscathed. The committee adopted an amendment offered by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rick White (R-WA) that would create a new National Electronic Technologies (NET) Center within the Justice Department. The NET Center would engage in research and "examine encryption techniques and methods to facilitate the ability of law enforcement to gain efficient access to plaintext of communications and electronic information." The NET Center would be authorized to seek the assistance of "any department or agency of the Federal Government" in support of its mission, thereby providing explicit statutory authority for National Security Agency involvement in domestic law enforcement activities. The Markey-White amendment also doubles the penalty for the use of encryption in furtherance of a felony and provides that "No person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability for providing access to the plaintext of encrypted communications or electronic information to any law enforcement official or authorized government entity, pursuant to judicial process." In a letter sent to the Commerce Committee prior to the vote, EPIC joined with the American Civil Liberties Union, Eagle Forum, Americans for Tax Reform and other groups in urging members to oppose "any proposal establishing a legal structure for key recovery even if temporarily 'voluntary,' any so-called 'compromise' provision drawn from Oxley-Manton . . . , and any new proposal that would limit the availability and use of strong encryption." The fate of the SAFE bill is now uncertain. The original Goodlatte language has been substantially amended by five House committees, with contradictory results. Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY), chairman of the House Rules Committee, has indicated that he will not send the legislation to the House floor unless it contains the Oxley-Manton domestic controls. As such, SAFE may no longer be a viable vehicle for the reform of encryption policy that it was originally intended to promote. PDF versions of House Commerce Committee documents on the SAFE bill are available at: http://www.house.gov/commerce/full/092497/markup.htm ======================================================================= [2] HHS Releases Medical Privacy Recommendations ======================================================================= Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Donna Shalala released the Department's recommendations for a new medical privacy bill on September 11, calling for legislation that would generally protect all medical records. In addition, HHS says medical records should not be used by employers and others for making non-medical decisions; patients would have the right to sue if their records were disclosed improperly and criminal and civil penalties could be imposed. On a number of issues, the guidelines fall short. HHS recommends that there be no new laws preventing law enforcement access to medical records, essentially enabling law enforcement and other government officials to obtain medical records without a court order. In addition, on the issue of medical research, the guidelines recommend that personally identifiable records be used for medical research without the consent of the patient. They also ignore the issue of whether a single unique identifier such as a Social Security number should be used to link all medical records in a nationwide network of records. Importantly, HHS recommends that any new medical privacy law should not preempt already existing state or federal laws that provide greater protection. A major bill introduced last year by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) would have prevented states from providing more protection to their citizens. Many states have enacted laws giving stronger privacy protection to records on substance abuse, AIDS and mental health. Some states, such as Massachusetts, are currently in the process of enacting comprehensive privacy legislation. The text of the HHS recommendations and more information on medical privacy is available at: http://www.epic.org/privacy/medical/ ======================================================================= [3] Employment Eligibility Pilot Programs Begin ======================================================================= The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) have announced three pilot programs for verifying eligibility of employees to work within the United States. The pilot programs were ordered by the Congress as part of the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 in a compromise attempt to avoid creation of a national identification system. The three programs are the Basic Pilot; the Citizen Attestation Pilot; and the Machine-Readable Document Pilot. The Basic Pilot requires that employers verify the employment eligibility of all new employees through automated verification checks of SSA and INS databases using a telephone. The Citizen Attestation Pilot only checks the status of new employees who attest they are not U.S. citizens, but is limited to states where drivers' licenses are acceptable to the INS -- presumably those having the SSN on the face of the license. In the Machine Readable Pilot, the procedures are similar to the Basic Pilot except in states with machine readable licenses (currently, only Iowa is eligible). Each government department is required to assign a pilot program to at least one agency within the department. In addition, companies that have been found to violate the Immigration Act can be compelled to join in the program. The pilot programs will last for four years unless Congress re-authorizes them. ======================================================================= [4] White House Commission Urges Scrutiny of Private Employees ======================================================================= A special Presidential commission will recommend that certain private sector employees be subjected to in-depth background checks and polygraph examinations. Speaking before The Bankers Roundtable on September 11, Robert T. Marsh, Chairman of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, previewed the "core recommendations" that will be transmitted to the White House. Addressing "privacy issues in the employer-employee relationship," Marsh said: Throughout its year-long effort, the Commission has struggled to address the competing interests of security and privacy and the trade-offs between these two interests. . . . We are going to recommend that the Administration and Congress study ways to make some of the tools that the federal government uses to perform background checks and issue security clearances more readily available to employers within the critical infrastructures, at least in filling certain sensitive positions within those infrastructures. These efforts may afford you, for example, a greater ability to inquire into and make use of criminal history information, employment histories, and credit history information. Amendments should also be made to federal polygraph law to include within the scope of current exemptions those who are in the business of providing information security services. The "critical infrastructures," as defined by Executive Order 13010, include "telecommunications, electrical power systems, gas and oil storage and transportation, banking and finance, transportation, water supply systems, emergency services (including medical, police, fire, and rescue), and continuity of government." The full text of the Marsh address is available at: http://www.pccip.gov/marsh_banker.html ======================================================================= [5] ID Cards to Cost $10 Billion ======================================================================= The Social Security Administration announced on September 22 that it would cost up to $10 billion to re-issue Social Security cards as tamper-proof identifiers. Congress required the SSA to assess the cost as part of the 1996 immigration and welfare bills. The SSA report reviews the history of the SSN from its creation in 1935 through the current day. The report declines to make any policy recommendations, but recognizes some of the privacy issues raised by the use of the SSN as a national identifier. An appendix to the report includes pending legislation that would limit the SSN's use. The report examines the different technologies for ID cards from basic plain plastic cards to smart cards, including those that would include a picture or biometric identifier. It notes that SSA cannot accurately assess how many actual SSNs are in use -- the agency is only able to estimate a range between 269 and 327 million. At least 10 million are estimated to be duplicate numbers. More information on national identification cards is available at: http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/ ======================================================================= [6] Imagine: FBI Finally Releases John Lennon Files ======================================================================= After resisting disclosure for more than 15 years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has released almost all of its secret files on John Lennon. The documents underscore the sometimes questionable rationale for FBI surveillance operations and the importance of public oversight of those activities. Since being sued under the Freedom of Information Act in 1983, the Bureau had steadfastly withheld the Lennon files on "national security" grounds. Now released, the records document FBI surveillance of the former Beatle's political activities, under the close supervision of the Nixon White House. Significantly, none of the disclosed files describe Lennon as involved in any illegal act. In December 1995, U.S. District Judge Robert Takasugi directed the FBI to disclose whether it had "used unlawful activities in connection with the Lennon investigation." Rather than respond to the questions, the FBI negotiated a settlement to release the documents. Ironically, the Lennon files were released as a senior FBI official told an international privacy conference that "extreme" privacy concerns have "handcuffed" law enforcement's ability to investigate criminal activity. FBI Counsel Alan McDonald told the International Conference on Privacy in Montreal that, "Based on a theory of potential government abuse, important tools commonly used are to be restricted or embargoed." More information on the FBI investigation of John Lennon is available at: http://www.bagism.com/library/fbi-rock-criticism.html ======================================================================= [7] New Bills in Congress ======================================================================= HR 2215, Genetic Nondiscrimination in the Workplace Act. Introduced by Kennedy (D-MA) on July 22. Amends Fair Labor Standards Act to restrict employers in obtaining, disclosing, and using of genetic information. Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. HR 2216, Genetic Protection in Insurance Coverage Act. Introduced by Kennedy (D-MA) on July 22. Limits the disclosure and use of genetic information by life and disability insurers. Prohibits insurers from requiring genetic tests, denying coverage, setting rates based on genetics, using or maintain genetic info. Referred to the Committee on Commerce. HR 2275, Genetic Employment Protection Act of 1997. Introduced by Lowery (D-NY) on July 25. Prohibits employers, unions from discriminating on basis of genetic information. Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H.R.2368, Data Privacy Act of 1997. Introduced by Tauzin (R-LA) on July 31. Recommends that businesses create voluntary guidelines to protect privacy, and stop spamming. Referred to the Committee on Commerce. HR 2369, Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1997. Introduced by Tauzin (R-LA) on July 31. Expands ban and penalties on sale of scanners that can intercept cellular and digital communications and interception of communications. Referred to the Committee on Commerce. HR 2372, Internet Protection Act of 1997. Introduced by White (R-WA) on July 31. Limits FCC and state ability to regulate Internet. Referred to the Committee on Commerce. HR 2404, Stop the Theft of Our Social Security Numbers Act. Introduced by Filner (D-CA) on September 4. Prohibits IRS mailings that include SSN unless it is inside sealed envelope. Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. HR 2507, ATM Public Safety and Crime Control Act. Introduced by Nadler (R-NY). Requires banks to install better surveillance cameras in ATMs. Referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. S. 1146, Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997. Introduced by Ashcroft (R-MO). Sets up new rules for copyright in digital networks. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. ======================================================================= [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= Net Worth, Net Work: Technology and Values for the Digital Age. October 4-5. University of Cal, Berkeley. Sponsored by CPSR. Contact: http://www.cpsr.org/dox/home.html 20th National Information Systems Security Conference. October 7-10. Baltimore, MD. Sponsored by NIST and NSA. Contact: http://csrc.nist.gov/nissc/ EPIC International Privacy Conference. October 20,1997. Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC. Sponsored by EPIC. Contact: shauna(a)epic.org. Managing the Privacy Revolution '97. October 21-23, 1997. Washington, DC. Sponsored by Privacy and American Business. Contact: http://shell.idt.net/~pab/conf97.html RSA'98 -- The 1998 RSA Data Security Conference. January 12-16, 1998. San Francisco, CA. Contact kurt(a)rsa.com or http://www.rsa.com/conf98/ (Send calendar submissions to alert(a)epic.org) ======================================================================= The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. To subscribe, send email to epic-news(a)epic.org wih the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes) or use the subscription form at: http://www.epic.org/alert/subscribe.html Back issues are available at: http://www.epic.org/alert/ ======================================================================= The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC is sponsored by the Fund for Constitutional Government, a non-profit organization established in 1974 to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, e-mail info(a)epic.org, http://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20003. +1 202 544 9240 (tel), +1 202 547 5482 (fax). If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "The Fund for Constitutional Government" and sent to EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington DC 20003. Individuals with First Virtual accounts can donate at http://www.epic.org/epic/support.html Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption and funding of the National Wiretap Plan. Thank you for your support. ---------------------- END EPIC Alert 4.13 ----------------------- ..

1 0