FWD: Jerry Berman, Mitch Kapor
Marc.Ringuette at GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Marc.Ringuette at GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Sun Apr 25 23:53:32 PDT 1993
A couple of interesting messages from sci.crypt: an anonymously
forwarded letter from 1985 from Jerry Berman (Exec Director of EFF)
to David Chaum, and a response to the posting from Mitch Kapor.
To sum up: Berman suggested to Chaum (in '85) that he prefers legal
remedies to technological ones, and doesn't like the idea of a society
where people routinely hide from the law. The anonymous reposter is
concerned with the discrepancy between EFF policy and these sentiments
from Berman. Kapor responds to his concerns by saying that Berman now
recognizes the role of technological solutions in the privacy equation.
The EFF continues to be the best representative of hacker culture
in Washington.
-- Marc Ringuette (mnr at cs.cmu.edu)
From: nobody at alumni.cco.caltech.edu
Subject: Jerry Berman on pseudonymous privacy
Date: 24 Apr 1993 10:38:38 -0500
Sender: daemon at cs.utexas.edu
Hello all,
I thought you all might like to see this. It's a letter from Jerry
Berman to David Chaum from November of 1985, in response to
information that Mr. Chaum sent to Mr. Berman.
While I have to congratulate EFF for its prompt response to the
Clipper Chip announcement from the White House, I think it's important
to recognize the philosophy of their Executive Director, as explained
below.
I agree that legal remedies are important, but when pressed, I'd
prefer to retain the ability to use purely technical solutions to
preserve my privacy, because they'll hold up under fire.
Mr. Chaum has consented to the publication of this letter on the Net.
I don't work for, nor am I a member of EFF, ACLU, or any similar
organizations, but I do agree with them on a great many things.
--Aristophanes
----------
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
WASHINGTON OFFICE
122 Maryland Avenue, NE
November 1, 1985 Washington, DC 20002
--------------------
National Headquarters
Mr. David Chaum 132 West 43rd Street
Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science New York. NY 10036
P.O. Box 4079 (212) 944-9800
19O9 AB Amsterdam Norman Dorsen
President
Dear Mr. Chaum: Ira Glasser
Executive Director
Eleanor Holmes Norton
CHAIR
National Advisory
Council
Thank you for sending me a most interesting article. A
society of individuals and organizations that would expend the
time and resources to use a series of 'digital pseudonyms' to
avoid data linkage does not in my opinion make big brother
obsolete but acts on the assumption that big brother is ever
present. I view your system as a form of societal paranoia.
As a matter of principle, we are working to enact formal
legal protections for individual privacy rather than relying on
technical solutions. We want to assume a society of law which
respects legal limits rather than a society that will disobey the
law, requiring citizens to depend on technical solutions. e.g.
require a judical warrant for government interception of data
communications rather than encrypt all messages on the assumption
that regardless of the lawt the government will abuse its power
and invade privacy.
As a matter of practicality, I do not think your system
offers much hope for privacy. First, the trend toward universal
identifiers is as much.-a movement generated by government or
industry's desire to keep track of all citizens as it is by
citizens seeking simplicity and convenience in all transactions.
At best, your system would benefit the sophisticated and most
would opt for simplicity. The poor and the undereducated would
never use or benefit from it.
Finally where there's a will, there's a way. If government
wants to link data bases, it will, by law, require the disclosure
of various individual pseudonyms used by citizens or prohibit it
for data bases which the government wants to link. Since
corporations make money by trading commercial lists with one
another, they will never adopt the system or if it is adopted,
will use "fine printn contracts to permit selling various codes
used by their customers to other firms.
The solution remains law, policy, and consensus about limits
on government or corporate intrusion into areas of individual
autonomy. Technique can be used to enforce that consensus or to
override it. It cannot be used as a substitute for such
consensus.
Sincerely Yours,
/Sig/
Jerry J. Berman
Chief Legislative Counsel
& Direrector ACLU
Privacy Technology Project
cc: John Shattuck
From: mkapor at eff.org (Mitch Kapor)
Subject: Re: Jerry Berman on pseudonymous privacy
Originator: mkapor at eff.org
Sender: usenet at eff.org (NNTP News Poster)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 17:16:28 GMT
nobody at alumni.cco.caltech.edu correctly states Jerry Berman's 1985 view on
privacy, but he mistakenly assumes that this represents Berman's 1993 view as
EFF Executive Director.
As one of the people who convinced Jerry that legal protections for privacy
are insufficient, and that technical measures, especially public key
cryptography, are also vitally necessary, I can tell you that Jerry and EFF
are fully committed to this position.
The previous poster is apparently unaware of a long series of EFF positions in
support of this view. I suggest those interested read EFF's position on
Clipper or our other work in digital privacy. Check ftp.eff.org for more
details.
One of the great things about human beings is that they are capable of change
and evolution in their thinking. The idea that crypto is critical to privacy
is one which is no longer limited to certain net afficianados, but is
spreading to parts of the public policy community in Washington.
Mitch Kapor
co-Founder, EFF
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list