CDR: Privacy: Dems criticize GOP, Calif, Australia, and Carnivore

Declan McCullagh declan at well.com
Wed Oct 25 16:58:02 PDT 2000



*********
More privacy stuff at: http://www.cluebot.com/search.pl?topic=privacy
*********

http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/25/2351218&mode=nested

    Democrats Criticize Census Data Sharing
    posted by cicero on Wednesday October 25, @06:49PM
    from the hypocritcal-congresscritters-so-what-else-is-new dept.

    David Sobel of EPIC just sent us a letter that a pair of Democratic
    legislators are circulating on Capitol Hill. Turns out they
    want to stop a Republican plan to share some Census data with other
    government agencies. The opposition from Carolyn Maloney and John
    Dingell is certainly welcome, but it's important to realize that this
    is a simple partisan manuevering. While they piously bleat that
    "Congress should be protecting personal privacy," neither voted for
    privacy-protective measures when they had the chance, according to a
    Wired News scorecard.

The letter, dated October 25:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/25/2351218&mode=nested




http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/24/226242&mode=nested

    CIX: E-mail Headers Aren't Legal Carnivore Fodder
    posted by protozoa on Tuesday October 24, @04:38PM
    from the slippery-slope-vs-vertical-slope dept.

    The Commercial Internet Exchange Association has published this
    white paper (PDF format) arguing that e-mail headers shouldn't legally
    be considered the same thing as telephone numbers dialed. Why is that
    important? Because according to the paper's introduction,"[t]hrough
    programs like "Carnivore," the government seeks real-time access to
    the e-mail addresses and other transactional elements of e-mail
    communications under the low "pen register" standard used to trace the
    digits dialed on a telephone,". It's a tricky legal distinction, but a
    very important one -- such a finding in court could cut the FBI's net
    surveillance plans off at the knees. I've included the paper's
    introduction below.

The CIX introduction (in HTML):
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/24/226242&mode=nested





http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/21/1517258&mode=nested

    California Creates State Privacy Office
    posted by protozoa on Saturday October 21, @09:58AM
    from the you-said-what-to-who? dept.

    According to this press release, California Governor Gray Davis
    signed twenty bills yesterday tailored to protect privacy and
    other consumer interests for state residents. Most noteworthy of these
    bills is SB 129, which creates the first-ever statewide Office of
    Privacy Protection under California's Department of Consumer Affairs.
    Other new laws include and procedural assistance for identity theft
    victims and new consumer "opt-out" reqirements for credit bureaus. Dan
    Gillmor wrote a column about identity theft and privacy protection in
    California back in March, expressing his support for two stronger and
    more far-reaching bills in this arena. Neither of them were among
    those passed.




http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/21/1421235&mode=nested

    Australian Privacy Legislation Inches Forward
    posted by protozoa on Saturday October 21, @09:07AM
    from the privacy-privacy-oi-oi-oi dept.

    An Australian Senate committee has produced a set of
    recommendations (in PDF form) governing private corporations' data
    collection practices. The bill is scheduled to be considered during
    the coming session. The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000
    aims to update regulations in light of the "dramatic developments in
    information technology and data communication practices" since the
    passage of the Privacy Act in 1988. The recommendations include an
    exemption for small businesses (except in instances where medical
    information is involved) and a strategy for accordance with the
    European Data Directive. Electronic Frontiers Australia called the
    bill "complex, unwieldy, ineffective and an insult to the citizens of
    Australia" in its testimony in May, citing numerous loopholes and
    inadequate enforcement provisions. Many of their concerns appear to
    have been ignored. ABC (that's A for Australian) ran a brief piece on
    Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams' support of the bill. As it
    says at the bottom of the box: Post your comments below. Can any
    privacy legislation better than none? Is ineffectual privacy
    legislation worse than none?





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list