privacy
I just found this on Risks Digest. [http://www.odci.gov/cia/notices.html#priv] Privacy Notice The Central Intelligence Agency is committed to protecting your privacy and will collect no personal information about you unless you choose to provide that information to us. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Market Solutions to Privacy Problems?
These kinds of ideas are fine in an abstract, make-believe world -- the Wired magazine/Negroponte realm. Robinson Crusoe versions of a wired world. Everyone on their own little island, everyone wired together. Deighton says, below: It's about offering its customers and prospects an identity that they find useful and are proud to wear. God, where's the barf bag. I can't read anymore. Sigh... I had hoped these kinds of wired business visionaries went the way of garden.com and John Perry Barlow. Or had been banished to the Island of the Direct Marketers to interview each other endlessly about getting discount options on coconuts if they would just show each other just a little bit more of their undies. Ken. -- And in a capitalist society Crime is the last vestige of liberty -- Killdozer, 1994 --- cut here --- Selling your personal data From HBS Working Knowledge Special to CNET News.com September 1, 2003 It's a startling idea: Instead of relying on regulators to protect our privacy against telemarketers, data miners and consumer companies, we should capitalize on the value of our personal information and get something in return. That is the idea put forward by John Deighton, a Harvard Business School professor, in a recent working paper titled Market Solutions to Privacy Problems? Just what would consumers get in return for their personal information? Money perhaps, or price discounts, better customer service, maybe products tailored specifically to their needs. His point: The information that is gathered about you by stores, researchers and credit agencies belongs to those companies, not to you. They in turn resell that information to others. So if our personal information is such an asset, shouldn't we benefit from our asset as well? Why shouldn't intelligent consumers sell their identities to stores they trust? And wouldn't those trusted stores in return be motivated to use that information wisely? The challenge is to give people a claim on their identities while protecting them from mistreatment, Deighton said. The solution is to create institutions that allow consumers to build and claim the value of their marketplace identities and that give producers the incentive to respect them. We asked Deighton to elaborate on his ideas. -- Q: You argue that market forces can do a better job than regulators in protecting privacy. In general, what is wrong with a regulatory approach? Isn't the telemarketing hotline working? A: Regulation solution routinely disappoints. Rules lag behind the cunning of those who want to exploit the limitations of the rules, particularly in the nimble digital world. The do-not-call list is the rich desserts of a thoroughly nasty industry. The saddest thing about it is that it will not put an end to uninvited outbound telemarketing. You'll still get calls from firms you deal with, including those you have no choice but to deal with such as local phone companies. Politicians will still be free to call. It took 20 years for politicians to act on their constituencies' widespread indignation. Don't count on regulation to solve anything in time or on budget. This is what makes a market-based way to deliver consumer privacy attractive. Markets have an advantage in that they set cunning against cunning and self-adjust to technological innovation. But the idea of offering the opportunity to buy privacy is hard to swallow--if privacy is something to which we are entitled, should our share of it depend on ability to pay? Inevitably it does. Whenever we claim privacy, we incur a cost in the form of a loss of valued identity. Our identity is an asset to the extent that others value access to us and use it in ways that benefit us. The idea of offering the opportunity to buy privacy is hard to swallow. The challenge is to give people a claim on their identities while protecting them from mistreatment. The solution is to create institutions that allow consumers to build and claim the value of their marketplace identities and that give producers the incentive to respect them. Privacy and identity then become opposing economic goods, and consumers can choose how much of each they would like to consume. There is some evidence to suggest that markets evolve toward this solution of their own accord, but regulation can accelerate the evolution. Q: Why is the distinction between privacy as a right and identity as an asset an important one to consider? A right, as I use it, is just a claim that takes precedence over merely contractual or customary claims. It draws its authority from established constitutional, religious or humanistic principles. In this sense, a right cannot be bought or sold. By contrast, an asset is a possession or quality with value in exchange as well as in use. It is property with a market price and opportunity cost. Rights are matters for regulation, assets are matters safely and usually better left to markets. Framed in these terms, here
US Ambassador Schneider on data privacy
The most important technological development of the late 20th century is arguably the advance in Information Technology. The world is increasingly information-rich and information dependent. The unfettered ability to tap into those flows of information already is critical to many businesses and organizations. In the near future, that information dependency will be universal. Electronic Commerce appears to be a key component of our common destiny. This is why my government is deeply concerned about the issue of data privacy. - Remarks by Ambassador Cynthia P. Schneider at The Hague and Amsterdam American Business Clubs, as prepared The Hague, Holiday Inn Crown Plaza, January 26, 2000 Source: http://www.usemb.nl/012600.htm
Ritualistic chantings, the stock market, and the right to privacy
I'm looking for readings for an undergraduate course about the link between the social market and social norms about acceptable business behavior in the USA. For instance, I'm interested in analyses of how the change between #1 and #2 occurred: 1) layoffs by businesses during good economic times in the USA where very difficult to justify in the "court of public opinion" (before 1980) 2) layoffs by businesses during good economic times can be socially justified by the ritualistic chanting by the business of "the stock market requires we boost profitability (in the 1990s). Of course social norms about layoffs are only one of many that have changed. Also, is there anything on current tensions about changing social norms for business behavior? For instance, social norms about business's invasion of individuals' right to privacy on the Internet are not a site of conflict. For instance, DoubleClick recently had to back off on their plans to merge various databases holding information about individuals not because it was illegal but because of "public outcry": this behavior violated social norms. However, I would bet that in 20 years this "public outcry" will have become a faint sound as social standards against invasions of privacy by businesses fade away. Is there anything written on this sort of process? Thanks for any help. Eric Nilsson
Re: Ritualistic chantings,the stock market,and the right to privacy
Not really what Eric asked for, but a delightful example of business ethics appeared in the London "Times" in February. The following letter to the Times quotes the essential part. (Stagecoach is a UK-based transnational transport firm with holdings in Sweden, Eastern Europe, Africa, China, New Zealand, and recently the US. It has a particularly unsavoury ethical and industrial record.) Bill Rosenberg Sir, In his report on Stagecoach, Fraser Nelson (Business February 17) quotes the chairman Brian Souter as saying: "If we were to apply the values of the Sermon on the Mount to our business, we would be rooked within six months. Ethics are not irrelevant, but some are incompatible with what we have to do because capitalism is based on greed. We call it a dichotomy, not hypocrisy." This must be a classic of its kind, and represents the ultimate rationalisation of what Cicero meant when he said, over 2,000 years ago, long before the Sermon on the Mount, that "It is the error of men who are not strictly upright to seize upon something that seems to be expedient and straight away to dissociate it from the question of moral right." Yours sincerely, G.S. Guest. Eric Nilsson wrote: I'm looking for readings for an undergraduate course about the link between the social market and social norms about acceptable business behavior in the USA. For instance, I'm interested in analyses of how the change between #1 and #2 occurred: 1) layoffs by businesses during good economic times in the USA where very difficult to justify in the "court of public opinion" (before 1980) 2) layoffs by businesses during good economic times can be socially justified by the ritualistic chanting by the business of "the stock market requires we boost profitability (in the 1990s). Of course social norms about layoffs are only one of many that have changed. Also, is there anything on current tensions about changing social norms for business behavior? For instance, social norms about business's invasion of individuals' right to privacy on the Internet are not a site of conflict. For instance, DoubleClick recently had to back off on their plans to merge various databases holding information about individuals not because it was illegal but because of "public outcry": this behavior violated social norms. However, I would bet that in 20 years this "public outcry" will have become a faint sound as social standards against invasions of privacy by businesses fade away. Is there anything written on this sort of process? Thanks for any help. Eric Nilsson
[PEN-L:7606] SISTEMA ELECTRÓNICO PARA LA TRANSFERENCIA DE LA POTENCIA ECONÓMICA Y POLÍTICA A LAGENTEHelp - AltaVista HomeEn Español:SISTEMA ELECTRÓNICO PARA LA TRANSFERENCIA DE LA POTENCIA ECONÓMICA Y POLÍTICA A LAGENTETo translate, type plain text or the address (URL) of a Web page here:Translate from:Put the power of Babel Fish into your browser from the Babel Fish Tool page.Download SYSTRAN Personal and translate your private documents in seconds.AltaVista Home | Help | Feedback©1995-98 | Disclaimer | Privacy | Advertising InfoHelp - AltaVista Home
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit CONSUMIDORES DE TODOS LOS PAÍSES, UNEN! La gente no tiene ninguna influencia. Toda la potencia económica y política se concentra en las corporaciones transnacionales, su monopolio de los medios de masas y sus políticos. Y desde su punto de vista la gente está solamente de interés 1. - como trabajo auxiliar, solamente ser mantenido descubierto vivo en el nivel mínimo de la existencia, - esto que da lugar a la lucha general de la clase - pero en el mismo tiempo también 2. - como consumidores para guardar la maquinaria del beneficio el ejecutarse en la velocidad máxima. El gran potencial de este otro papel más agradable el nuestros se ha explotado hasta ahora solamente a un fragmento muy limitado y solamente para los propósitos defensivos. Déjenos tan amplían la lucha de la clase con explotar este potencial en una estrategia OFENSIVA: Utilicemos las contradicciones que existen dentro de los barones de ladrón para escudarse a nuestra ventaja y para desarmar su lucha imperialista concluído mercados y recursos antes de que ahora conduzca de nuevo a la guerra mundial. Utilicemos el hecho de que es nuestro dinero que los ladrones están luchando encima, y jugar los depredadores hacia fuera contra eachother, antes de que tengan éxito en terminar el proceso del monopolization. Porqué si permanecemos siempre en la defensiva aunque los vendedores son totalmente dependientes en nuestra buena voluntad de comprar sus productos! GLOBAL la potencia de los consumidores se puede utilizar para la internacionalización de las corporaciones. Esta estrategia del parlamento formativo del mundo DE LA GENTE UNIDA para salvar nuestro planeta tiene direccionamiento http://www.unitedpeoples.net del Web site (bajo construcción). REGIONALMENTE y NACIONALMENTE la potencia de los consumidores se puede utilizar para la toma de posesión de la gente de la propiedad o de la parte de los beneficios de compañías nacionales o de empresas corporativas locales de la producción o de la distribución. En cada país forman un partido unido de la gente o, al comienzo con, a un comité de la potencia de los consumidores, un " CPC ", abarcando organizaciones, los movimientos y a individuos progresivos y aprobado por el parlamento del mundo. El CPC puede abarcar a un grupo de países vecinos. El análisis del mercado y de la identificación de los productos y de las empresas que se apuntarán es realizado por el profesional progresivo economistas/NGOs/estudiantes bajo dirección del CPC. Las tareas de los miembros serán, pues los consumidores, comprar, boicotean respectivamente continuamente o por un período del tiempo especificado los productos precisaron por el CPC, y motivarán el resto de la población para hacer igual. EJEMPLO: Tres empresas, A, B y C, están vendiendo productos casi idénticos y comparten el mercado como sigue: A B C Partes del mercado: xx A B C Beneficios: xx Dependiendo del mercado, de la fuerza del CPC, del etc., cada de las empresas se pide cualquiera A) - si está dispuesto a volcar la propiedad a la gente, si se elige como la única para sobrevivir, el dinero invertido de los accionistas que se pagará detrás concluído un período del tiempo especificado, o B) - cómo la gran parte de sus beneficios adicionales él asignará a la gente, si se elige como la única o una de las pocas empresas que productos no serán boicoteados. Si, por ejemplo, A y B hacen una oferta lo más arriba posible, el CPC puede elegir dejó mercado de la parte c de A y de B y beneficio de la parte c con la gente, más bien que dejó A o B conseguir monopolio completo: A B Partes del mercado: xx A B CPC Beneficios: x xxx xx Todo por supuesto será basado en un acuerdo escrito de antemano. SISTEMA ELECTRÓNICO PARA MOVILIZAR A LOS CONSUMIDORES Y DOCUMENTAR EL NÚMERO DE PARTICIPANTES 1. Una base de datos administrada por el parlamento del mundo de la gente unida, http://www.unitedpeoples.net Hasta que han elegido al primer parlamento, los organizadores funcionarán como un parlamento provisional. La base de datos salva las huellas digitales biométricas digitalizadas de todos los consumidores que participan por todo el mundo. La documentación de los consumidores activos del af del número extenso permite al parlamento del mundo poner la presión en las corporaciones transnacionales para los propósitos ecológicos, económicos y políticos. 2. El
[PEN-L:1193] Re: Emergency civil liberties appeal for Jim Craven's right to privacy
have made their mark. This is a communication that Jim just received from a Clark College administrator: FROM: Chuck Ramsey, Interim Vice President of Instruction TO: Professor Jim Craven "We have received a complaint/expression of concern about your use of College e-mail. So that I may gather relevant information about the complaint, you are hereby directed to provide paper copies of all e-mails you have sent or received, using College e-mail or other electronic resources, that name or refer, directly or indirectly, to Kevin Annett. You are directed to provide paper copies of all these e-mails to the Office of Instruction no later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 24, 1998." Jim has asked me to contact people wide and far to send email to Clark College to protest this violation of his political expression and right to privacy. The school has no right to demand that he turn over his private email. Jim is even conscientious enough to include the words "My Employer has no association with my private/protected OPINION" at the end of all his communications. Email supporting Jim's right to privacy should be sent to President Tana Hasart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1184] Re: Emergency civil liberties appeal for Jim Craven'sright to privacy
At 18:30 22/11/98 -0500, you wrote: Anyway, here is a copy of the letter I sent. If the address was right, then it went to the right place. Professor Tana Hasart President, Clark College Dear Professor Hasart, I have learnt that there is an attempt to suppress the freedom of speech of a senior academic of your college, Professor Jim Craven, due to his unorthodox political views; as it appears from the below cited communication from Chuck Ramsey, Interim Vice President of Instruction. Professor Craven is well known in the international academic cerciles for being a good scholar and a man of high integrity. If freedom of speech is not secure in an academic institution, then where should we look for it? I think this sort of actions do not augur well for Western democracy. And definitely gives a bad name to your college. I hope you will intervene personally and restore Professor Craven's right to free speech without intimidation and harassment. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. Ajit Sinha FROM: Chuck Ramsey, Interim Vice President of Instruction TO: Professor Jim Craven "We have received a complaint/expression of concern about your use of College e-mail. So that I may gather relevant information about the complaint, you are hereby directed to provide paper copies of all e-mails you have sent or received, using College e-mail or other electronic resources, that name or refer, directly or indirectly, to Kevin Annett. You are directed to provide paper copies of all these e-mails to the Office of Instruction no later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 24, 1998." In the course of getting to know Jim Craven, I have been made privy to his various battles in Indian country and academia. Jim is a Blackfoot Indian who teaches economics at Clark College in Washington State. Lately fights in these two worlds have become meshed in such a way as to threaten his employment. These are the facts. Jim has been embroiled in various battles with the College administration for a number of years, mainly revolving around issues like corruption, due process, hiring and academic standards. Jim is not only an outspoken radical, but has a blunt and uncompromising style. His tenure has protected him, but he has become such a thorn in the side of the administration that they are trying to fire him nonetheless. Part of the ammunition they are trying to use against him involves his role in exposing a former cleric named Kevin Annett. As an expert witness in an inquiry on residential schools in Canada (based on dubious credentials, as it turned out), Annett used his access to testimony in order to promote his career. The material on videotapes of horribly abused Canadian Indians found their way into an article Annett wrote for some journal. The material was used without the permission of the Indian victims and activists, who are organized in a group called Circle of Justice. Annett was once a member of the group but has been expelled for his high-handed behavior. Jim has been a forceful spokesman for the Circle of Justice people and has written both private and public email making their case for returning the tapes. Annett has now contacted Clark College and demand that they do something about Jim, whose criticisms of Annett have made their mark. This is a communication that Jim just received from a Clark College administrator: FROM: Chuck Ramsey, Interim Vice President of Instruction TO: Professor Jim Craven "We have received a complaint/expression of concern about your use of College e-mail. So that I may gather relevant information about the complaint, you are hereby directed to provide paper copies of all e-mails you have sent or received, using College e-mail or other electronic resources, that name or refer, directly or indirectly, to Kevin Annett. You are directed to provide paper copies of all these e-mails to the Office of Instruction no later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 24, 1998." Jim has asked me to contact people wide and far to send email to Clark College to protest this violation of his political expression and right to privacy. The school has no right to demand that he turn over his private email. Jim is even conscientious enough to include the words "My Employer has no association with my private/protected OPINION" at the end of all his communications. Email supporting Jim's right to privacy should be sent to President Tana Hasart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:1183] Re: Emergency civil liberties appeal for Jim Craven'sright to privacy
Isn't Jim teaching somewhere in Canada? Could you please confirm that the e-mail for the President of the college you have given below is correct. Cheers, ajit sinha At 18:30 22/11/98 -0500, you wrote: In the course of getting to know Jim Craven, I have been made privy to his various battles in Indian country and academia. Jim is a Blackfoot Indian who teaches economics at Clark College in Washington State. Lately fights in these two worlds have become meshed in such a way as to threaten his employment. These are the facts. Jim has been embroiled in various battles with the College administration for a number of years, mainly revolving around issues like corruption, due process, hiring and academic standards. Jim is not only an outspoken radical, but has a blunt and uncompromising style. His tenure has protected him, but he has become such a thorn in the side of the administration that they are trying to fire him nonetheless. Part of the ammunition they are trying to use against him involves his role in exposing a former cleric named Kevin Annett. As an expert witness in an inquiry on residential schools in Canada (based on dubious credentials, as it turned out), Annett used his access to testimony in order to promote his career. The material on videotapes of horribly abused Canadian Indians found their way into an article Annett wrote for some journal. The material was used without the permission of the Indian victims and activists, who are organized in a group called Circle of Justice. Annett was once a member of the group but has been expelled for his high-handed behavior. Jim has been a forceful spokesman for the Circle of Justice people and has written both private and public email making their case for returning the tapes. Annett has now contacted Clark College and demand that they do something about Jim, whose criticisms of Annett have made their mark. This is a communication that Jim just received from a Clark College administrator: FROM: Chuck Ramsey, Interim Vice President of Instruction TO: Professor Jim Craven "We have received a complaint/expression of concern about your use of College e-mail. So that I may gather relevant information about the complaint, you are hereby directed to provide paper copies of all e-mails you have sent or received, using College e-mail or other electronic resources, that name or refer, directly or indirectly, to Kevin Annett. You are directed to provide paper copies of all these e-mails to the Office of Instruction no later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 24, 1998." Jim has asked me to contact people wide and far to send email to Clark College to protest this violation of his political expression and right to privacy. The school has no right to demand that he turn over his private email. Jim is even conscientious enough to include the words "My Employer has no association with my private/protected OPINION" at the end of all his communications. Email supporting Jim's right to privacy should be sent to President Tana Hasart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:1175] Re: Re: Emergency civil liberties appeal for JimCraven's right to privacy
At 04:27 PM 11/23/98 -0500, you wrote: Louis, Thanks for letting us know about Jim's situation. I, for one, have sent a message of support and hope others do so as well. BTW, Louis, I thought you weren't a fan of academic tenure. Changed your mind? Barkley Rosser The only thing that ever bugged me was tenured radicals who neither engage in political struggle, nor who challenge the underlying assumptions of capitalist society. I have learned to develop an enormous amount of respect for Michael Perelman even though, as far as I know, he does "nothing" except write books on a yearly basis that are the theoretical equivalent of a molotov cocktail. His latest, which I had the good fortune to read while it was being written, strips away all the illusions about how peasants welcomed the idea of joining the working-class. One of my biggest gripes about a certain form of dogmatic Marxism is that it assumes that people left the farm and moved to the city because there was indoor plumbing and department stores there. It took me a while to figure out that not all tenured radicals were bad guys, but in case I owe anybody a belated apology: I'm sorry. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:1173] Re: Emergency civil liberties appeal for Jim Craven's right to privacy
Louis, Thanks for letting us know about Jim's situation. I, for one, have sent a message of support and hope others do so as well. BTW, Louis, I thought you weren't a fan of academic tenure. Changed your mind? Barkley Rosser On Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:30:40 -0500 Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the course of getting to know Jim Craven, I have been made privy to his various battles in Indian country and academia. Jim is a Blackfoot Indian who teaches economics at Clark College in Washington State. Lately fights in these two worlds have become meshed in such a way as to threaten his employment. These are the facts. Jim has been embroiled in various battles with the College administration for a number of years, mainly revolving around issues like corruption, due process, hiring and academic standards. Jim is not only an outspoken radical, but has a blunt and uncompromising style. His tenure has protected him, but he has become such a thorn in the side of the administration that they are trying to fire him nonetheless. Part of the ammunition they are trying to use against him involves his role in exposing a former cleric named Kevin Annett. As an expert witness in an inquiry on residential schools in Canada (based on dubious credentials, as it turned out), Annett used his access to testimony in order to promote his career. The material on videotapes of horribly abused Canadian Indians found their way into an article Annett wrote for some journal. The material was used without the permission of the Indian victims and activists, who are organized in a group called Circle of Justice. Annett was once a member of the group but has been expelled for his high-handed behavior. Jim has been a forceful spokesman for the Circle of Justice people and has written both private and public email making their case for returning the tapes. Annett has now contacted Clark College and demand that they do something about Jim, whose criticisms of Annett have made their mark. This is a communication that Jim just received from a Clark College administrator: FROM: Chuck Ramsey, Interim Vice President of Instruction TO: Professor Jim Craven "We have received a complaint/expression of concern about your use of College e-mail. So that I may gather relevant information about the complaint, you are hereby directed to provide paper copies of all e-mails you have sent or received, using College e-mail or other electronic resources, that name or refer, directly or indirectly, to Kevin Annett. You are directed to provide paper copies of all these e-mails to the Office of Instruction no later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 24, 1998." Jim has asked me to contact people wide and far to send email to Clark College to protest this violation of his political expression and right to privacy. The school has no right to demand that he turn over his private email. Jim is even conscientious enough to include the words "My Employer has no association with my private/protected OPINION" at the end of all his communications. Email supporting Jim's right to privacy should be sent to President Tana Hasart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12192] ALERT: Congress near a vote on Net privacy legislation; call now! (fwd)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 12:12:45 -0400 From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ALERT: Congress near a vote on Net privacy legislation; call now! == ___ _ _ _ _ / _ \| | | | _ \_ _| | Congress is about to vote on privacy and | |_| | | | _| | |_) || | | | security on the Net. Call your member of | _ | |___| |___| _ | | |_| Congress before September 17, 1997 |_| |_|_|_|_| \_\|_| (_)Posted September 8, 1997 Please forward where appropriate until September 17, 1997 This alert brought to you by the Voters Telecommunications Watch, the Center for Democracy Technology, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation _ Table of Contents What's Happening Right Now What You Can Do To Help Privacy And Security On The Internet Background On SAFE (HR. 695) About This Alert _ WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW During the next two weeks two Congressional committees (the House Intelligence and National Security committees) will vote on the "Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act" (SAFE, HR 695) -- important legislation designed to protect privacy and security on the Internet by encouraging the widespread availability of strong, easy-to-use encryption technologies. Opponents of the bill include the FBI, NSA and members of the Clinton Administration. They seek to force all Americans to provide guaranteed law enforcement access to private online communications by imposing "key recovery" systems inside the U.S., have a great deal of support in Congress. It is possible that Congress could amend SAFE in a way that undermines privacy and allows the government broad new surveillance power. This is a critical moment in the fight for privacy and security on the Internet. Your member of Congress needs to know that you care about privacy and security on the Internet. Please take a moment to read the instructions below or details on how you can help protect privacy and security online. A summary of the bill and pointers to additional information are also included below. Five minutes of your time will go a long way. WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW Please call your Representative. THIS WEEK to express your support for the SAFE and urge them to oppose any amendments to impose key recovery or modify the export relief provisions. INSTRUCTIONS: IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS IS 1. Go to http://www.crypto.com/member/ and enter your zip code to find your member of Congress and all the information needed for contacting them. or IF YOU KNOW WHO YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS IS 1. Pick up the phone and call 202-225-3121, ask for you Representative. 2. Ask for the staffer that handles the encryption issue. 3. Urge your Rep. to support SAFE (HR695) and to oppose Administration efforts to modify the bill. Feel free to use your own words but be sure to stress the points below: - Encryption is critical National Security by protecting sensitive data and critical points on the National Information Infrastructure like the Air Traffic Control System and the power grid from attacks. - SAFE will encourage the widespread availability of strong, easy to use encryption. - SAFE will help foil hackers, terrorists, and foreign spies from obtaining unauthorized access to personal, business, and government communications and data. - Key escrow or key recovery systems will hurt national security by creating new points of vulnerability and new targets for hackers and terrorists to seek to exploit, and will not work to prevent crime. - Key recovery comes at a grave cost to privacy and security. Why would a criminal use an encryption product that they know the US government holds the keys to? 4. IMPORTANT! -- PLEASE LET US KNOW HOW IT WENT! Visit our feedback page at: http://www.crypto.com/member/ or a href="http://www.crypto.com/member/"Crypto.Com feedback/a ...and let us know how it went! 5. Please forward this alert to your friends and colleagues who live in your congressional district. 6. Finally, relax! You have done more to help fight for privacy and security on the Internet in 5 minutes than most people do in a year! We appreciate your support! BACKGROUND ON SAFE (HR 695) The Security And Freedom Through Encryption Act (SAFE) seeks to protect
[PEN-L:9745] ALERT! Hse. Committee to Vote on Internet Privacy Bill Soon (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:39:26 -0400 From: Bob Palacios [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ALERT! Hse. Committee to Vote on Internet Privacy Bill Soon Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:37:55 -0400 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == ___ _ _ _ _ / _ \| | | | _ \_ _| | THE HOUSE PREPARES TO ENSURE ENCRYPTION | |_| | | | _| | |_) || | | |AND PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET; SAFE | _ | |___| |___| _ | | |_| BILL (HR 695) ABOUT TO BE VOTED ON! |_| |_|_|_|_| \_\|_| (_) April 28, 1997 Do not forward this alert after June 1, 1997. This alert brought to you by: Americans for Tax ReformCenter for Democracy and Technology Eagle Forum EF-Florida Electronic Frontier Foundation Electronic Privacy Information Ctr. Voters Telecommunications Watch Wired Magazine _ Table of Contents What's Happening Right Now What You Can Do To Help Privacy And Security On The Internet Background On SAFE (HR 695) Why Is This Issue Important To Internet Users? About This Alert / Participating Organizations _ WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON "SAFE" PRO-INTERNET PRIVACY BILL The House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on a bill designed to protect privacy and promote electronic commerce on the Internet as early as the second week of May. The SAFE bill will also be considered by a Judiciary subcommittee this week and is expected to pass without difficulty. The House Judiciary committee vote on HR695 will mark a critical stage in the effort to pass real reform of US encryption policy in a way that protects privacy, promotes electronic commerce, and recognizes the realities of the global Internet. Although no bill is perfect, Internet advocates including CDT, EFF, EPIC, VTW and others, including the Internet Privacy Coalition, have expressed support for the bill. Supporters agree that the SAFE bill holds great promise for enhancing privacy and security on the Internet and have offered their strong support and suggestions to improve it in a detailed letter at http://www.privacy.org/ipc/safe_letter.html Please take a moment to read the attached alert, and make a phone call to urge the committee to pass the bill. ___ WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP PRIVACY AND SECURITY ON THE INTERNET 1. Check out the information on the SAFE bill below. 2. Call the Representative on the Judiciary committee from your state. Note that there may be more than one person from your state on the committee. The list is enclosed below the telephone script. SAMPLE SCRIPT You: dial Capitol switchboard +1.202.224.3121 May I speak to the office of Rep. (INSERT NAME FROM LIST BELOW) Them: Hello, Rep. Mojo's office! You: May I speak with the staffer who deals with Internet or telecom issues? Them: One minute.. SAYYou: Hello! HR695 will be voted on by the Judiciary committee in a THIS- couple of weeks. I'm calling to urge Rep. Mojo to pass the bill because it's important to security and privacy on the Internet. Them: Thanks, goodbye! You: Goodbye! click If you have concerns about specific improvements to the bill, bringing them up when you're on the phone with the staffer is a good opportunity for raising issues. Judiciary Committee Members (from committee Web page) MR. HYDE (ILLINOIS), CHAIRMAN Mr. Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin)Mr. Conyers (Michigan) Mr. McCollum (Florida) Mr. Frank (Massachusetts) Mr. Gekas (Pennsylvania) Mr. Schumer (New York) Mr. Coble (North Carolina) Mr. Berman (California) Mr. Smith (Texas)Mr. Boucher (Virginia) Mr. Schiff (New Mexico) Mr. Nadler (New York) Mr. Gallegly (California)Mr. Scott (Virginia) Mr. Canady (Florida) Mr. Watt (North Carolina) Mr. Inglis (South Carolina) Ms. Lofgren (California) Mr. Goodlatte (Virginia) Ms. Jackson Lee (Texas) Mr. Buyer (Indiana) Ms. Waters (California) Mr. Bono (California)Mr. Meehan (Massachusetts) Mr. Bryant (Tennessee) Mr. Delahunt (Massachusetts) Mr. Chabot (Ohio)Mr. Wexler (Florida)
[PEN-L:8858] Privacy Protection Conference (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 17:06:19 -0800 From: Colin Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Privacy Protection Conference Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Colleagues: Over the last year or so, there have been a number of developments in the complicated and dynamic world of privacy protection policy to which, I believe, the Advisory Council and the BC Government will have to respond. These include: 1) The passage of the Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) -- the national privacy standard for Canada. 2) The pledge by the Federal government to pass legislation to protect privacy in the private sector by the year 2000.This will almost certainly be based on the CSA standard. 3) The resulting consultations with the provinces about policy harmonization and the federal/provincial jurisdiction over this issue. 4) The drafting of a model privacy law through the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. 5) The passage of a European Union Directive on Data Protection that is expected to have major consequences for those businesses that rely on international data flows. Needless to say these developments have profound consequences for any organization that collects, stores and processes individually identifiable information in BC. They also have implications for the operation of the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (due for fundamental review and possible revision over the next year or so), as well as for other provincial statutes. These issues are the subject of a one-day conference on April 19th organized by myself and two other colleagues under the auspices of the UBC School of Library, Archival and Information Studies (SLAIS). We will explain international and national policy developments, outline the requirements within the CSA privacy standard and attempt to explain what this new standard means for organizations in the public and private sectors. If any of you is interested in attending, further details can be obtained from the UBC SLAIS - (604) 822-2404, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The workshop programme is also posted on the website of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (www.oipcbc.org). Or of course you can contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I look forward to seeing you again on the 20th. Colin Bennett
[PEN-L:8242] Re: Privacy in the Workplace (fwd)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 15 03:31 PST 1997 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:31:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl Cuneo (EVNET Program Leader)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] PBS did an excellent video about the ways in which companies going online with websites are collecting information on people, and using it to sell them their products, without any knowlege on the part of the internet surfers that such data is being collected on them merely by the fact that they are hitting these companies' web sites, and/or filling out some forms. The name of the video is: High Stakes in Cyberspace. Carl
[PEN-L:8242] Re: Privacy in the Workplace (fwd)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 15 03:31 PST 1997 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:31:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Carl Cuneo (EVNET Program Leader)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] PBS did an excellent video about the ways in which companies going online with websites are collecting information on people, and using it to sell them their products, without any knowlege on the part of the internet surfers that such data is being collected on them merely by the fact that they are hitting these companies' web sites, and/or filling out some forms. The name of the video is: High Stakes in Cyberspace. Carl
[PEN-L:8228] Privacy in the workplace
'Brave new world' in the workplace: BIG BROTHER'S WATCHING Most people are unaware of just how much bosses are invading workers' privacy. According to a survey by the American Civil Liberties Union, it's a lot. A new ACLU report on worker rights -- including free speech, due process, equality, and privacy -- says more than 20 million American workers are subject to electronic surveillance -- up from 8 million in 1990, when the last study was done. Workers are monitored by computer terminals, time clocks, telephone keypads, and other devices. If you're unplugged from your terminal for what the boss thinks is too many trips to the restroom, you could risk discipline. Over the last six years, as the percentage of major companies requiring drug testing climbed from 38 to 70 percent, employers have also been administering genetic tests, which can reveal potential health problems and influence hiring or promotion. In a Georgetown University survey of people with family genetic disorders, 43 percent claimed they were denied insurance or a job based on the disclosures of potential genetic problems. One woman was fired a day after she told her boss she had a genetic disease. Consumers are affected, too. Some 400 million phone calls every year are monitored thanks to a federal loophole exempting eavesdropping on "job-related" employee conversations. Unless workers have union contracts, they have no legal recourse if management decides to fire them because of what they might say on or off the job. Up to now, the ACLU notes, efforts to get states to pass laws protecting constitutional rights on the job have met with only moderate success. "Legislators have been resistant to considering, much less passing, new laws that would protect private-sector workers," it said. -- UAW Solidarity December, 1996
[PEN-L:8228] Privacy in the workplace
'Brave new world' in the workplace: BIG BROTHER'S WATCHING Most people are unaware of just how much bosses are invading workers' privacy. According to a survey by the American Civil Liberties Union, it's a lot. A new ACLU report on worker rights -- including free speech, due process, equality, and privacy -- says more than 20 million American workers are subject to electronic surveillance -- up from 8 million in 1990, when the last study was done. Workers are monitored by computer terminals, time clocks, telephone keypads, and other devices. If you're unplugged from your terminal for what the boss thinks is too many trips to the restroom, you could risk discipline. Over the last six years, as the percentage of major companies requiring drug testing climbed from 38 to 70 percent, employers have also been administering genetic tests, which can reveal potential health problems and influence hiring or promotion. In a Georgetown University survey of people with family genetic disorders, 43 percent claimed they were denied insurance or a job based on the disclosures of potential genetic problems. One woman was fired a day after she told her boss she had a genetic disease. Consumers are affected, too. Some 400 million phone calls every year are monitored thanks to a federal loophole exempting eavesdropping on "job-related" employee conversations. Unless workers have union contracts, they have no legal recourse if management decides to fire them because of what they might say on or off the job. Up to now, the ACLU notes, efforts to get states to pass laws protecting constitutional rights on the job have met with only moderate success. "Legislators have been resistant to considering, much less passing, new laws that would protect private-sector workers," it said. -- UAW Solidarity December, 1996
[PEN-L:1749] Re: Privacy Watchdog Outs Big Brother Companies (fwd)
New York area list-ers: I'm going to have the director of Privacy International on my radio show on Thurs eve, 5-6 PM, WBAI (99.5 FM) to talk about the surveillance report. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:1729] Privacy Watchdog Outs Big Brother Companies (fwd)
Date: 4 Dec 1995 10:33:40 -0500 From: "Dave Banisar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "CPSR Civil Liberties Group" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PRIVACY WATCHDOG OUTS BIG B MEDIA RELEASE Contact: Simon Davies, Privacy International [EMAIL PROTECTED] PRIVACY WATCHDOG OUTS BIG BROTHER COMPANIES New report uncovers a massive international surveillance trade funded by the arms industry and led by the UK On Monday 4 December, Privacy International will publish Big Brother Incorporated, a 150 page report which investigates the global trade in repressive surveillance technologies. The report, to be published on several Web sites on the Internet, shows how technology companies in Europe and North America provide the surveillance infrastructure for the secret police and military authorities in such countries as China, Indonesia, Nigeria, Angola, Rwanda and Guatemala The reports primary concern is the flow of sophisticated computer-based technology from developed countries to developing countries - and particularly to non-democratic regimes. The report demonstrates how these companies have strengthened the lethal authority of the world's most dangerous regimes. The report lists the companies, their directors, products and exports. In each case, source material is meticulously cited. Privacy International is publishing the report in digital form in several sites on the Internet to ensure its accessability by interested parties anywhere in the world. Surveillance technologies are defined as technologies which can monitor, track and assess the movements, activities and communications of individuals. More than 80 British companies are involved, making the UK the world leader in this field. Other countries, in order of significance, are the United States, France, Israel, the Netherlands and Germany. _Big Brother Incorporated_ is the first investigation ever conducted into this trade. Privacy International intends to update the report from time to time using trade fair documents and leaked information from whistleblowers. The surveillance trade is almost indistinguishable from the arms trade. More than seventy per cent of companies manufacturing and exporting surveillance technology also export arms, chemical weapons, or military hardware. Surveillance is a crucial element for the maintenance of any non-democratic infrastructure, and is an important activity in the pursuit of intelligence and political control. Many countries in transition to democracy also rely heavily on surveillance to satisfy the demands of police and military. The technology described in the report makes possible mass surveillance of populations. In the past, regimes relied on targeted surveillance. Much of this technology is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders, and political opponents. It is also useful for monitoring larger sectors of the population. With this technology, the financial transactions, communications activity and geographic movements of millions of people can be captured, analysed and transmitted cheaply and efficiently. Western surveillance technology is providing invaluable support to military and totalitarian authorities throughout the world. One British computer firm provided the technological infrastructure to establish the South African automated Passbook system, upon which much of the functioning of the Apartheid regime British surveillance cameras were used in Tianamen Square against the pro-democracy demonstrators. In the 1980s, an Israeli company developed and exported the technology for the computerised death list used by the Guatemalan police. Two British companies routinely provide the Chinese authorities with bugging equipment and telephone tapping devices. Privacy International was formed in 1990 as a non-government, non-profit organisation. It brings together privacy experts, human rights advocates and technology experts in more than 40 countries, and works toward the goal of promoting privacy issues worldwide. The organisation acts as an impartial watchdog on surveillance activities by governments and corporations. For further information or interview, contact Simon Davies in London at [EMAIL PROTECTED] The address of the web site is http://www.privacy.org/pi/reports/big_bro/ _ David Banisar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Privacy International Washington Office * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.privacy.org/pi/ Washington, DC 20003
[PEN-L:1676] Howard Rheingold on highway privacy (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 12:39:02 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Howard Rheingold on highway privacy Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-URL: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list [Forwarded with permission.] Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:33:42 -0800 From: Howard Rheingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] We Need Privacy Protection On Intelligent Highways By Howard Rheingold Ominous steps have been taken recently, steps that perhaps move us all closer to a global surveillance state, but few people are aware of them. Governments around the world are installing "intelligent highways," whose snooping capabilities ought to concern every driver. I recently remarked to my friend Peter, as he drove me around Geneva, that he is scrupulous about obeying the speed limit. He told me in reply that he had on a previous occasion received in his mailbox an envelope containing a photograph of his automobile, the radar detector readout superimposed, along with a notice of his fine. On key Swiss roads, radar detectors automatically videotape speeders, computers automatically recognize the license plate number, check it against a database, and issue mail to the home address of the owner. It happens in Japan, too, and more and more locations around the world.. If my Swiss friend had not told me that story, the hair on the back of neck would not have started to stand up when I read, the next day, in the October 9, 1995 edition of the International Herald Tribune, that Kansas became the tenth state to adopt electronic toll collection. Electronic transponders installed in vehicles automatically communicate with toll collecting machinery via radio, and tolls are automatically deducted from the driver's account. The following day, October 10, the same newspaper reported that Singapore had announced contracts to wire up the road system of the entire city-state. Singapore, never known as a bastion of civil liberties, will be able to track the location of every vehicle, and identify most drivers, on a minute-by-minute basis. A government and private industry initiative now underway proposes multibillion dollar investments in "Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems" (IVHS) in the US. These systems, combining massive numbers of embedded sensors, video cameras, chips embedded in vehicles, and even satellite global positioning signals, are now under construction in every industrialized country. IVHS promise greater convenience and perhaps safety by monitoring highway traffic, routing around jams, and automatically collecting tolls. If these systems are not designed with the privacy of citizens in mind, however, we might be buying a heap of surveillance capabilities for future secret police. This is a technology policy issue where informed groups of citizens can have an impact if we act now. It isn't a matter of banning the technology. It's a matter of making sure today that these systems are designed with the privacy of future citizens in mind. One of the best sources of information about the social impact of IVHS comes from Professor Phil Agre at the University of California, San Diego. Agre stated recently: "Society may decide that it wishes to provide law enforment with generalized abilities to track citizens' movements, but this would clearly be a grave decision - one that should be discussed well in advance rather than building the technical capabilities into ITS systems with virtually no public discussion." There is a technical fix, however. Encryption techniques make it possible to transmit account information from an automobile without disclosing the identity of the owner. However, it is critically important that the early majority of transponder manufacturers build encryption capabilities into their devices. Making privacy a standard will work far better than attempts at legislative regulation after the market has settled on a standard. Agre's reports can be found on the Web at http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html. To access his whimsically-named but extremely useful "Red Rock Eater News Service," via e-mail send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: archive help. We still have time to do something about this one. We need to ask manufacturers now to consider the importance of building privacy protection into their technology. I support Agre's statement that "People need to use roads to participate in the full range of associations (educational, political, social, religious, labor, charitable, etc) that make up a free society. If we turn the roads into a zone of total surveillance then we chill that fundamental right and undermine the very foundation of freedom." END
[PEN-L:770] Privacy
FROM THE "IT'S NOT PARANOIA -- THEY'RE REALLY
WATCHING YOU" DEPARTMENT
Confidential plans to impose a national identity card on citizens of
the U.K. were recently discovered in a government-surplus file
cabinet bougth for about $55 in a junk shop. The file cabinet
contained a confidential memo to Prime Minister John Major along
with the proposed design of the smart card and a 17-page report
describing implementation by the year 2000.
The paper showed that the Home Secretary is eager to introduce a
compulsory ID card despite a recent Gallup poll showing widespread
public worry about the security of the cards and their capacity for
gathering more personal information.
-- From the Privacy Journal, cited in the Sept-Oct. 1995
bulletin of the British Columbia Freedom of Information and
Privacy Association
