Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 06 Issue 50
Computer underground Digest Tue June 7, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 50
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Copy Dittoer: Etaoian Shrdlu
CONTENTS, #6.50 (June 7, 1994)
File 1--Ghost in the Modem (Loka Alert 1:6 Wash. Post) (fwd)
File 2--VR evidence in court cases
File 3--Electronic Privacy Petition (Texas)
File 4--Re: "Problems at TCOE" (CuD 6.47)
File 5--Trade-secrets case (Schrader/Hauser) dropped - Summary
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 21:01:06
From: Phil Agre <pagre@WEBER.UCSD.EDU>
Subject: File 1--Ghost in the Modem (Loka Alert 1:6 Wash. Post) (fwd)
Date--Sun, 29 May 1994 22:40:43 -0500 (EST)
From--RESCLOVE@amherst.edu
Loka Alert 1:6 (May 29, 1994)
>From the Sunday _Washington Post_:
IF INFORMATION HIGHWAYS ARE ANYTHING LIKE
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS--WATCH OUT!
Friends and Colleagues:
This is one in an occasional series of e-mail postings on
democratic politics of science and technology, issued by The Loka
Institute. You are welcome to post it anywhere you feel is
appropriate. The following essay, written by Loka Institute
members, is reprinted from the Outlook Section of _The Washington
Post_, Sunday, May 29, 1994.
--Dick Sclove
Executive Director, The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355,
Amherst, MA 01004-0355, USA
Tel. 413 253-2828; Fax 413 253-4942
E-mail: resclove@amherst.edu
*****************************************************************
THE GHOST IN THE MODEM
For Architects of the Info-Highway, Some Lessons
From the Concrete Interstate
By Richard Sclove and Jeffrey Scheuer
Vice President Gore envisions the information superhighway as the
second coming of the interstate highway system championed by his
father, former U.S. Senator Al Gore, a generation ago. Let us hope
that the junior Gore is proven wrong. Rush-hour fatality rates, air
pollution, global warming, depletion of world oil reserves--have we
forgotten all of the interstate highway system's most familiar
consequences?
It's not that Gore's analogy is wrong, only that his enthusiasm
is misplaced. Comparing the electronic and asphalt highways is
useful--but mostly as a cautionary tale. Building the new information
infrastructure will not entail the degree of immediate, physical
disruption caused by the interstate highway system. But sweeping
geographic relocations, and accompanying social transformations, seem
probable. And the risk of inequity in contriving and distributing
electronic services--or, conversely, imposing them where they are not
wanted--is clear.
Indeed, disparities in access to new information systems have
already begun to surface. A study released this past week by a group
of public interest organizations, including the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People and the Center for Media
Education, notes that low-income and minority communities are
underrepresented in U.S. telephone companies's initial plans for
installing advanced communications networks.
Unequal access is only the most obvious among many social
repercussions that may lie in store for us. The real history of the
interstate highway system suggests how we can think about and control
the vast implications of new technologies and a new national public
infrastructure.
It is widely assumed that Americans' infatuation with cars led to
the construction of America's superhighways. But actually when
Congress passed the Interstate Highway Act in 1956, car sales were
slack, and there was no popular clamor for building a new road system.
At the time only about half of American families owned an automobile;
everyone else depended on public transportation. Congress was
responding to aggressive lobbying by auto makers and road builders,
plus realtors who saw profits in developing suburban subdivisions.
The act's key provisions included support for bringing freeways
directly into city centers and earmarking gasoline tax revenues for
highway construction. As the interstate highways were built, city and
suburban development adapted to the quickening proliferation of autos.
Soon more Americans found themselves forced to buy a car in order to
be able to shop or hold a job. The Highway Trust Fund, by assuring
the rapid atrophy of competing public transit systems, bolstered this
trend.
Thus the asphalt highways--and the society around them--are a
reflection of successful lobbying by powerful business interests and
external compulsion, not simply the free choices of consumers. There
is no guarantee that the process of wiring consumers and employees
into the electronic highway system will be different.
The effects of the interstate highway system on American
communities were profound, especially in the cities. As historian
James Flink notes, "Ambitious programs for building urban freeways
resulted in the massive destruction of once viable poor and minority
neighborhoods." In other cases, new highways encircled poor
neighborhoods, physically segregating minorities into marginalized
ghettoes.
Gradually, a black and Hispanic middle-class did emerge. Its
members too fled along the interstate to the suburbs, further draining
economic and cultural resources from the inner city. This contributed
to the emergence of a new social phenomenon: today's desperately
deprived, urban underclass.
Elsewhere the effects were subtler but still significant. The
noise and danger from growing numbers of autos drove children's games
out of the street, and neighbors and families off their front porches.
Before long, suburbs without sidewalks came to signal an unprecedented
paucity of local destinations worth walking to. Suburban housewives
found themselves leading increasingly isolated daytime lives at home.
Highways made shopping malls possible, enabling franchise and
chain store sales to boom. But this sapped downtown centers.
For some teenagers and senior citizens, today's anonymous,
consumption-mad expanses provide a semblance of community
space--having swallowed up the general store, the soda fountain, the
Main Street sidewalk, and the town square. There is ample danger of
the new electronic technology extending these losses.
Remember too that it is easy to romanticize new technology. The
popular arts glorified life on the highway. People read Jack
Kerouac's "On the Road," watched "Route 66" on television, and recall
the Merry Pranksters' psychedelic bus-capades during the '60s. In
fusing alienation and rebellion with youthful exuberance, each of
these foreshadows contemporary cyberpunk culture. Yet real-life
experience on the interstate is mostly banal and uneventful.
McDonald's, Pizza Hut, and Wal-Mart look about the same wherever you
exit.
There are also political ramifications of a vast new public
infrastructure. Interstate highways contributed to national and even
international economic integration. But while GNP soared, mom-and-pop
production and retailing declined. That meant greater local
dependence on national and global market forces and on distant
corporate headquarters--powers that communities simply couldn't
control. The locus of effective political intervention thus shifted
toward more distant power centers. But because those are realms in
which everyday citizens cannot be as effectual as in smaller political
settings, democracy was impaired.
If the growth of the highways is revealing, so too is the
opposition to freeway construction that emerged. As citizens became
more politically mobilized during the 1960's and early '70s,
opposition to relentless highway expansion arose from
environmentalists and from local communities, both rich and poor.
Transportation engineers reeled at the specter of upright citizens
rejecting their good works. Many current telecommunications engineers
and true-believing entrepreneurs are no less convinced of the
unalloyed beneficence of their art.
The importance of the analogy between the information and asphalt
highways lies in the political procedures that create them. What if a
wider range of people, including non-car owners, had been involved in
transportation planning all along? Considering the alternatives
envisioned by critics such as Lewis Mumford, it seems likely we would
have a smaller and different road system today. As in Europe and
Japan, there probably would have been greater investment in public
transit. Modern America might exhibit less sprawl, less dependence on
foreign oil, and more cohesive urban neighborhoods.
Three lessons for the construction of the information
superhighway suggest themselves:
o _No Innovation Without Evaluation_: To help reduce adverse
social impact, the federal government should mandate evaluated social
trials of alternative electronic services. Analogous to environmental
impact statements, these trials should precede full-scale deployment
of any major components of new information infrastructures.
o _No Innovation Without Regulation_: We should conserve
cultural space for face-to-face social engagement, traditional forms
of community life, off-screen leisure activities and time spent in
nature. How about a modest tax on electronic home shopping and
consumer services, rebating the revenue to support compensatory, local
community-building initiatives?
o _No Innovation Without Participation_: A number of European
nations are out-competing America in including lay people in
technology decision-making. For instance, the Danish government
appoints panels of everyday citizens to cross-examine a range of
experts, deliberate among themselves and then publish their own social
assessments of technological alternatives. Sweden, Norway and Germany
have pioneered processes for involving workers directly in designing
new production systems.
The coming revolution in information systems is going to change
life for everyone--including the multitude who, by circumstance or
choice, never use computers. It is imperative to develop mechanisms
for involving all segments of our society in designing, evaluating and
governing these new systems.
Data highway enthusiasts may see such measures as wasteful
obstructions of market forces. But what entrepreneurs call red tape
is really democracy in action.
+___________________
Richard Sclove is executive director of the Loka Institute in
Amherst, Mass., a public interest research organization concerned with
science, technology and democracy. He also directs the Public
Interest Technology Policy Project at the Institute for Policy
Studies. Jeffrey Scheuer, a New York writer, is a fellow of the Loka
Institute.
*****************************************************************
If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka
Institute e-mail list, please send an e-mail message to that
effect to: resclove@amherst.edu
The Loka Institute is currently raising funds to produce
Technology Watch, a national newsletter on opportunities for
developing more environmentally sound and socially responsive
post-Cold War science and technology policies. Technology Watch
will be used, in turn, to help organize a nationwide network of
public interest and grassroots activists: FASTnet (Federation of
Activists on Science and Technology).
These activities represent a collaborative undertaking of
the Loka Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in
Washington, DC. To support the Loka Institute's work, please
write a check to "IPS--Technology Project," and send it to: IPS,
1601 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009. Contributions
are tax deductible. Thank you!
Please note: Loka Institute members will be travelling
during much of June 1994. Please forgive us if we are
consequently slow in replying to your comments, queries or
requests.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Jun 1994 17:32:22 -0400
From: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
Subject: File 2--VR evidence in court cases
This is simply an informational forward, and does not reflect the policy
or positions of EFF.]
Full text of the article is available from the Venable law firm WWW server
at http://venable.com/vbh.htm, or from EFF's ftp site at ftp.eff.org,
/pub/EFF/Legal/vr_evidence.article
***********
Virtual Reality Evidence -- Summary
By: Jeffrey A. Dunn
In Stephenson v. Honda , (n. 1) the jury viewed a three-dimensional
virtual reality film of terrain over which the plaintiff drove her
motorcycle, from the perspective of the rider of the motorcycle. The
defense argued that the plaintiff should not have attempted to traverse
the terrain, and that a three-dimensional view was necessary to accurately
portray the treacherous nature of the terrain, for which purpose a
two-dimensional photograph or video would have been inadequate. The jury
apparently agreed with the argument that the plaintiff's conduct
constituted comparative negligence, returning a verdict for the defendant.
In view of this kind of result and the potentially explosive impact a
virtual reality presentation might have upon the senses of a jury, virtual
reality may become increasingly popular with attorneys as a means of
presenting evidence in a vivid, realistic, and highly persuasive manner.
Virtual reality has the potential to literally place a jury in another
place -- in its most complete form, virtual reality would include
three-dimensional motion pictures or computer-generated images projected
through special goggles, stereo sound, and a special body suit providing
temperature and pressure. The virtual reality experience could also
include wind, dampness or dryness, and the use of simulators that alter
body-orientation, provide a sense of motion, and create g-forces.
No one suggests that the use of such a complete version of virtual reality
is likely to be permitted by a court at any time in the near future, if
ever, but it is likely that attorneys will attempt to make use of some mix
of the components of virtual reality in cases where such evidence is
likely to be persuasive. However, any attorney attempting to use virtual
reality must first convince the court that the virtual reality evidence
will provide the jury with information that is relevant to the case and
useful to the jury in its deliberations, and that the experience of
virtual reality will not create a likelihood of confusing, misleading, or
inflaming the jury that outweighs its value as evidence. Attorneys may
also have to argue that, in a given case, the virtual reality evidence
will provide information that either is not offered, or not presented as
effectively, by alternative forms of evidence, such as oral testimony,
still photographs, or videos.
There are several types of legal requirements which virtual reality
evidence would have to meet in order to be admitted in a court of law. All
questions of admissibility would be subject to the discretion of the trial
court, not to be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.
First, as with all evidence, virtual reality evidence would have to
provide information to a jury that is relevant. In order to be relevant,
the information must make it more or less likely that some fact of
consequence to the outcome of the litigation is true. In addition, even if
the information were relevant, it must be shown that the degree to which
the information assists the jury in its deliberations is not outweighed by
a tendency to confuse or mislead the jury, or a potential for inflaming
the fears and biases of the jury. In this regard, it may be the case that
the actual information conveyed by a piece of evidence is admissible, but
that the means by which the information is conveyed to the jury is
confusing, misleading, or prejudicial, so that the form of the evidence is
excluded but an alternative form of evidence, such as oral testimony, is
permitted for presenting the same basic information to the jury.
One of the fundamental aspects of virtual reality that may set it apart
from other forms of evidence and create a potential for prejudicing a jury
is that the goal would be to simulate for the jury the experience of
sensing the subject of the presentation first-hand. As a result, jurors
may begin to consciously or subconsciously judge the subject of the
presentation from the perspective of experiencing it themselves, rather
than forming a more objective analysis based upon a consideration of the
relevant party as the participant in the type of events being depicted. As
a result, whatever personal biases the jurors have may be brought to the
forefront to a greater degree than if the evidence were presented in
another manner. For example, a juror experiencing the simulation of an
off-road motorcycle ride may come to think that the ride was overly
dangerous because it would be dangerous and frightening for her, rather
than giving due consideration to the experience, age, reflexes, and other
relevant characteristics of a party who attempted a similar ride.
When demonstrative evidence, such as photographs, tape recordings, or
videotapes, is used, additional concerns are raised over the reliability
and accuracy of the evidence. The degree of accuracy required depends upon
the purpose of the evidence, the degree of accuracy needed to accomplish
that purpose, and the potential for misleading the jury. Similar issues
will undoubtedly be raised by virtual reality evidence.
Additional concerns are raised by some of the possible subjects of
demonstrative evidence, such as reenactments, tests, and jury views.
Reenactments must be substantially similar to the actual events which the
proponent is attempting to recreate. Even the conditions under which tests
are conducted may be required to simply be similar to the conditions
existing at the time that the events which are the subject of the
litigation occurred. On the other hand, tests conducted to demonstrate
principles upon which expert testimony is based may not need to meet the
same test.
A jury view is not necessarily an attempt to recreate any particular
events. A view is simply an opportunity for a jury to see a particular
location where relevant events occurred, either to gain additional
information or to help the jury better understand evidence that has
already been presented in the courtroom, such as by means of oral
testimony. A view might also include the observation of such things as the
operation of machinery. Generally, efforts are made before a view takes
place to make the site of the view look as similar as possible to its
appearance at the time that events relevant to the litigation occurred,
and to exclude extraneous information. Nonetheless, a court, as well as
attorneys, lose some control over the information that is presented to a
jury on a view, and each juror is able to take in virtually whatever he
wishes, using all of his senses.
One alternative to a live view that is less disruptive to court
proceedings is a videotaped view. Another alternative would be a virtual
reality view. Advantages of a virtual reality view include the ability to
better control the information presented to the jury, and to exclude
extraneous but potentially inflammatory aspects of the view; less
disruption to court proceedings; a more realistic and therefore more
informative experience than a videotaped view; and, in some cases, greater
safety for the jury.
Virtual reality is a diverse and multi-faceted medium. It cannot be
predicted which types of virtual reality evidence, and which mix of
components of virtual reality, might become useful in all of the many
different types of litigation. Attorneys wishing to admit virtual reality
evidence will have to argue that, in a particular case, the use of virtual
reality will provide relevant information to a jury that cannot be
presented as well, or that cannot be presented at all, by alternative
forms of evidence. Proponents of virtual reality evidence will also have
to argue against assertions that the virtual reality medium will arouse
fears and prejudices not stirred as much by other forms of evidence.
Those who argue for the exclusion of virtual reality evidence in a
particular case should focus on its potential for creating prejudicial
effect. That is, opponents of the evidence should argue that, while the
evidence may be persuasive because it offers useful information, it will
also arouse biases on the part of the jury that could cause the jury to
lean inordinately in one direction in deciding a particular issue. For
example, a virtual reality simulation of a motorcycle ride may cause some
jurors to find that the ride was too dangerous because they think all
motorcycles are dangerous. While a juror might be able to overcome this
bias otherwise, actually being made to see and feel what it is like to
ride a motorcycle on a given course might consciously or subconsciously
frighten the juror to the point of believing that the course was too
dangerous, precisely because of the sensory impact of the presentation,
even though the course may have been perfectly safe for an experienced rider.
Some opponents of virtual reality evidence may also argue that it is novel
scientific evidence, so that, in the majority of federal courts, it should
be subjected to the Frye test requiring that, prior to its admissibility,
novel scientific evidence must have gained general acceptance in its
relevant scientific field. However, while virtual reality evidence is
novel, it is not clear that the evidence it would present should be termed
scientific evidence. If virtual reality were used only to present a jury
with a view of terrain, then the only concern should be that the
representations were accurate, as is the case with other forms of
demonstrative evidence. The information being presented by such evidence
would not include any kind of scientific theories or conclusions. On the
other hand, to the extent that virtual reality would be used in any given
case to present findings of a scientific nature, then the Frye test might
be applicable. The issue of whether virtual reality is novel scientific
evidence may also be clouded by the fact that the determination of the
kind of accuracy and reliability issues raised by all forms of
demonstrative evidence would, in the context of virtual reality evidence,
involve a consideration of the use of a new technology and questions over
whether that new technology had gained acceptance within relevant
scientific or other types of fields as being accurate and reliable.
This summary is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion. Such
advice may only be given when related to specific fact situations.
============================
Note 1: Carolyn Stephenson v. Honda Motors Ltd. of America, No. 81067
(Cal. Sup. Ct. Placer County June 25, 1992). Honda offered the video into
evidence, represented by McKenroth, Seley & Ryan of Sacramento, California.
==================
The full text of this article (59926 bytes) is also available.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 21:05:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 3--Electronic Privacy Petition (Texas)
Attached is an electronic petition by Nathan Zook (nzook@bga.com) who is
a delegate to the Texas Republican Convention that is happening in the
middle of June. Nathan has drafted seven resolutions concerning
encryption and privacy. He is attempting to collect electronic
signatures in order to approach the Resolutions Committee and have these
resolutions incorporated into the state platform, backed by the support
of Internet support. You need not be from Texas to have your signature
attached. This message consists of the resolutions, the reasons Nathan
drafted these resolutions, and a letter of support. Those who wish to
participate may mark the appropriate spaces and send the form to
nzook@bga.com.
Since Nathan thanks me in the text for providing guidance, I feel I
should make a brief note on my participation. I had absolutely no input
on the content of this petition. What guidance I provided was limited to
the mechanics of conducting an electronic petition campaign, and even
then this is not much to my liking, but rather a kludge Nathan thrown
together under deadline pressure. Nonetheless, I strongly support any
attempt to use the political process to open up debate over the future of
cyberspace.
thanks, | Even my *mother* is on the Internet now. She wants
| to know why I don't send her e-mail more often.
David Smith |
President, EFF-Austin | -- Keith Goolsbey
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Sat, 28 May 94 10:09:14 -0500
From--nzook@fireant.ma.utexas.edu
Subject-- Privacy Project, may be a repeat
I just posted this to the newsgroups. Care to participate? ;-))
Sorry for the delay, folks!
I need your signatures by 2100 hrs, 08 June 94. You will notice that
I have broken things down considerably. Thanks to David Smith of
Austin EFF for guidance, and Realtime Communications for technical
support! This is an e-mail petition drive. Please crosspost to all
who may be interested!!
I shall not use this list for solicitation, nor shall I release this
list to anyone who does not agree not to release this list, and not to
use it for solicitation. Exception: I shall present this list to
every elected official I can access.
You shall not receive a confirmation notice. A report will be sent to
the newsgroups. Please fill in the support statement with X's in the
appropriate positions. Do _NOT_ delete part of the statement. Please
include the line of astericks in your letter.
You may retrieve the resolutions list, with form letter, my reasons
list, and the Mass bill by anonymous ftp.
ftp ftp.bga.com
Name: anonymous
Password: <your address here>
cd pub/misc
get PrResolutions
get PrReasons
get PrMass
quit
Which ever suits your fancy.
To add your name to the petition, snip the form letter at the bottom of
PrResolutions or of this note. Fill it out, and e-mail it to nzook@bga.com.
DO NOT TRIM THE LETTER!!! PLEASE!!!
Just because you are a 16-year old from Brazil doesn't mean that your
signature doesn't count. Please, everyone that supports this, send it
in.
If you want to use this list to influence _your_ state government,
e-mail me at nzook@math.utexas.edu.
I, the undersigned, hearby request that the following resolutions be
added to the platform of the Republican party in the state of Texas,
and that Republican officeholders undertake all legal means to
implement these resolutions:
1) Resolved, that no governmental trapdoor encription standards be
advanced for use in any civilian communication systems. (Clipper
chip, Digital Telephony Act)
2) Resolved, that the Republican party in the state of Texas
petitions Congress that encryption systems or algorithms publicly
available outside the US not be classified as munitions.
3) Resolved, that the Republican party in Texas petitions the US
patent office to reconsider the RSA patent, to narrow its scope to be
in line with the contribution of the authors, and to further the
national interest, in privacy and in commerce.
4) Resolved, that the Republican party in Texas urges the appropriate
agencies to develop and advance a system for secure communications
which fully preserves the privacy of the communicators.
5) Resolved, that the Republican party in Texas petitions Congress
that it adopt a bill patterned after House Bill No. 4491 of the
Massachusetts 179th General Court, 1994 Regular Session by Mr Cohen of
Newton to reduce the chance of records being inadvertently made
available to persons without proper authorization.
6) Resolved, that the Republican party in Texas petitions Congress
that it adopt a bill to prohibit the cross-use of ID numbers between
legal entities, except for those purposes in which the use of such a
number is necessary; and that entities requesting or using such
numbers without being able to produce proof of their authority to do
so shall be liable for damages--both in small claims court, and by
federal agency; and that specifically the use of SSNs for driver's
licenses, school IDs, or military IDs shall be prohibited.
7) Resolved, that the Republican party in Texas petitions the Texas
legislature to adopt bills to these effects, adjusted as appropriate.
For reasons roughly including, but not limited to the following:
1) Note: The RSA encryption scheme is widely considered to be the
best currently available encryption scheme.
A) The primary reason advanced for such a standard is "to be able to
catch crooks". Crooks are a particular type of criminal, and
criminals are criminals because the disobey the law. Since the RSA
algorithm is globally know, any serious criminal has the capability to
layer, via RSA or PGP, any incriminating messages with this superior
system, rendering the utility of the backdoor useless against the
people the government really should be tracking.
B) Most civilians are cryptographically naive, and believe that a
"security standard" would in fact be secure. But the greatest threat
to our rights is, in fact, the government--as witnessed by the Bill of
Rights. These standards are equivalent to the government keeping a
copy of every key you own, locked in a safe, with the promise never
EVER to use them without a proper warrant. If one is unwilling to
turn over one's physical keys to the government, one should be
unwilling to turn over one's cryptographic keys to the government.
C) We live in a global environment. This statement itself will
probably make its way into every country in Europe, and every
industrialized nation not pointed closed to outsiders. Our industries
compete for sales in practically every country on the globe. No
sovereign state would allow devices programmed with such a standard to
be sold in its country. The adoption of such standards would cripple
exports of secure communications systems. The response by industry
would probably be to develop two models-one for export, one for
internal use. Such a division in the economy would be damaging, and
is a hallmark of a colonial economy. And domestic demand itself would
likely attempt to move to the non-trapdoor systems.
D) If such systems ever became generic within the US, it would hinder
global secure communications, as any conversion between trapdoor and
secure systems would likely entail intermediate decryption. The US
could be cutting itself off by such standards. In fact, this may be
occurring now, with the new PGP standard.
E) The acceptance of such standards in the US could lead to the
adoption of such standards in nations with repressive governments
throughout the world. They could tell their people that from now on,
their private conversations will be every bit as private as any in the
US. I do not believe that we wish such a situation to develop.
2-4) These measures are designed to forward a GLOBAL private secure
communications protocol. An ever-growing segment of our economy will
be dependent upon such standards.
2) This law is forcing support of popular programs outside of the US.
We now have a situation where people are calling servers in Europe in
order to get current copies of these products.
3) Note: The RSA encryption scheme is widely considered to be the
best currently available encryption scheme. A) The patented is not
broadly recognized outside the US. Development of RSA-dependent
products is likely to occur by non-US entities, and demand is growing
rapidly.
B) The RSA patent is _very_ broad, encompassing potential systems
never dreamt of by its authors.
C) The RSA patent is widely not supported by the mathematics
community. The RSA system follows directly and easily from work that
is more than a hundred years old. The RSA authors, by many accounts,
contributed little original work to the process, compared to earlier
efforts.
D) Extending patents to the RSA system could likely lead to extending
patents to a whole class of mathematical theorems, should any have
commercial value. Such an extension may well chill basic research in
mathematics.
E) Due to the simplicity of the process, the RSA patent is like a
patent for folding a paper airplane: once explained, most programmers
can implement it independently.
4) Note: Such protocols already exist. All that is needed it to
develop an implementing system.
4-5,7) The specific reasons for these resolution should be apparent
from the resolutions themselves.
6) We are dangerously close to turning the SSN into a national ID
number. While this seems innocuous enough, the results are to be
feared.
A) Persons, from store clerks to government bureaucrats, who have
casual
contact with someone can retain such a number, and use it to access
all types of information to which they have no right--a clear
violation of privacy, and an open invitation for criminal tampering.
B) Government agencies may currently exchange information about
persons to create extensive records on individuals, indexed by SSN.
Such records could be accessed by law enforcement agencies on fishing
trips.
C) Increasingly, businesses are obtaining SSNs, and building even
more detailed records. These records are susceptible to being used in
a manipulative fashion.
Nathan Zook (nzook@math.utexas.edu)
*********************************************************************
Notice of support for the privacy resolutions posted by Nathan Zook in May of
1994:
[ ] I support all seven resolutions.
[ ] I support only the following resolutions:
1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7 [ ]
[ ] I am a US citizen.
[ ] I am not a US citizen.
[ ] I am a legal resident of this state. (two-letter abbrev or XX if not US)
[ ] I am this many years old.
[ ] This is a changed statement, please disregard previous notice.
I understand that falsifying a petition may result in legal charges, and I
have not sent a duplicate signature, under any alias, except as noted above.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jun 1994 18:51:04 -0400
From: kadie@EFF.ORG(Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: File 4--Re: "Problems at TCOE" (CuD 6.47)
Joel M Snyder <Joel_M_Snyder@OPUS1.COM> writes:
>In any case, the larger problem with this post is a dive into
>"amateur lawyer" which seems to happen so often in USENET news. This
>paragraph begins with "TCOE [Tulare County Office of Education] is
>bound by the First Amendment" (which we know not to be true),
Of course, it is bound by the First Amendment. In the U.S., *all*
government agents are bound by the First Amendment. It is part of
their charter. The only question is what does this
bound entail in this case?
>stomps through a whole series of very complex issues involving use
>of public facilities, with a variety of incorrect statements, ending with
>"The courts have found that publicly funded universities could not remove
>Internet listservs based on objection the content of those listservs..."
>(which we know not to be true)
You are correct that (to the best of my knowledge) no such case has
come up yet, but there has be some legal action:
In _UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin_, 774 F.
Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991)], the University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire
disciplined a student under the UW Hate Speech Rule for sending a
message that stated, "Death to all Arabs ! Die Islamic scumbagsl" on a
university computer system to an Iranian faculty member. The federal
district judge said the university acted illegally because the UW Hate
Speech Rule was unconstitutionally vague and broad.
Also, the November 24, 1993 _Chronicle of Higher Education_ reports
that: "A graduate student at the University of Texas at Dallas has filed a
$2-million lawsuit against the university, charging that its
officials violated his First Amendment rights by barring him
from the Internet and the campus computer network."
And then, of course, in noncomputer media, there are many cases on
what is called the Public Forum Doctrine.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin">
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================</a>
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- UWM Post v. U Of Wisconsin
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/news/dec_19_1993">
news/dec_19_1993
=================</a>
Includes the text of the _Chroncle_ article.
=================<a href="http://www.eff.org/CAF/faq/media.control.html">
faq/media.control
=================</a>
* University Control of Media
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university (or other government agency) can do anything it
wants with the media that it owns, right?
a: No. Like any organization, the U.S. government must work within its
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and then:
cd /pub/CAF/law
get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
cd /pub/CAF/news
get dec_19_1993
cd /pub/CAF/faq
get media.control
To get the file(s) by email, send 3 email message to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com
Include the line(s):
connect ftp.eff.org
cd /pub/CAF/law
get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
connect ftp.eff.org
cd /pub/CAF/news
get dec_19_1993
connect ftp.eff.org
cd /pub/CAF/faq
get media.control
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=Email: kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
=URL: <http://www.eff.org/CAF/>, <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 13:06:29 -0600 (MDT)
From: rcarter@NYX10.CS.DU.EDU(Ron Carter)
Subject: File 5--Trade-secrets case (Schrader/Hauser) dropped - Summary
Charges against Andrew Brian Schrader (Boulder, Colorado, USA),
who was accused of stealing sensitive computer information and
trade secrets from his former employer, Hauser Chemical Research,
were dismissed on Monday (06JUN94). Hauser feared that trade
secrets would have been divulged in a criminal trial, leading to
the request that charges be dropped.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #6.50
************************************
