Computer underground Digest Tue June 7, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 50 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

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 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 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: 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 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.) ================= law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ================= * 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. ================= news/dec_19_1993 ================= Includes the text of the _Chroncle_ article. ================= faq/media.control ================= * 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: , = ------------------------------ 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 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank