Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 09:32:25 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Conference Report, Part 4 of 4

From: Steve Cisler <sac@apple.com>
Subject:  Conference Report, Part 4 of 4

Computers, Freedom, and Privacy-2: A Report
Steve Cisler

Private Collection of Personal Information

This was another role-playing session where the participants took
positions close to those they would hold in real life. Ron Plessor of
Piper and Marbury acted as the 'scene setter and facilitator'. It was
he who posed the broad question "Should the government have a
role in the privacy debate?" and asked the panelists to debate about
the establishment of a data protection board (as proposed by
Congressman Wise in H.R. 685d).

Janlori Goldman of the ACLU enthusiastically embraced the role of
general counsel to the Data Board as she questioned the
representatives from the fictitious private enterprises who were
planning a supermarket discount shoppers' program where all items
are matched with the purchaser and mailing lists would be generated
with this fine-grained information.

"It would be good to come to the board before you start the service."
Her tone was very ominous, that of a friendly but all powerful
bureaucrat. "Bring your papers and come on in to  discuss your
project. Let's keep it informal and friendly this time to prevent the
more formal meeting."  She even alluded to making  subpoenas and
getting phone records of the direct marketeers. She would not offer
the marketeers assurances of confidentiality in their discussion, and
even though this was role playing, several people around me who
had thought the idea of a board would be useful, changed their mind
by the end, partly because of her fervor.

At the Q&A session about 25 people dashed for the microphones,
making this session the most provocative of all. At least it touched a
chord with everyone.

On the evening of March 19, the Electronic Frontier Foundation
presented the EFF Pioneer awards to those individuals who have
done the most to advance liberty, responsibility, and access to
computer-based communications. I was honored to serve as a judge
and read the large number of nominations. Each person or
institution made a strong impression on me, and it was difficult to
narrow it down to five people. The recipients each made a very
moving statement after they were called to the podium by Mitchell
Kapor of the EFF.

March 20 began with a session: Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in
the Digital Library.  Bob Walton of CLSI, Inc. discussed the
transformation of libraries as collections of books into digital
libraries with falling technological costs and volatile questions of
intellectual property and reimbursement. Gordon Conable, Monroe
(MI) County Library system, spoke of libraries as First Amendment
institutions, ones where Carnegie saw the provision of free
information as a public good. However, the economics of digital
information are quite different, and this causes problems, as does the
government using the power of the purse to control speech (Rust vs.
Sullivan). I spoke about the case of Santa Clara County (CA) Library
defending its open access policy when a citizen complained about
children checking out videos he thought should be restricted. It was a
good example of how the whole profession from the branch librarian
on up to the California State Librarian presented a unified front in
the face of opposition from some parts of the community and the San
Jose Mercury News, the local paper that waffled somewhat on its
own stance.  Jean Polly of Liverpool Public Library spoke about the
problems running a library BBS where religious fundamentalists
dominated the system, but outlined her library's many activities
(smallest public library as an Internet node) and her plans for the
future.

Computers in the Workplace: Elysium or Panopticon

Because computer technology provides new opportunities for
employee surveillance, what rights to privacy does the employee
have? Alan Westin, Columbia University, outlined some interesting
trends in the 90s where employers have moved into a new
intervention in the activities and private lives of employees.There is
a liability against bad hiring. Forced adoption of drug testing (with
public support ). They want to select employees on the basis of health
costs and liability, so there is a desire to control employees on and off
the job. Gary Marx of MIT gave essentially the same presentation
on technofallacies  he gave last year at CFP-1.

Who Holds the Keys?

In a sense the cryptography was one of the most difficult to follow,
yet the outlines of a very large battlefield came into view by the end
of the session. The two sides are personal privacy and national
security. Should the government be allowed to restrict the use of
cryptography? (Only weakened schemes are allowed to be legally
exported.) What legal protections should exist for enciphered
communications?

David Bellin of the Pratt Institute stood up and spoke in code. He
thought encrypted speech was protected and that he should have the
right to associate with his peers through encryption (to prevent
snooping). He did not believe the technology is controllable, nor that
there is safety and one end and freedom at the other.

Jim Bidzos of RSA Data Security said we need a review of
cryptographic policy. The long term effects of the current
confrontational relationship will be bad. John Gilmore of Cygnus
Support felt that the public should discuss cryptographic issues and
not behind closed doors. This is a good time for network people,
manufacturers, and the government to work together. John Perry
Barlow sees encryption as an answer to the problem of having lots of
privacy. Using the drug war rationale to prohibit export is a bad
idea. Whitfield Diffie, of Sun Microsystems gave an excellent
overview of the philosophy of encryption and why it's important as
we move from face-to-face communications to electronic. There are
a number of policy problems:

-a bad person might be able to protect information against all
assaults.  In a free society a person is answerable for your actions,
but a totalitarian society uses prior restraint. What will ours become?

Can a so-called 'free society' tolerate unrestricted use of
cryptography? Because cryptography can be done on standard
processors with small programs, and because covert channels are
hard to detect, enforcement of a strong anti-crypto law would
require drastic measures.

I asked Jim Bidzos about the government agencies beating their
swords into plowshares by looking for new roles in a world without
a Soviet threat. He thought NSA could use budget hearings to say
that with a lean/mean military budget, a modest increase in crypto
capability might give the government more lead time in an
emergency.

One member of the audience challenged Bidzos to go ahead and
export RSA outside of the US. Barlow responded "Come on, Jim. The
Russians are already using RSA in their <missile> launch codes." To
which Bidzos replied, "My revenue forecasts are being revised
downward!" <laughter> Barlow answered, "You would not have
gotten any royalties from them anyway." <more laughter> Bidzos:
"Maybe..." <even more laughter>

With only a partial understanding of some of the technology involved
(cryptography is a special field peopled mainly by mathematicians
and intelligence officials), I think that this will be the issue of the 90s
for libraries. It may be a way to protect both privacy and intellectual
property in the digital libraries of the future.

Final Panel: Public Policy for the 21st Century, moderated by Mara
Liasson, National Public Radio

"How will information technologies alter work, wealth, value,
political boundaries?... What will the world be like in a decade or
two?... What public policies now exist that may pull the opposite
direction from the economic momentum and will lead to social
tension and breakage if not addressed properly?"

Peter Denning, George Mason University: People used to have faith
that strong governments would bring salvation through large
programs (he named failures). The poor track record of government
and changes in comms technology have accelerated the decline of the
faith.

Mitchell Kapor:

He sees digital media as the printing press of the 21st century.  The
WELL and others make us realize we are not prisoners of geography,
so our religous, hobby, or academic interests can b shared by the
enabling technologies of computers. "Individuals flourish from mass
society with this technology"  Openness, freedom, inclusiveness will
help us make a society that will please our children and
grandchildren.

Simon Davies, Privacy International: "There is possibly a good
future, but it's in the hands of greedy men.   I see a world with 15
billion beings scrambling for life, with new frontiers stopping good
things.  For 14 billion they are very pissed off, and that our
wonderful informational community (the other billion) becomes the
beast. It will be something most of the world will do without. If we
recognize the apocalypse now we can work with the forces."

Esther Dyson, EDventure Holding, Inc.: she thinks that
cryptography is a defensive weapon. The free-flow of cryptic info is
dangerous to the powerful.  She want more markets and less
government. Large concentrations of power makes her suspicious.
Global protected networks will help those in the
minority(disagreeing with Davies). We don't have one global
villages but many. How do we avert tribalism of class?

Roland Homet, Executive Inc. was more conciliatory. America has a
penchant for ordered liberty. It  uses toleration and restraint to keep
forces working together.

--
Lance Hoffman, The George Washington University and organizer
of the conference, deserves much credit for a smooth running yet
exciting three days.  There will be a CFP-3 in the San Francisco area
next year. If you find these issues to be a major force in your
professional life, we hope you will be able to attend next year.
Traditionally, there have been scholarships available, but these
depend on donations from individuals and firms.

Part 4 of 4
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU