From: sac@Apple.COM (Steve Cisler)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference--2: Report
Message-Id: <64892@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:24:52 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


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

The opinions and views expressed are those of the author, Steve
Cisler, and not necessarily those of  Apple Computer, Inc. Misquotes
of people's statements are my responsibility. Permission is granted
for re-posting in electronic form or printing in whole or in part by
non-profit organizations or individuals. Transformations or
mutations into musicals, docudramas, morality plays, or wacky
sitcoms remain the right of the author. This file may be found on the
Internet in ftp.apple.com in the alug directory.

-Steve Cisler, Apple Computer Library. Internet address:
sac@apple.com

The Second Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy,
March 18-20, 1992. Washington,D.C.was sponsored by the
Association for Computing Machinery and thirteen co-sponsors
including the American Library Association and a wide variety of
advocacy groups.

The diversity of the attendees, the scope of the topics covered, and
the dynamism of the organized and informal sessions brought a
perspective I had lost in endless conferences devoted only to library,
information, and network issues. I can now view the narrower topics
of concern to me as a librarian in new ways, and for that it was one
of the best conferences I have attended. There does exist a danger of
these issues being re-hashed each year with the usual suspects
invited each time to be panelists, so I urge you, the readers, to
become involved and bring your own experiences to the next
conference in 1993 in the San Franciso Bay Area.

Wednesday, March 18

The day began with concurrent tutorials on the following topics:
Getting on the Net (Mitchell Kapor, Electronic Frontier Foundation);
Making Information Law and Policy (Jane Bortnick, Congressional
Research Service); Communications and Network Evolution (Sergio
Heker, JVNCNet), Private Sector Privacy (Jeff Smith, Georgetown
University); Constitutional Law for Non-lawyers (Mike Godwin,
EFF); Computer Crime (Don Ingraham, Alameda County (CA)
District Attorney); Modern Telecommunications: Life After Humpty-
Dumpty (Richard Wolff, Bellcore); International Privacy
Developments (David Flaherty, Univ. of Western Ontario);

Information Law and Policy: Jane Bortnick, Congressional Research
Service (CRS)

Setting information policy is not a linear process, and it's not clear
how or when it is made because of many inputs to the process. Many
policies sit on the shelf until a crisis, the right technology is in place,
or certain people grab it.  Events create renewed interest. Industry,
academic, or non-governmental groups play an important role by
testimony and by lobbying. CRS is the institutional memory for
Congress because of the rapid turnover in the staff on the Hill.  The
challenge is to develop policy that does not hinder or hold things up,
but there is a high degree of uncertainty, change, and lack of data.
The idea is to keep things as open as possible.

Bortnick said that the  laws were written in an era of paper; now
electronic access is being added, and Congress is trying to identify
fundamental principles, not specific changes.  Now, with greater
economic  factors, members of Congress don't want to anger local
cable, phone, or newspaper firms.  In a sense you want to slow down
processes to avoid making bad laws, but sometimes, in a crisis,
Congress can work very quickly.  Congress can't be long term
because of annual budget cycles and because of the hard lobbying by
local interests. Building consensus is the key.

Scope of information policy

-spans broad range of topics dealing with info collection, use, access,
and dissemination

-global warming has a component because new satellites will dump
a terabyte a day: who is responsible for storage, access, adding value
to all of this data?
-many bills have the phrase: "and they will establish a clearinghouse
of information on this topic"
-information policy has increasingly become an element within
agency programs
-impact of info technologies further complicates debate
-result=more interested players from diverse areas.


Congress has many committees that deals with these issues. CRS
gets 500,000 requests for info a year: 1700 in one day.   After "60
minutes" is broadcast CRS gets many requests for info. from
Congress.

Jim Warren asked several questions about access to government
information. There was a general discussion about how the Library of
Congress would be digitized (size, cost, copyright barriers).  It was
noted that state level experiments affected federal activity, especially
the states that are copyrighting their information (unlike the federal
government).

The discussion about Congressional reluctance to communicate via
electronic mail with constituents: a new directory does not even list
some fax numbers that had been quasi-public before some offices felt
inundated with fax communications.

Richard Wolff: Modern Telecom: Life after humpty-dumpty
Bellcore, 445 South st., Morristown, NJ 97962  (201) 829 4537
Wolff gave presented the broad technical changes in the telephone
networks and resisted attempts by the audience to guess at policy
shifts and how they would impede implementation.  Phone lines are
growing at 3% per year, but data terminals and pcs are growing
rapidly, especially networked ones. Data services 15-25% growth
rate per year vs. voice at 3%/year. There are 7.5 million cellular sets,
a 40 % increase in one year!

Keynote: Al Neuharth, The Freedom Forum and founder of USA
Today
"Freedom in cyberspace: new wine in old flasks"

1. First amendment freedoms are for everyone. Newspaper
publishers should not relegate anyone to 2d class citizens to the back
of the bus. 2. The passion for privacy may make our democracy falter.
3. Publishing of disinformation is the biggest danger, not info-glut.

Comments on American Newspaper Publishers Assn to keep RBOCs
out of information business: Free press clause does not only apply to
newspapers. Telcos have first amendment rights too. "ANPA is
spitting into the winds of change", and some newspaper publishers
are not happy with this stance, so there is a lot of turmoil.  People
should get their news when, how and where they want it: on screen
or tossed on the front porch. Telcos have yet to demonstrate
expertise in information gathering and dissemination; they have an
outmoded allegiance to regulation .

2. The passion for privacy may make our democracy falter.  3.
Publishing of disinformation is the biggest danger, not info-glut.

He strongly criticized the use of anonymous sources by newspapers.
Anon. sources provide misinformation that does irreparable harm.
The Washington Post is the biggest user of confidential sources.
Withholding of names encourages fabricating and misinformation.
Opinions and style should not be hidden in news pages but kept on
the editorial page.

Session: Who Logs On?

Robert Lucky of Bell Labs:

<his personal statement> If I had your ear, here's what I'd talk
about:

1. fiber to the home: who pays for it? the consumers will pay and the
consumer will benefit.  The how much is what matters.  You have to
install wideband switching.  The drama is mainly economic and
policy, not technical. It will happen in 40 years. Asking what fiber will
bring that copper will not, he took the Field of Dreams approach:
supply of bandwidth will create demand.

2. Access and privacy is a personal quandary for him. Intimate
communications will be coming-- individual cells on each pole and an
individual number for each person. "I like to call anybody from my
wrist, but I hate having people calling me."  If you have access, you
can't have privacy. The right to be left alone takes away from the
'right' from other people.  Lucky was the first of many to raise the
problems of the  FBI recommend legislation, the Digital Telephony
Amendment, that would require re-design of present network so that
surveillance could take place, and that the cost of doing this would be
20 cents a month per subscriber.  It will be hard to find conversations,
but you will pay for this.  He viewed this with grave concern; it's a
bad idea. He is all for getting drug kings but he wants his privacy.

3. Lucky's observations on the Internet/NREN: One of the wonderful
things is the sense of freedom on the Internet. Anonymous ftp. There
are programs and bulletin boards.  Sense of freedom of information
and freedom of communication, but nobody seems to pay for it. It just
comes. As a member of AT&T, this needs to be transitioned to a
commercial enterprise. Government is not good at this; intellectual
property  lawyers will build walls, and hackers may screw it up too.
"I still want all the freedom in the commercial enterprise."

Linda Garcia of the OTA spoke about access issues and said it was a
cost/benefit problem.  Rural areas should be able construct a rural
area network (RAN). Take small businesses, educators, hospitals and
pool their demand for a broadband network. Government could act
as a broker or community organizer and transfer the technology.
Rural communities should not be treated the same way as urban
areas. The regulatory structure should be different for rural Maine
than for lower Manhattan. See her OTA reports Critical
Connections and Rural America at the Crossroad  for  in-depth
treatments of these issues.

Al Koeppe of New Jersey Bell outlined the many new services being
rolled out in NJ at the same time they are maintaining low basic
rates. In 1992 there will be narrowband digital service for low quality
video conferencing. 1994 wideband digital service. video on demand,
entertainment libraries and distance learning applications. He
predicted a 99% penetration by 1999.  with  complete fiber by 2010.
This will be a public network not a private one. It will still be a
common carrier. This is a very aggressive and optimistic plan, an
important one for all of us to watch. Lucky said he had never seen a
study that shows video on demand services can be competitive with
video store prices. The big question remains: how does a business
based on low-bandwidth voice services charge for broadband
services? It remains a paradox.

Brian Kahin, Kennedy School of Government, discussed the growth
of the Internet and policy issues:

-points of access for different users

-network structure and current NSFNet controversy

He said the NREN debate is one between capacity (enabling high end
applications)   and connectivity (number of resources and users
online).

Discussion during Q&A:

"A lot of the last hour has been discussing how to make the services
better for the elite, but it does not seem very democratic. people don't
even have touch tone, let alone computers or ISDN." NREN was
characterized as gigabits to the elite to kilobits to the masses.

"Don't expect anything for the next three years on telecomms issues
from Congress. "

Block grants should be directed to multi-state resource sharing
competitive grants.(Kahin)

Ethics, Morality, and Criminality

Mike Gibbons of the FBI chaired this session which was one of the
central themes for all present. In the same room we had law
enforcement (LE) representatives from state, local, and federal
governments, civil libertarians, and convicted computer criminals, as
well as some victims.

The FBI views the computer as a tool, and Gibbons told a story about
the huge raid on Lyndon LaRouche's data center in Virginia where
400 LE types took part.  I had the feeling that Gibbons was telling his
own hacker story because the audience would appreciate the
challenges that faced him more than LE supervisors without a
technical knowledge of computers would appreciate it. He was also
involved in the Robert Morris case.

Mike Godwin of EFF agrees that it is not  ethical to access other
people's computer without permission, but Mike represents those
who may have acted unethically but still have rights.

Case involving Craig Neidorf of _phrack_ who felt that his
publication of a  Bell South document was within the 1st amendment
.  Bell South pegged the Document cost was $70K because it included
the Vax workstation and the software in the cost! There was a
question whether that document was property at all. LE folks can
make good faith mistakes, but Craig had to spend $100,000 and that
the prosecutor and Secret Service never admitted they were wrong.

Jim Settle from FBI sets policy on computer crime and supervisor of
computer crime squad.  Background in Univacs in 1979. There is not a
lot of case law on computer crimes. LE was computer stupid and is
not out there to run over people's rights.  They discuss moral issues
even when an action was legal.

Don Delaney of the New York State Police:  He has been dealing
with PBX and calling card fraud; he talks to students about perils of
computer crime,

and works with companies who have been hit. Everyday one corp
has called him. $40,000 to $400K loss in a short time. He has found
glitches in the PBX software; he complained that few PBX
salespeople tell the customers about remote access units through
which criminals gain access. Once this happens the number is sold on
the street in New York at about $10 for 20 minutes. Even Westchester
County Library was hit. People used binoculars to read the PIN
numbers on caller's cards as they dialed in Grand Central Station.
Delaney called this 'shoulder surfing' and noted that  cameras,
camcorders, and binoculars are being used regularly.

Mitch Kapor raised the issue of the Digital Telephony Amendment.
It is proposed legislation to amend 18 USC 2510 (govt. can intercept
communications on showing probable cause as they did with John
Gotti) Settle of the FBI asked: "What happens if the technology says
you can't do it? You change the tech. to allow it or  you repeal the law
that allows wire tap.  Don Parker of SRI  said it is essential to have
wiretap ability as a tool for LE.

Digital Telephony Amendment -more info...

The FBI under the Department of Justice has authority to use
wiretaps in its operations. This has been one of the most effective
tools that law enforcement has, but with the advent of digital
telephony such as ISDN, the LE community is worried that no
capability exists to intercept these digital signals, and this will
preclude the FBI and other LE officials from intercepting electronic
communications.

The FBI proposes an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934
to require electronic services providers to ensure that the
government will e able to intercept digital communications. There
are a number of parts to the bill:

1. the FCC shall determine the interception needs of the DOJ and
issue regulations 120 days after enactment.

2. Service providers and pbx operators to modify existing telecomms
systems within 180 days and prohibit use of non-conforming
equipment thereafter, with penalties of $10,000 per day for willful
offenders.

3. Gives FCC the authority to compensate the system operators by
rate structure adjustment for required modifications. That is, the
user will pay for this decreased security desired by the government.

Godwin said he believes that wiretap is okay when procedures are
followed, but   you have to decide what kind of society you want to
live in. The FBI asked, "Are you going to say that crime okay over the
phones and that it should not be controlled?" He implied that not
making changes to the law would leave cyberspace open to
sophisticated criminals, many of whom have more resources for
technology that does the LE community.
For more information on this there is a 10 page legislative summary.

Someone asked a question about the Inslaw case and PROMIS
software. Why didn't the case get pursued by FBI?  DOJ rep could
not comment on it because the case involves charges against the
DOJ. (I cannot because the case is Byzantine in its complexity and is
thought by some to be as far-reaching as the JFK assassination. It
would take a megabyte to cover the facts.)

Evening of Day One:

There were Birds of a Feather (BOF) sessions that were less formal
and with less attendance. Nevertheless, it was one of the high points
of the conference. Where else would one find the law enforcement
types switching roles with computer intruders who had to defend a
system against an attack? Kudos to Mike Gibbons for setting this up.
There were also a panel of hackers (I use the term in the broadest
and non-pejorative sense) including Emmanuel Goldstein--the nom
de plume for the editor of 2600: The Hacker's Weekly; Craig Neidorf,
founder of phrack; Phiber Optik, a young man who recently plea
bargained to a couple of charges; and Dorothy Denning, chair of the
CS department at Georgetown University.

Goldstein (this was a character in Orwell's 1984 who was a front for
the establishment!) sees hackers as intellectuals on a quest for bugs
which, when corrected, help the system owner.He is extremely
frustrated over media treatment of hackers, yet he was open to a
Japanese camera crew filming the casual meetings of 2600 readers
that took place in the hotel lobby throughout the conference.   He said
that hackers and system administrators work together with each
other in Holland.

As an example of lax system management there was a military
computer during the middle east war had a password of TKuwait'.
Don Parker of SRI believes that Goldstein should not continually
blame the victim. Many of the hackers and publishers strongly
believed that  "knowing how things work is not illegal."The current
publisher of Phrack said, " I believe in Freedom of Speech and want
to  tell people about new technology." Most librarians would agree,
but much of the problem was what some people did with that
knowledge. An interesting discussion follow about who was
responsible for security: vendors, system administrators, or public
law enforcement personnel. Phiber Optik is now maintaining a Next
machine on the Net and complained that answers to technical
questions cost $100 per hour on the Next hotline.

Electronic Money: Principles and Progress

Eric Hughes, DigiCash

Electronic money uses public key encryption. People can recognize
your digital signature but cannot read it. The goal is to create a bank
on the Internet that only uses software and affords the user complete
anonymity. There is the bank, the buyer, and the seller. Money flows
from the bank  in a money loop. Bank does not know what is signs but
it knows that it did sign it and will honor the electronic check.  This
would allow financial transactions and privacy for the buyer. In a
library setting this would mean I could buy an item electronically (a
document, image, code) and nobody could link it with my name. My
buying habits would be private, and a person roaming through the
transactions might see that someone purchased a computer
simulation "Small furry animals in pain" but not who.

Doing database queries in privacy will be more and more important
as the network is used for more business activities. The DigiCash
scheme  has multi-party security and is a safe way of exchanging
files and selling them in complete privacy.  It's also very cheap and
the unlinkability is very important.

In the discussion session the issue of drug lords using the system was
raised. DigiCash has limited its transactions to less than $10,000, and
most would be far less. A British attendee said that stores had to keep
extensive records for VAT tax audits, so EEC and US regulations
would conflict with the goals of DigiCash.

Other panels included "Privacy and misuse in regional health
databanks" (Molla Donaldson, Institute of Health, National
Academy of Sciences) and "International Privacy: Current
Developments" (Marc Rotenberg, CPSR).

Thursday 9 a.m.

For Sale: Government Information

This was staged as a role playing advisory panel where a grad
student made a broad and complicated request for information in a
particular format. The panelist made short statements about their
interests and then tried to answer the pointed questions from George
Trubow of John Marshall Law School.

Freedom of Information Act

Dwight Morris LA Times: his job is to get govt. data and turn it into
news stories. The FOIA is a joke; it's a last resort. Vendors are foia-
ing the agencies and then trying to sell those foia requesters software
to read the data tapes!

Ken Allen of the Information Agency Association said the govt.
should not elude the appropriations process by selling information,
nor should the agency control content. The IIA is against exclusive
contracts.

Mitch Freedman,Westchester Co. Library  ALA Coordinator for
Access to Information.  Are many people asking for access for this
information, or will the coding benefit many users in the long run?
He mentioned of WINDO program, freedom of access, and its link to
informed democracy.

Franklin Reeder, Office of management and Budget

Unusable databases in raw form means that choice of format is
irrelevant. there may be broader demand for this info, and the
database should be provided with interfaces for many users.

-Govt. agencies should not turn to info provision for revenues; it
becomes an impediment to access. "I don't think the public sector
should be entrepreneurial. "

-
Costin Toregas, Public Technology, Inc.--owned by cities and counties
in U.S. and Canada.

 We should re-examine our language when discussing information
and access. -How do you recover the costs of providing the new
technological access mechanisms. The provision of this should be
high priority.

Robert Belair, Kirkpatrick and Lockhart, deals in FOIA and privacy
issues. Choice of format is an issue, and in general we are doing a
bad job.  Belair notes that FOIA requests are not cheap.  There are
$2-4,000 fees from government agencies--even more than the lawyer
fees!

Questions:

Denning: no view of where technology is taking us. Why not put the
information online? Freedman says the Owens bill handles this.

Weingarten says that one agency is planning for a db that has no
equipment to handle it yet. Belair: we will get change in FOIA and
the Owens bill is good.  Toregas: A well-connected community  is
crucial.

Harry Goodman asked Ken Allen if he still believed that "libraries be
taken off the dole." He denied theis but Goodman had it on tape!
Allen said privatization is a red herring. Govt. agencies might not be
the best way to provide the access to information.  Allen says it
should be by diverse methods.

Glenn Tenney, running for Congress in San Mateo County (CA), said
he had trouble getting information on voting pattern of the members
of Congress and to buy it would have cost thousands of dollars paid
to a Dutch company (Elsevier). Ken Allen replied that a private
company had developed the information from raw material, but
others thought this was basic information that should be available to
all citizens. Other people wanted the Congressional Records online
(and cheap); others wanted the private sector to do it all and to get
the government to partner in such projects.

Free Speech and the Public Telephone Network

At this point in the conference people had made contact and were
meeting in the halls, ignoring some of the main sessions. The activity
was split between the ballroom and the halls. A good sign of a vital
conference.

Jerry Berman of the EFF:  Do telcos have the right to publish over
their own networks? What are the implications of telcos as
newspapers vs. telcos as common carrier? But are not safeguards
needed to compel free access for all players? There is already
discrimination on the 900 services (provision or billing for porno
businesses).  When the public finds out what is on the network, there
will be a big fight. Will we follow the print model or the broadcast?
How can a new infrastructure secure a diversity of speech and more
participants, and how can break the deadlock between cable, papers,
and telcos.

Henry Geller, Markle Foundation (FCC/NTIA) Free speech and the
public telephone network.  Key is the common carrier nature of the
telephone and that they should carry all without determining what is
appropriate.  Congress can't chose between warring industries, so it
won't act on some of these telecomms issues.

Broadband area: if the bits flowing are TV programming, the telco is
forbidden to provide.  Print model is a good one to follow, not the
cable or broadcast model. He mentioned  CNN's squelching of NBC
cable channel.

John Podesta (Podesta Associates)   There are forces that are trying
to push messengers off the road and keep the network from being
diverse.  We need a network with more voices, not just those of the
owners.  We will be faced with censorship by the govt. and network
owners (MCI, US West); there will be more invasion of privacy

Six things have to happen:

1. More competition via open platform. Personal ISDN at low
tariffs.

2.structural safeguards

3. common carriers should be content neutral when providing access

4. originators should bear responsibility for obscene or salacious
postings.

5. protect net against invasion of privacy. Debate is whether it will be
easier or harder to wiretap in the future.

6. Don't adopt broadcast or cable model for network; both are more
restrictive with regards to First Amendment issues.

Bob Peck (ACLU)

Government  ban on RBOCs providing information is a first
amendment issue, but there is also an issue of access. How do we
make sure that everyone gets charged the same rates.

He cautioned that the Rust vs. Sullivan decision could affect network
use; abortion clinics could not answer any questions about the topic.
US Govt claimed: "We paid for the microphone; we just want to be
able to control what is said." This is being argued in other cases by
DOJ  and should be resisted.

Eli Noam (NYU)

Coming from state govt. I tried to be an oxymoron, a forward
looking state utility commissioner. Telcos say: if anyone can use the
common carrier, why not themselves. Free speech is rooted in the
idea of scarcity and restraints to access. When you have 9000
channels, who cares? there will be no scarcity. He predicts people will
be video literate. Video will have new obscene phone calls.

New issues:

%We are over optimistic about the short term and too cautious about
long term effects. Telecommuting is happening.  We will have
telecommunities, subcultures of interest. Our political future is based
on jurisdiction. Is there a new form of political entity emerging that
transcends time zones. Groups are stratified by work or profession.

%Information glut: key issue will be how you filter and screen it.
Handling the information will be a big issue.The user's brain is the
ultimate bottleneck.  Internet news is about 18 mb a day.   Screening
will be by the network itself or by user groups and telecommunities.

%rights of individuals vs. the governments. Is the first amendment a
local ordinance?

%We need power over international interconnection. Fly the flag of
teledemocracy.

Questions: Geller thinks the states can be more innovative.

In discussing public access cable he noted that 5% of the cable
revenues went into city coffers not the channel.

Bruce Sterling, author of The Difference Engine (with William
Gibson) and a new title, The Hacker Crackdown, gave an
outstanding performance/speech entitled "Speaking the
Unspeakable" in which he represented three elements of the so-
called computer community who were not at CFP-2: the truly
malicious hacker, a narco-general who has discovered the usefulness
of his contacts with the North American law enforcement
communities--and their databases; and a data pirate from Asia. This
was a hilarious, yet half-serious departure from the usual fare of
conferences and is well worth obtaining the audio or video cassette. I
also recommend you attend the American Library Association
conference in late June 1992 when Sterling will address the LITA
attendees.

Who's in Your Genes was an overview of genetic data banking, and a
discussion of the tension between an individual's right to privacy and
the interests of third parties. DNA forensic data banks and use of
genetic records by insurers will be explored. Panelists included Phil
Reilly, Shriver Center for Mental Retardation; John Hicks, FBI Lab;
Tom Marr, Cold Spring Harbor Lab; Paul Mendelsohn,
Neurofibromatosis, Inc.; Peter Neufeld, Esq.; Madison Powers,
Kennedy Center for Ethics, Georgetown University.

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.