Hello all, I thought you all might like to see this. It's a letter from Jerry Berman to David Chaum from November of 1985, in response to information that Mr. Chaum sent to Mr. Berman.  While I have to congratulate EFF for its prompt response to the Clipper Chip announcement from the White House, I think it's important to recognize the philosophy of their Executive Director, as explained below.  I agree that legal remedies are important, but when pressed, I'd prefer to retain the ability to use purely technical solutions to preserve my privacy, because they'll hold up under fire.  Mr. Chaum has consented to the publication of this letter on the Net.   I don't work for, nor am I a member of EFF, ACLU, or any similar organizations, but I do agree with them on a great many things.   					--Aristophanes  ----------                        AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION                          WASHINGTON OFFICE                                                                                                                             122 Maryland Avenue, NE  November 1, 1985                                   Washington, DC 20002                                                     --------------------                                                     National Headquarters Mr. David Chaum                                     132 West 43rd Street     Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science         New York. NY 10036     P.O. Box 4079                                       (212) 944-9800         19O9 AB Amsterdam                                   Norman Dorsen                                                          President         Dear Mr. Chaum:                                     Ira Glasser                                                       Executive Director                                                     Eleanor Holmes Norton                                                       CHAIR                                                     National Advisory                                                          Council                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    	Thank you for sending me a most interesting article.   A society of  individuals  and  organizations  that  would  expend  the time and resources to use a  series  of  'digital  pseudonyms' to avoid data linkage does not in my opinion make big brother obsolete but  acts  on  the  assumption  that  big  brother  is  ever present.  I  view  your  system  as  a  form  of  societal  paranoia.  	As a matter of  principle,  we  are  working  to  enact  formal legal protections for  individual  privacy  rather  than  relying  on technical solutions.   We want to  assume  a  society  of  law  which respects legal limits rather than  a  society  that  will  disobey  the law, requiring  citizens  to  depend  on  technical  solutions.  e.g. require  a  judical  warrant  for  government  interception  of  data communications rather than  encrypt  all  messages  on  the  assumption that regardless of the lawt  the  government  will  abuse  its  power and invade privacy.  	As a  matter  of  practicality,  I  do  not  think  your  system offers much hope for privacy.    First, the trend toward universal identifiers  is  as  much.-a  movement  generated  by  government  or industry's desire to keep track of all citizens as it is by citizens seeking simplicity and convenience in all transactions. At best,  your  system  would  benefit  the  sophisticated  and  most would opt for  simplicity.  The  poor  and  the  undereducated  would never use or benefit from it.  	Finally where there's a  will, there's  a  way. If  government wants to link data bases, it  will,  by  law, require  the  disclosure of various individual pseudonyms used by citizens or prohibit it for data bases which the government wants to link.      Since corporations  make  money  by  trading  commercial  lists  with   one another, they will never adopt  the  system  or  if  it  is  adopted, will use "fine printn  contracts  to  permit  selling  various   codes used by their customers to other firms.  	The solution remains law, policy, and consensus about limits on government or corporate intrusion into areas of individual autonomy.  Technique can be used to enforce that consensus or to override it. It cannot be used as a substitute for such consensus.                                                Sincerely Yours,                                               /Sig/                                              Jerry J. Berman                                             Chief Legislative Counsel                                             & Direrector ACLU                                             Privacy Technology Project