699 lines
33 KiB
Plaintext
699 lines
33 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
Computer underground Digest Wed Sep 25, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 68
|
|
ISSN 1004-042X
|
|
|
|
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
|
|
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
|
|
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
|
|
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
|
|
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
|
|
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
|
|
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
|
|
Ian Dickinson
|
|
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
|
|
|
|
CONTENTS, #8.68 (Wed, Sep 25, 1996)
|
|
|
|
File 1--7th maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks (fwd)
|
|
File 2--Report on Privacy on the Internet
|
|
File 3--CFP: 7th Conference on COMPUTERS, FREEDOM & PRIVACY (3/11-14/97) (fwd)
|
|
File 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
|
|
|
|
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
|
|
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:11:14 -0400
|
|
From: Noah <noah@enabled.com>
|
|
Subject: File 1--7th maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks (fwd)
|
|
|
|
From -Noah
|
|
|
|
---------- Forwarded message ----------
|
|
Date--Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:11:14 -0400
|
|
From--Dr. Deepinder Sidhu (CMSC) <sidhu@umbc.edu>
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
7th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks
|
|
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
November 5-6, 1996
|
|
|
|
Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research
|
|
Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
|
|
|
|
University of Maryland Baltimore County
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Maryland Center for Telecommunications Research (MCTR) and
|
|
Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at the
|
|
University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) will hold the
|
|
7th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks on November 5-6,
|
|
1996 at the UMBC campus. The Workshop will be held in the Ballroom
|
|
of the University Center on the UMBC campus.
|
|
|
|
The goal of the Workshop is to bring together experts in related
|
|
areas to discuss progress and research issues in the design and
|
|
implementation of very high speed communication networks. Each of
|
|
the previous workshops attracted approximately 150 researchers
|
|
representing academia, industry and government. The two day
|
|
meeting will include invited speakers and contributed presentations.
|
|
Papers on selected presentations will appear in a special issue of
|
|
the Journal of High Speed Networks.
|
|
|
|
For more information on the workshop and directions to UMBC,
|
|
check our home page on WWW.(http://www.mctr.umbc.edu)
|
|
|
|
A registration fee of $325 will include two lunches and conference
|
|
proceeding. For questions regarding the technical content of the
|
|
workshop or giving a presentation, please contact the workshop
|
|
organizer, Dr. Deepinder Sidhu, at
|
|
Tel: (410) 455-3028 or 3063, Fax: (410) 455-3969,
|
|
Email: mctr@cs.umbc.edu.
|
|
|
|
Mail checks (payable to University of Maryland Foundation) and
|
|
registration form to Dr. D. P. Sidhu, Maryland Center for
|
|
Telecommunications Research, University of Maryland Baltimore County,
|
|
1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250. All funds for this event will
|
|
be managed by the UM foundation.
|
|
|
|
Please DO NOT include hotel accommodation expenses in your payment
|
|
for the Workshop Registration. Room payment should be made directly
|
|
to the hotel you selected for stay. The following hotels are closest
|
|
to UMBC campus. Some hotels may offer reduced rate. To obtain the reduced
|
|
rate, you must identify yourself as an attendee of this workshop.
|
|
BWI Airport is approximately five miles from UMBC Campus.
|
|
|
|
1. Sheraton International Hotel - BWI Airport. Closest to airport
|
|
and UMBC campus. Tel: (410) 859-3300 or (800) 638-5858
|
|
|
|
2. Holiday Inn - BWI Airport. Close to airport and UMBC campus.
|
|
Tel: (410) 859-8400 or (800) HOLIDAY
|
|
|
|
3. Omni Inner Harbor Hotel. Close to Downtown Baltimore / Inner
|
|
Harbor. About 20 minutes drive to UMBC campus.
|
|
Tel: (410) 752-1100 or (800) 843-6664
|
|
|
|
For more information on the workshop and directions to UMBC,
|
|
check our home page on WWW.(http://www.mctr.umbc.edu)
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------
|
|
7th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks
|
|
(November 5-6, 1996)
|
|
|
|
Registration Form
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Affiliation:
|
|
------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Address: ----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Phone: Fax: Email:
|
|
---------------- ------------- ------------
|
|
|
|
Dietary Restriction : Vegetarian Kosher
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:23:04 -0700
|
|
From: Berliner Datenschutzbeauftragter <dsb@datenschutz-berlin.de>
|
|
Subject: File 2--Report on Privacy on the Internet
|
|
|
|
The International Working Group on Data Protection in
|
|
Telecommunications is currently working on Data Protection
|
|
and Privacy on the Internet.
|
|
|
|
The Group was founded in 1983 and has been initiated by
|
|
Data Protection Commissioners from different countries
|
|
in order to improve Data Protection and Privacy in
|
|
Telecommunications. The Secretariat of the Group is
|
|
located at the Berlin Data Protection Commissioner=B4s
|
|
Office, Berlin, Germany.
|
|
|
|
At its spring meeting 1996 in Budapest the Group has
|
|
agreed on a Draft Report and Guidance on Data Protection
|
|
on the Internet. It was agreed to publish the Report on
|
|
the Net in order to receive comments from the network
|
|
community.
|
|
|
|
The Secretariat of the Working Group has initiated a
|
|
discussion forum located at the WWW-Server of the
|
|
Berlin Data Protection Commissioner
|
|
(http://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/diskus/) that could
|
|
also be used for comments.
|
|
|
|
You can also make a contribution by sending an e-mail
|
|
directly to the Secretariat <mailbox@datenschutz-berlin.de>.
|
|
In this case please include "Data Protection on the Internet"
|
|
as the subject.
|
|
|
|
A German version of the report is available at=20
|
|
http://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/diskus/budade.htm .
|
|
|
|
We are looking forward to your comments on the report.
|
|
|
|
Yours sincerely,
|
|
|
|
Hansj=FCrgen Garstka
|
|
(Berlin Data Protection Commissioner; Chairman of the Group)
|
|
|
|
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
|
|
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
|
|
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
|
Start of the report
|
|
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
|
|
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
|
|
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
|
|
|
International Working Group
|
|
on Data Protection
|
|
in Telecommunications
|
|
|
|
21 May 1996
|
|
|
|
Data Protection on the Internet
|
|
|
|
Report and Guidance
|
|
|
|
"Budapest Draft"
|
|
|
|
(revised on the basis of the discussions at the 19th Meeting of the Group=
|
|
=20
|
|
in Budapest 15 and 16 April 1996)
|
|
|
|
Today, the Internet is the world=B4s largest international computer=20
|
|
network. There are "slip roads" to this "information superhighway" in=20
|
|
more than 140 countries. The Internet consists of more than four=20
|
|
millions of Internet sites ("hosts"); more than 40 millions of users=20
|
|
from all over the world can use at least one of the different Internet=20
|
|
services and have the facilities to communicate with each other via=20
|
|
electronic mail. Users have access to an immense pool of information=20
|
|
stored at different locations all over the world. The Internet can be=20
|
|
regarded as the first level of the emerging Global Information=20
|
|
Infrastructure (GII).The WorldWideWeb as the most modern Internet user=20
|
|
interface is a basis for new interactive multimedia services.
|
|
|
|
The participants in the Internet have different tasks, interests and
|
|
opportunities:
|
|
|
|
* The software, computer and telecommunications industries design the
|
|
networks and the services available.
|
|
|
|
* Telecommunications organisations like national telecoms provide =20
|
|
basic networks for data transfer (point-to-point or
|
|
point-to-multipoint connections).
|
|
|
|
* Access (communications) providers supply basic services for storage,
|
|
transmission and presentation. They are responsible for the Internet
|
|
transport system (routing, delivery) and process traffic data.
|
|
|
|
* Information (content) providers supply information stored in files
|
|
and databases to the users.
|
|
|
|
* Users access different kinds of Internet services (mail, news,
|
|
information) and use the Net for entertainment as well as for
|
|
teleshopping, teleworking, teleteaching/ -learning and telemedecine.
|
|
|
|
I. Problems and risks
|
|
|
|
Unlike in traditional processing of personal data where there is usually
|
|
a single authority or enterprise responsible for protecting the privacy
|
|
of their customers, there is no such overall responsibility on the=20
|
|
Internet assigned to a certain entity. Furthermore there is no=20
|
|
International oversight mechanism to enforce legal obligations as far as=20
|
|
they exist. Therefore the user is forced to put trust into the security=20
|
|
of the entire network, that is every single component of the network, no=20
|
|
matter where located or managed by whom. The trustworthiness of the Net=20
|
|
will become even more crucial with the advent of new software which=20
|
|
induces the user not only to download programs from the Net, but also=20
|
|
weakens his control over his personal data.
|
|
|
|
The fast growth of the Internet and its increasing use for commercial and
|
|
private purposes give rise to serious privacy problems:
|
|
|
|
* The Internet facilitates the quick transmission of great quantities
|
|
of information to any other computer system connected to the=20
|
|
network.Sensitive personal data can be communicated to countries=20
|
|
without an appropriate data protection level. Information providers=20
|
|
might offer personal data from sites situated in countries without=20
|
|
any privacy legislation where they can be accessed from all over the=
|
|
=20
|
|
world by a simple mouse click.
|
|
|
|
* Personal data may be routed via countries without any or without
|
|
sufficient data protection legislation. On the Internet, basically
|
|
built for academic purposes, confidential communication is not
|
|
ensured.
|
|
|
|
There is no central switching center or other responsible authority
|
|
in control of the entire network. Therefore the responsibility for=20
|
|
data protection and data security is shared between millions of=20
|
|
providers. Every message transmitted could be intercepted at any=20
|
|
site it passes and could be traced, changed, forged, suppressed or=20
|
|
delayed. Nevertheless the Internet use for business purposes=20
|
|
increases exponentially and personal and other sensitive data=20
|
|
(credit card data as well as individual health information) are=20
|
|
transmitted via the Internet.
|
|
|
|
* The use of Internet services does not allow for adequate anonymity
|
|
nor adequate authentification. Computer network protocols and many
|
|
Internet services generally work with dedicated (point-to-point-)
|
|
connections. In addition to the content data the identification (ID)
|
|
of the sender and the recipient is transmitted. Every electronic
|
|
mail message contains a header with information about the sender and=
|
|
=20
|
|
the recipient (name and IP-address, host name, time of the mailing).=
|
|
=20
|
|
The header contains further information on the routing and the=20
|
|
subject of the message. It may also contain references to articles=20
|
|
by other authors. Users are bound to leave an electronic trace which=
|
|
=20
|
|
can be used to develop a profile of personal interests and tastes.=20
|
|
Although there is no central accounting of the access to news or=20
|
|
WorldWideWeb, the information behaviour of senders and recipients=20
|
|
can be traced and supervised at least by the communications provider=
|
|
=20
|
|
to whom the user is connected.
|
|
|
|
* On the other hand, the weakness of identification and authentication
|
|
procedures on the Internet has been used to penetrate remote
|
|
computer systems which were insufficiently protected, to spy on the=20
|
|
information stored and to manipulate or delete it. The lack of=20
|
|
secure authentication could also be used to access commercial=20
|
|
services at the cost of another user.
|
|
|
|
* There are thousands of special news-groups in the Internet; most of
|
|
them are open for every user. The contents of articles may contain
|
|
personal data of third persons; this personal information is
|
|
simultaneously stored on many thousands of computer systems without
|
|
any right of redress for the individual.
|
|
|
|
The participants in the Internet share an interest in the integrity and
|
|
confidentiality of the information transmitted: Users are interested in
|
|
reliable services and expect their privacy to be protected. In some cases
|
|
they may be interested in using services without being identified. Users
|
|
do not normally realize that they are entering a global market-place=20
|
|
while surfing on the Net and that every single movement may be monitored.
|
|
|
|
On the other hand many providers are interested in the identification and
|
|
authentication of users: They want personal data for charging, but they
|
|
could also use these data for other purposes. The more the Internet is
|
|
used for commercial purposes, the more interesting it will be for service
|
|
providers and other bodies to get as much transaction-generated=20
|
|
information about the customer's behaviour on the Net as possible, thus=20
|
|
increasing the risk to the customer's privacy. Increasingly companies=20
|
|
start to offer free access to the Net as a way of assuring that customers=
|
|
=20
|
|
read their advertisements which become a major financing method for the=20
|
|
whole Internet. Therefore they want to follow to want extent, by whom and=
|
|
=20
|
|
how often their advertisements are being read.
|
|
|
|
With regard to certain risks mentioned the functions of the bodies which
|
|
on an international, regional and national level manage the Net are=20
|
|
important in particular when they develop the protocols and standards for=
|
|
=20
|
|
the Internet, fix rules for the identification of servers connected and
|
|
eventually for the identification of users.
|
|
|
|
II. Existing regulations and guidelines
|
|
|
|
Although several national governments and international organisations
|
|
(for example the European Union) have launched programmes to faciliate=20
|
|
and intensify the development of computer networks and services, only=20
|
|
very little efforts have been taken to provide for sufficient data=20
|
|
protection and privacy regulations in this respect. Some national Data=20
|
|
Protection Authorities have already issued guidelines on the technical=20
|
|
security of computer networks linked to the Internet and on privacy risks=
|
|
=20
|
|
for the individual user of Internet services. Such guidelines have been=20
|
|
laid down for example in France, in the U.K. (see the 14th Annual Report=20
|
|
of the Data Protection Registrar, Appendix 6) and in Germany. The main=20
|
|
topics can be summed up as follows:
|
|
|
|
* Providing information on the Internet is subject to the national
|
|
data protection laws and regulations. In this respect the Internet=20
|
|
is not as unregulated as often stated. Ist is, to name but one=20
|
|
example, illegal for a German provider of a WorldWideWebServer to=20
|
|
register the complete addresses of computers which have accessed=20
|
|
which Web pages and to which files are being downloaded without the=20
|
|
knowledge of the person initiating that procedure (as is the usual=20
|
|
practice on the Net). National regulations might include the=20
|
|
obligation for information providers to register at a national data=20
|
|
protection authority. National law also contains specific provisions=
|
|
=20
|
|
with regard to international criminal, private and administrative=20
|
|
law (conflict of laws) which may provide solutions in certain=20
|
|
circumstances.
|
|
|
|
* Before connecting a local computer network - for example of a public
|
|
authority - to the Internet the risks for the security of the local
|
|
network and the data stored there have to be assessed in conformity
|
|
with the national law. This may include drawing up a security plan=20
|
|
and assessing whether it is necessary to connect the entire network=20
|
|
or only parts of it to the Internet. Depending on the purpose it=20
|
|
might even be sufficient to connect only a stand-alone system to the=
|
|
=20
|
|
Net.
|
|
|
|
Technical measures should be taken to secure that only the data=20
|
|
which could be published can be accessed on the Internet for example=
|
|
=20
|
|
by setting up a firewall system separating the local network from=20
|
|
the Net. However, it should be noted that even if such technical=20
|
|
steps have been taken connecting a computer network to the Internet=20
|
|
means putting an additional risk to its security.
|
|
|
|
* If personal data on users of a service are collected it must be
|
|
clear to them who is to use the data and what are the purposes for=20
|
|
which the data are to be used or disclosed. This means giving=20
|
|
notification on the screen before disclosure and providing an=20
|
|
opportunity to prevent disclosure. The user should be able to make a=
|
|
=20
|
|
hardcopy of this notification and of any other terms and conditions=20
|
|
set by the provider.
|
|
|
|
* If access to personal data on a computer system is provided - for
|
|
example by publishing biographical details of staff members in a
|
|
directory - the information provider must make sure that those
|
|
individuals understand the global nature of that access. The safe
|
|
course is to publish the data only with the informed consent of the
|
|
persons concerned.
|
|
|
|
There are also a number of international legal regulations and
|
|
conventions that apply inter alia to the Internet:
|
|
|
|
* Recommendation with Guidelines on the protection of privacy and
|
|
transborder flows of personal data
|
|
adopted by the Council of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
|
|
and Development (OECD) on 23 September 1980
|
|
* Council of Europe Convention No. 108 for the protection of
|
|
individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data=20
|
|
adopted 28 January 1981
|
|
* Guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files
|
|
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1990
|
|
* European Council 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of
|
|
the internal market for telecommunications services through the
|
|
implementation of Open Network Provision (ONP) and ensuing ONP
|
|
Directives (defining data protection as "essential requirement")
|
|
* Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
|
|
24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the
|
|
processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data
|
|
(EU-Data Protection-Directive)
|
|
* General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (stating in Article
|
|
XIV that Member States are not prevented by this worldwide agreement=
|
|
=20
|
|
to adopt or enforce regulations relating to the protection of=20
|
|
privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and=20
|
|
dissemination of personal data and the protection of confidentiality=
|
|
=20
|
|
of individual records and accounts.
|
|
|
|
The EU-Directive as the first supra-national legal instrument does
|
|
contain an important new definition of "controller" which is relevant in=20
|
|
the Internet context. Article 2 lit. c) defines "controller" as the=20
|
|
natural and legal person, public authority, agency or any other body=20
|
|
which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of=20
|
|
the processing of personal data. Applying this definition to the use of=20
|
|
the Internet for purposes of electronic mail the sender of an electronic=20
|
|
message has to be considered to be the controller of this message when=20
|
|
sending a file of personal data for he determines the purposes and means=20
|
|
of the processing and transmission of those personal data. On the other=20
|
|
hand the provider of a mailbox service himself determines the purposes=20
|
|
and means of the processing of the personal data related to the operation=
|
|
=20
|
|
of the mailbox service and therefore he as "controller" has at least a=20
|
|
joint responsibility to follow the applicable rules of data protection.
|
|
|
|
Although not legally binding and adopted on a national rather than an
|
|
international level the
|
|
|
|
* Principles for providing and using personal information "Privacy and
|
|
the National Information Infrastructure" adopted by the Privacy
|
|
Working Group of the Information Policy Committee within the United
|
|
States Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) on 6 June 1995
|
|
|
|
should be mentioned in this context for they are bound to influence the
|
|
international data flows. They have been discussed intensively and
|
|
fruitfully with the International Working Group on Data Protection in
|
|
Telecommunications at the Joint Meeting in Washington, D.C. on 28 April
|
|
1995.
|
|
|
|
In practice some important and effective rules are being imposed by the=20
|
|
Net Community themselves by way of self-regulation (e.g. "Netiquette").=20
|
|
Such methods are not to be under-estimated as to the role they play and=20
|
|
might play in future in protecting the individual user's privacy. At=20
|
|
least they contribute to creating the necessary awareness among users=20
|
|
that confidentiality on the Net as a basic standard is non-existent=20
|
|
("Never send or keep anything in your mailbox that you would mind seeing=20
|
|
on the evening news.") The EU-Data Protection Directive in turn calls for=
|
|
=20
|
|
codes of conduct (Article 27) which should be encouraged by Member States=
|
|
=20
|
|
and the Commission.
|
|
|
|
III. Guidance
|
|
|
|
There can be no doubt that the legal and technical protection of Internet
|
|
users' privacy is at present insufficient.
|
|
|
|
On the one hand the right of every individual to use the information
|
|
superhighway without being observed and identified should be guaranteed.
|
|
On the other hand there have to be limits (crash-barriers) with regard to=
|
|
=20
|
|
the use of personal data (e.g. of third persons) on the highway.
|
|
|
|
There is a strong case to prohibit the use of the Internet for the
|
|
publication of search warrants by the police (the U.S. Federal Bureau of
|
|
Investigations has published a list of wanted suspects on the Net for
|
|
some time). The described deficiencies in the authentication procedure=20
|
|
and the easy manipulation of pictures in Cyberspace seem to prevent the=20
|
|
use of the Net for this purpose.
|
|
|
|
A solution to this basic dilemma will have to be found on the following
|
|
levels:
|
|
|
|
a) Service providers should inform each potential user of the Net
|
|
unequivocally about the risks to his privacy. He will then have to
|
|
balance these risks against the expected benefits. The Internet is a=20
|
|
"beautiful wilderness with lions and snakes" (Waltraut Kotschy) but there=
|
|
=20
|
|
is little awareness among users what this means.
|
|
|
|
b) As "elements of network infrastructure as well as participants each
|
|
have physical locations, states have the ability to impose and enforce a=20
|
|
certain degree of liability on networks and their participants" (Joel=20
|
|
Reidenberg). In many instances the decision to enter the Internet and how=
|
|
=20
|
|
to use it is subject to legal conditions under national data protection=20
|
|
law. Personal data may only be collected in a transparent way. Patients'=20
|
|
data and other sensitive personal data should only be communicated via=20
|
|
the Internet or be stored on computers linked to the Net if they are=20
|
|
encrypted.
|
|
|
|
c) Several national governments are calling for international agreements
|
|
on the Global Information Infrastructure. The French Minister for=20
|
|
Information Technology has argued in favour of an international treaty=20
|
|
similar to the International Convention on the Law of the Sea; the German=
|
|
=20
|
|
Minister for Research and Technology has called for an initiative in the=20
|
|
framework of the G 7 -group. These initiatives are to be supported. An=20
|
|
international cooperation, even an international convention governing=20
|
|
data protection in the context of transborder networks and services=20
|
|
including an oversight mechanism is essential.
|
|
|
|
d) National and international law should state unequivocally that the
|
|
process of communicating (e.g. via electronic mail) is also protected by
|
|
the secrecy of telecommunications and correspondence.
|
|
|
|
e) Furthermore it is necessary to develop technical means to improve the
|
|
user=B4s privacy on the Net. It is mandatory to develop design principles
|
|
for information and communications technology and multimedia hard- and=20
|
|
software which will enable the individual user to control and give him=20
|
|
feedback with regard to his personal data. In general users should have=20
|
|
the opportunity to access the Internet without having to reveal their=20
|
|
identity where personal data are not needed to provide a certain service.=
|
|
=20
|
|
Concepts for such measures have already been developed and published.=20
|
|
Examples are the "Identity Protector" concept included in=20
|
|
"Privacy-enhancing technologies: The path to anonymity" by the Dutch=20
|
|
Registratiekamer and The Information and Privacy Commissioner of=20
|
|
Ontario/Canada (presented at the 17th International Conference on Data=20
|
|
Protection in Copenhagen (1995) and the "User Agent-concept" as reported=20
|
|
on at the joint Washington meeting of the Working Group with the Privacy=20
|
|
Working Group of the IITF (April 1995).
|
|
|
|
f) Technical means should also be used for the purpose of protecting
|
|
confidentiality.
|
|
|
|
The use of secure encryption methods must become and remain a legitimate
|
|
option for any user of the Internet.
|
|
|
|
The Working Group supports new developments of the Internet Protocol
|
|
(e.g. IP v6) which offer means to improve confidentiality by encryption,
|
|
classification of messages and better authentication procedures. The
|
|
software manufacturers should implement the new Internet Protocol=20
|
|
security standard in their products and providers should support the use=20
|
|
of these products as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
|
g) The Working Group would endorse a study of the feasibility to set up a
|
|
new procedure of certification issuing "quality stamps" for providers and
|
|
products as to their privacy-friendliness. This could lead to an improved
|
|
transparency for users of the Information Superhighway.
|
|
|
|
h) Finally it will be decisive to find out how self-regulation by way of
|
|
an expanded "Netiquette" and privacy-friendly technology might improve=20
|
|
the implementation of national and international regulations on privacy
|
|
protection. It will not suffice to rely on any one of these courses of
|
|
action: they will have to be combined effectively to arrive at a Global
|
|
Information Infrastructure that respects the human rights to privacy and
|
|
to unobserved communications.
|
|
|
|
The International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications
|
|
will monitor the developments in this field closely, take into account
|
|
comments from the Net Community and develop further more detailed
|
|
proposals.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:48:34 -0500 (CDT)
|
|
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
|
|
Subject: File 3--CFP: 7th Conference on COMPUTERS, FREEDOM & PRIVACY (3/11-14/97) (fwd)
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------- Forwarded message ----------
|
|
|
|
THE SEVENTH CONFERENCE ON COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, AND PRIVACY
|
|
|
|
Call for Participation
|
|
|
|
San Francisco Airport Hyatt Regency Hotel
|
|
Burlingame, California
|
|
March 11-14, 1997
|
|
|
|
CFP97: Commerce & Community will be sponsored by the Association for
|
|
Computing Machinery SIGCOM and SIGSAC. The host institutions will be
|
|
Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley.
|
|
Co-sponsors and cooperating organizations include the ACM SIGCAS, the
|
|
Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and
|
|
Technology, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the WELL.
|
|
|
|
CFP97: Commerce & Community is the latest in a series of annual
|
|
conferences assembling a diverse group of experts and advocates from
|
|
the domains of technology, business, government, and academia to
|
|
explore the evolution of information and communication technologies and
|
|
public policy, and its effects on freedom and privacy in the United
|
|
States and throughout the world.
|
|
|
|
Past CFP sessions have discussed, debated -- and often anticipated --
|
|
issues of great social import. In this tradition, CFP97: Commerce &
|
|
Community will examine the social and policy questions posed by:
|
|
|
|
* the growth of electronic communities;
|
|
* electronic commerce and the commercialization of cyberspace;
|
|
* the problems of legal and regulatory control of the Net;
|
|
* the interests of privacy and property in the electronic domain;
|
|
* high-tech law enforcement and security concerns.
|
|
|
|
The CFP97 Program Committee invites your suggestions for presentations
|
|
on these or other important issues at the nexus of technology,
|
|
business, public policy, freedom, and privacy.
|
|
|
|
Proposals may be for individual talks, panel discussions, debates, moot
|
|
courts, moderated, interactive sessions or other formats. Each
|
|
proposal should be accompanied by a one-page statement describing the
|
|
topic and format. Descriptions of multi-person presentations should
|
|
include a list of proposed participants and session chair. Proposals
|
|
should be sent by email to cfp97@cfp.org. If necessary, typewritten
|
|
proposals may be sent to: CFP'97, 2210 Sixth Street, Berkeley, CA
|
|
94710.
|
|
|
|
Please submit your proposal as soon as possible. The deadline for
|
|
submissions is October 1, 1996. (Please note that we have extended our
|
|
deadline for submissions)
|
|
|
|
For more information on the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conferences,
|
|
as well as up-to-date announcements on CFP'97, please visit our Web
|
|
page at: http://www.cfp.org
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
|
|
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
|
|
Subject: File 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
|
|
|
|
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 post with this in the "Subject:: line:
|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
|
|
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
|
|
|
|
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
|
|
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
|
|
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
|
|
|
|
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) (860)-585-9638.
|
|
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
|
|
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
|
|
|
|
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
|
|
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
|
|
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
|
|
|
|
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/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/
|
|
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
|
|
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
|
|
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
|
|
Cu Digest WWW site at:
|
|
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
End of Computer Underground Digest #8.68
|
|
************************************
|
|
|