Computer underground Digest Wed Aug 10, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 71
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
Copywrite Editor: Eatingin Shrdlu
CONTENTS, #6.71 (Wed, Aug 10, 1994)
File 1--EFF Statement on Leahy/Edwards Digital Telephony Bill
File 2--Today, PBS; tomorrow, the InfoBahn
File 3--EPIC Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data
File 4--Electronic Superhighway Introduced in House of Commons
File 5--Essay Contest - Future of Print
File 6--Announcing the COAST Security FTP Archive!
File 7--CALL FOR PAPERS - Symposium on Computerized Information Mgmt
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: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 21:51:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 1--EFF Statement on Leahy/Edwards Digital Telephony Bill
Leahy and Edwards introduce a narrow Digital Telephony bill
with major new privacy protections
============================================================
Today Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Representative Don Edwards
(D-CA) introduced their version of Digital Telephony legislation. Since
1992, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been successful at stopping a
series of FBI Digital Telephony proposals, which would have forced
communications companies to install wiretap capability into every
communications medium. However, earlier this year, Senator Leahy and Rep.
Edwards, who have helped to quash previous FBI proposals, concluded that
the passage of such a bill was inevitable this year. To head off passage
of the FBI's bill, Leahy and Edwards stepped in to draft a narrow bill, and
asked for EFF's help in the process. EFF remains deeply troubled by the
prospect of the federal government forcing communications networks to be
made "wiretap ready," but we believe that the legislation introduced today
is substantially less intrusive that the original FBI proposals.
Jerry Berman, EFF Policy Director said: "We have opposed digital telephony
proposals for the past three years and still do not believe that such
legislation is necessary."
"Thanks to the work of Senator Leahy and Rep. Edwards and Senator Biden,
however, the bill contains a number of significant privacy advances,
including enhanced protection for the detailed transactional information
records generated by online information services, email systems, and the
Internet," Berman said.
Many online communication and information systems create detailed records
of users' communication activities as well as lists of the information that
they have accessed. The new legal protection is critical in that it
recognizes that this transactional information created by new digital
communications systems is extremely sensitive and deserves a high
degree of protection from casual law enforcement access which is currently
possible without any independent judicial supervision. Under current law,
the government can gain access to transactional records with a mere
subpoena, which can be obtained without the intervention of a court. Under
the new privacy protections in this bill, law enforcement would have to
convince a court to issue an order based on a finding that there are
"specific and articulable facts" which prove that the information sought
would be relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
"The fact that law enforcement has to take a case to court in order to get
permission to access records is a major new privacy protection which will
benefit all users of online communication systems," said Daniel Weitzner,
EFF Deputy Policy Director.
Another important privacy protection is that there is a cap on the amount
of money that can be spent on surveillance technology in the first four
years. The Attorney General is authorized to spend up to $500 million
on reimbursement telecommunications carriers who retrofit their systems so
as to come into compliance with the bill. So that this cap truly functions
as a privacy protection, we believe that carriers should only be
responsible for complying with the bill if the Attorney General actually
pays for modifications. Government should get what it pays for, and no
more.
"Although we do not support the concept of digital telephony legislation,
we believe that if Congress is to pass any version of the bill this year,
it should be along the lines of the Leahy/Edwards version," said Berman.
"The version crafted by Senator Leahy and Rep. Edwards," Berman explained,
"is substantially better from a privacy, technology policy, and civil
liberties standpoint than the draconian measures offered in the past
by the Bush Administration."
"As the bill works through the legislative process," Berman continued, "EFF
will work to ensure that privacy and public process provisions are
strengthened, and that the scope remains narrow -- continuing to exclude
the Internet, electronic bulletin board systems, and online communications
services such as America Online, Prodigy and Compuserve. Also, we note
that the radio communication provisions have not yet been subject to public
discussion, and hope that this will occur before the bill is considered by
the full House and Senate."
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerry Berman Policy Director <jberman@eff.org>
Daniel Weitzner Deputy Policy Director <djw@eff.org>
+1 202 347 5400
* * * * * * * *
EFF Analysis of and comments on major provisions of the bill
============================================================
A. Key new privacy protections
1. Expanded protection for transactional records sought by law
enforcement
Senator Leahy and Rep. Edwards have agreed that law enforcement access to
transactional records in online communication systems (everything from the
Internet to AOL to hobbyist BBSs) threatens privacy rights because the
records are personally identifiable, because they reveal the content of
people's communications, and because the compilation of such records makes
it easy for law enforcement to create a detailed picture of people's lives
online. Based on this recognition, the draft bill contains the following
provisions:
i. Court order required for access to transactional records
instead of mere subpoena
In order to gain access to transactional records, such as a list of to whom
a subject sent email, which online discussion group one subscribes to, or
which movies you request on a pay-per view channel, law enforcement will
have to prove to a court, by the showing of "specific and articulable
facts" that the records requested are relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation. This means that the government may not request volumes of
transactional records merely to see what it can find through traffic
analysis. Rather, law enforcement will have to prove to a court that it has
reason to believe that it will find some specific information that is
relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation in the records that it
requests.
With these provisions, we have achieved for all online systems, a
significantly greater level of protection than currently exists for
telephone toll records. The lists of telephone calls that are kept by local
and long distance phone companies are available to law enforcement without
any judicial intervention at all. Law enforcement gains access to hundreds
of thousands of such telephone records each year, without a warrant and
without even notice to the citizens involved. Court order protection will
make it much more difficult for law enforcement to go on "fishing
expeditions" through online transactional records, hoping to find evidence
of a crime by accident.
ii. Standard of proof much greater than for telephone toll records,
but below that for content
The most important change that these new provisions offer, is that law
enforcement will (a) have to convince a judge that there is reason to
look at a particular set of records, and (b) have to expend the time and
energy necessary to have a US Attorney or DA actually present a case before
a court. However, the burden or proof to be met by the government in such a
proceeding is lower than required for access to the content of a
communication.
2. New protection for location-specific information available
in cellular, PCS and other advanced networks
Much of the electronic surveillance conducted by law enforcement today
involves gathering telephone dialing information through a device
known as a pen register. Authority to attach pen registers is obtained
merely by asserting that the information would be relevant to a criminal
investigation. Courts have no authority to deny pen register requests.
This legislation offers significant new limits on the use of pen register
data.
Under this bill, when law enforcement seeks pen register information from
a carrier, the carrier is forbidden to deliver to law enforcement any
information which would disclose the location or movement of the calling or
called party. Cellular phone networks, PCS systems, and so-called
"follow-me" services all store location information in their networks.
This new limitation is a major safeguard which will prevent law enforcement
from casually using mobile and intelligent communications services as
nation-wide tracking systems.
i. New limitations on "pen register" authority
Law enforcement must use "technology reasonably available" to limit pen
registers to the collection of calling number information only.
Currently, law enforcement is able to capture not only the telephone number
dialed, but also any other touch-tone digits dialed which reflect the
user's interaction with an automated information service on the other end
of the line, such as an automatic banking system or a voice-mail password.
3. Bill does not preclude use of encryption
Unlike previous Digital Telephony proposals, this bill places no
obligation on telecommunication carriers to decipher encrypted messages,
unless the carrier actually holds the key.
4. Automated remote monitoring precluded
Law enforcement is specifically precluded from having automated, remote
surveillance capability. Any electronic surveillance must be initiated by
an employee of the telecommunications carrier.
5. Privacy considerations essential to development of new technology
One of the requirements that telecommunications carriers must meet to
be in compliance with the Act, is that the wiretap access methods adopted
must protect the privacy and security of each user's communication. If
this requirement is not met, anyone may petition the FCC to have the
wiretap access service be modified so that network security is maintained.
So, the technology used to conduct wiretaps cannot also jeopardize the
security of the network as a whole. If network-wide security problems
arise because of wiretapping standards, then the standards can be
overturned.
B. Draconian provisions softened
In addition, the surveillance requirements imposed by the bill are not
as far-reaching as the original FBI version. A number of procedural
safeguards are added which seek to minimize the threatens to privacy,
security, and innovation. Though the underlying premise of the Act is
still cause for concern, these new limitations deserve attention:
1. Narrow Scope
The bill explicitly excludes Internet providers, email systems, BBSs,
and other online services. Unlike the bills previously proposed by the
FBI, this bill is limited to local and long distance telephone companies,
cellular and PCS providers, and other common carriers.
2. Open process with public right of intervention
The public will have access to information about the implementation of
the Act, including open access to all standards adopted in compliance
with the Act, the details of how much wiretap capacity the government
demands, and a detailed accounting of all federal money paid to carriers
for modifications to their networks. Privacy groups, industry interests,
and anyone else has a statutory right under this bill to challenge
implementation steps taken by law enforcement if they threaten privacy or
impede technology advancement.
3. Technical requirements standards developed by industry instead of
the Attorney General
All surveillance requirements are to be implemented according to
standards developed by industry groups. The government is specifically
precluded from forcing any particular technical standard, and all
requirements are qualified by notions of economic and technical
reasonableness.
4. Right to deploy untappable services
Unlike the original FBI proposal, this bill recognizes that there may
be services which are untappable, even with Herculean effort to accommodate
surveillance needs. In provisions that still require some strengthening,
the bill allows untappable services to be deployed if redesign is not
economically or technically feasible.
C. Provisions that must be changed
EFF plans to work on the following issues in the bill as the
legislative process continues:
1. Strengthened public process
In the first four years of the bill's implementation, most of the requests
that law enforcement makes to carriers are required to be recorded in
the public record. However, additional demands for compliance after
that time are only required to be made by written notice to the carrier.
All compliance requirements, whether initial requests or subsequent
modification, must be recorded in the Federal Register after public
hearings, to allow for public scrutiny.
2. Linkage of cost to compliance requirements -- the FBI gets what it
pays for and no more
The bill authorizes, but does not appropriate, $500 million to be spent by
the government in reimbursing telecommunications carriers for bringing
their networks into compliance with the bill. The FBI maintains that this
is enough money to cover all reasonable expenses. The industry, however,
has consistently maintained that the costs are five to ten times higher.
Given the FBI's confidence in their cost estimate, we believe that
telecommunications carriers should only be required to comply to the extent
that they have been reimbursed. This spending cap is both a safeguard
against requiring unnecessary surveillance technology, and a way to
guarantee that carriers' expenses for electronic surveillance are truly
paid for by the government, not by the customers.
3. Ensure right to deploy untappable services
The enforcement provisions of the bill suggest, but do not state
explicitly, that services which are untappable may be deployed. The bill
should be state directly that if it is technically and economically
unreasonable to make a service tappable, then it may be deployed, without
interference by a court.
4. Clarify definition of call identifying information
The definition of call identifying information in the bill is too broad.
Whether intentionally or not, the term now covers network signaling
information of networks which are beyond the scope of the bill. To
maintain the narrow scope of the bill, this definition should be clarified.
5. Review of minimization requirements in view of commingled
communications
The bill implicitly contemplates that law enforcement, in some cases,
will intercept large bundles of communications, some of which are from
subscribers who are not subject of wiretap orders. For example, when
tapping a single individual whose calls are handled by a PBX, law
enforcement may sweep in calls of other individuals as well. Currently the
Supreme Court requires "minimization" procedures in all wiretaps, to
minimize the intrusion on the privacy of conversations not covered by a
court's wiretap order. We believe that the bill should reinforce the
current minimization requirements by recognizing that stronger minimization
procedures may be required.
* * *
Locating Relevant Documents
===========================
** Original 1992 Bush-era draft **
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/Old/digtel92_old_bill.draft
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/FBI/Old, digtel92_old_bill.draft
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/Old/digtel92_old_bill.draft
bbs: +1 202 638 6120 (8N1, 300-14400bps), file area: Privacy - Digital
Telephony; file: digtel92.old
** 1993/1994 Clinton-era draft **
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/digtel94_bill.draft
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/FBI, digtel94_bill.draft
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/digtel94_bill.draft
bbs: +1 202 638 6120 (8N1, 300-14400bps), file area: Privacy - Digital
Telephony; file: digtel94.dft
** 1994 final draft, as sponsored **
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/digtel94.bill
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/FBI, digtel94.bill
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/digtel94.bill
bbs: +1 202 638 6120 (8N1, 300-14400bps), file area: Privacy - Digital
Telephony; file: digtel94.bil
** EFF Analysis of sponsored version **
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/digtel94_analysis.eff
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/FBI, digtel94_analysis.eff
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/digtel94_analysis.eff
bbs: +1 202 638 6120 (8N1, 300-14400bps), file area: Privacy - Digital
Telephony; file: digtel94.ana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 13:54:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: JMCGRATH@ALBNYVMS.BITNET
Subject: File 2--Today, PBS; tomorrow, the InfoBahn
Today, PBS; tomorrow, the InfoBahn
>From the Congressional Record, 6-28,
Bernie Sanders (Independent, Vermont)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and urge Members
to support the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
I do want to say, however, that unless there are some substantial
changes in Public Broadcasting and its relationship to the working
people of America, my vote and my position might be very different
next year.
Mr. Chairman, one of the great dangers in America today, and
something that frightens me and many other Americans very much is
the growing concentration of ownership in the mass media. Fewer
and fewer and larger and larger corporations increasingly control
what we see on television, what we hear on the radio, and what we
read in the newspapers and magazines. The noted journalist and
author Ben Bagdikian has written in his book ~The Media Monopoly~
that by the turn of the century a handful of huge multinational
corporations will not only control what we see and hear in America
but in fact will be controlling what much of the world sees, hears,
and reads. That is a very dangerous trend.
Mr. Chairman, it is not an accident that the Rush Limbaughs,
the Pat Buchanans, and the G. Gordon Liddys dominate commercial
radio talk shows. Their views reflect the interests of the
corporations which own those radio networks. It is also not an
accident that on commercial radio and television there is very
little serious discussion about the enormous problems facing the
working people and the poor of this Nation. The average working
family in America is in trouble. They are under stress. They are
hurting. But that reality is not reflected in the corporately
controlled media. Yes, we do have round-the-clock analysis of the
O.J. Simpson case and the Menendez brothers saga and the Bobbitt
family adventures and the Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan
adventure. Yes, we have in-depth analyses of why the Houston
Rockets were able to defeat the New York Knickerbockers and why the
Washington Redskins did not do so well this last session. Yes, the
airwaves are filled with violence and blood and 30-second
commercials which are having an extremely negative impact on the
cognitive abilities of the young kids of America. But somehow,
just somehow there is virtually no programming which explains to
the American people why the standard of living of American workers
has gone from 1st place in the world 20 years ago to 13th place
today. Somehow we do not have programming which deals with that.
Somehow there is very little discussion or portrayal on television
about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in America. I
guess we do not have time on TV for that or about the fact that the
wealthiest 1 percent of our population owns more wealth than the
bottom 90 percent, or about how multinational corporations are
moving to the Third World and are hiring workers at 15 to 20 cents
an hour while they are throwing American workers out on the street.
I guess that is just not interesting enough to put on our TV
airways. Should we be surprised that General Electric~s NBC or the
corporations that own the other networks do not focus very much on
these issues? Well, I am not surprised, and I think the average
American is not surprised.
Mr. Chairman, the reason that Public Broadcasting was
established and why taxpayers are contributing to Public Television
and Radio is that it is supposed to offer an alternative point of
view to that offered by the corporately owned networks. It is
supposed to give a voice to those who have no voice. It is
supposed to be able to deal with controversywithout being afraid of
offending corporate sponsors. That is the reason that it exists.
It is supposed to take on the entrenched special interests because
it is funded by the ordinary people of this country, the people who
are not wealthy, the people who are not powerful, the people who do
not own ABC, CBS, or NBC. In other words, radical thought that it
may be, public television is supposed to represent the interests of
the public. I know that is a radical thought, but that is the way
it is supposed to be. Sadly, despite what its original mandate
was, despite the fact that there is some excellent programming on
public television, some very fine children~s programming on public
television, despite all of that, very few people can argue that
public television has fulfilled its original mandate. In fact,
year after year it appears that public television is more and more
coming to resemble commercial television.
Mr. Chairman, I do not object that there are three regularly
scheduled business shows on PBS. I do not object that there are
three regularly scheduled shows - Wall Street Week, the Nightly
Business Report, and Adam Smith~s Money World. I have no problem
with those programs. I do have a problem, however, that there is
not one regularly scheduled program on the PBS which focuses on the
needs and the problems of the working people of America. If there
are three regularly scheduled business shows, why is there not at
least one, just one, regularly scheduled show reflecting the
interests of working people and organized labor? I do not object
that three weekly public affairs shows on the PBS stations are
hosted by individuals who have been associated with the National
Review, a leading right-wing magazine: William Buckley~s Firing
Line, John McLaughlin~s McLaughlin Group, and McLaughlin~s One on
One. I do not object to these shows. But I do object that there is
not one weekly PBS show which is hosted by a journalist from a
labor or a progressive point of view. Our side also has
articulate, well-informed journalists and commentators who are
capable of presenting interesting and informative television, and
that point of view has a right to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting is at a crossroads. If it wants to resemble
commercial television, Mr. Crane has a point. If it wants to
resemble commercial television, if it wants to go out and hunt for
more and more corporate money, then maybe we should say once and
for all that it should become a private entity which competes in
the marketplace with the corporate media. Mr. Crane does have a
point. But I do not think that is what it should be. It seems to
me that in a time when more and more of the media is controlled by
big money, it is imperative that we really do have a public
broadcasting system which deals with the real problems facing the
working people of America. Tonight I will oppose Mr. Crane~s
amendment. I hope PBS changes, or next year I will not.
bsanders@igc.apc.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 13:15:11 +0000
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@EPIC.ORG>
Subject: File 3--EPIC Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data
Electronic Privacy Information Center
PRESS RELEASE
_____________________________________________________________
For Release:
August 9, 1994
2:00 pm
Group Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data,
Calls Proposed Surveillance Legislation Unnecessary
Washington, DC: A leading privacy rights group today sued
the Federal Bureau of Investigation to force the release of
documents the FBI claims support its campaign for new wiretap
legislation. The documents were cited by FBI Director Louis Freeh
during testimony before Congress and in a speech to an influential
legal organization but have never been released to the public.
The lawsuit was filed as proposed legislation which would
mandate technological changes long sought by the FBI was scheduled
to be introduced in Congress.
The case was brought in federal district court by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public interest
research organization that has closely monitored the Bureau's
efforts to mandate the design of the nation's telecommunications
infrastructure to facilitate wiretapping. An earlier EPIC lawsuit
revealed that FBI field offices had reported no difficulties
conducting wiretaps as a result of new digital communications
technology, in apparent contradiction of frequent Bureau claims.
At issue are two internal FBI surveys that the FBI Director
has cited as evidence that new telephone systems interfere with
law enforcement investigations. During Congressional testimony on
March 18, Director Freeh described "a 1993 informal survey which
the FBI did with respect to state and local law enforcement
authorities." According to Freeh, the survey describes the
problems such agencies had encountered in executing court orders
for electronic surveillance. On May 19 the FBI Director delivered
a speech before the American Law Institute in Washington, DC. In
his prepared remarks, Freeh stated that "[w]ithin the last month,
the FBI conducted an informal survey of federal and local law
enforcement regarding recent technological problems which revealed
over 180 instances where law enforcement was precluded from
implementing or fully implementing court [wiretap] orders."
According to David L. Sobel, EPIC's Legal Counsel, the FBI
has not yet demonstrated a need for the sweeping new legislation
that it seeks. "The Bureau has never presented a convincing case
that its wiretapping capabilities are threatened. Yet it seeks to
redesign the information infrastructure at an astronomical cost to
the taxpayers." The nation's telephone companies have
consistently stated that there have been no cases in which the
needs of law enforcement have not been met.
EPIC is a project of the Fund for Constitutional Government
and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
================================================================
FBI Director Freeh's Recent Conflicting
Statements on the Need for Digital Telephony Legislation
_______________________________________________________________
Speech before the Executives' Club of Chicago, February 17:
Development of technology is moving so rapidly that several
hundred court-authorized surveillances already have been
prevented by new technological impediments with advanced
communications equipment.
* * *
Testimony before Congress on March 18:
SEN. LEAHY: Have you had any -- for example, digital telephony,
have you had any instances where you've had a court order for a
wiretap that couldn't be executed because of digital
telephony?
MR. FREEH: We've had problems just short of that. And I was
going to continue with my statement, but I won't now because
I'd actually rather answer questions than read. We have
instances of 91 cases -- this was based on a 1993 informal
survey which the FBI did with respect to state and local law
enforcement authorities. I can break that down for you.
* * *
Newsday interview on May 16:
We've determined about 81 different instances around the
country where we were not able to execute a court-authorized
electronic surveillance order because of lack of access to that
particular system - a digital switch, a digital loop or some
blocking technology which we didn't have to deal with four or
five years ago.
* * *
Speech before the American Law Institute on May 19:
Within the last month, the FBI conducted an informal survey of
federal and local law enforcement regarding recent techno-
logical problems which revealed over 180 instances where law
enforcement was precluded from implementing or fully
implementing court orders [for electronic surveillance].
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 16:38:20 GMT
From: DAZZZSMITH@MAIL.ON-LINE.CO.UK(Dazzz)
Subject: File 4--Electronic Superhighway Introduced in House of Commons
From: The Telegraph newspaper (UK) Thursday July 28 1994
+---------------------------------------------------------
DEMAND FOR ELECTRONIC 'SUPERHIGHWAY' TO TRANSFORM THE WAY WE LIVE AND
WORK
Construction of a 15 billion national fibre optic network linking
every home, office, school and hospital was called for yesterday by the
House of Commons select committee on trade and industry.
The electronic 'superhighway' would have far higher capacity than
today's standard telephone lines and televisions cables. It would allow
the instant two-way transmission of data, graphics, photographs,
medical images, high quality television pictures and video.
Calling for an easing of regulations on phone and cable companies
to achieve this, the influential cross-party committee published a
blue-print for Britain yesterday in which it critiscised the
Governments "lack of vision" on communications technology.
Such a network would have "enormous and far-reaching effects", said
the committee. It could revolutionise medicine, education and business,
as well as bringing new shopping services and instant electronic delivery
of videos to the home.
Mr Richard Caborn, Labour chairman of the committee, said:
"The developement of a national optical fibre information
superhighway which would boost the economy and transform the way we live
and work should be a priority for Government. The enthusiasm, sense of
purpose and leadership of the type being shown in America and
elsewhere towards information superhighways has not been replicated in
Britain, despite the widespread dawning of the new information age."
The biggest obstacle to the construction of the network was uncertainty
on whether and when the Government might lift the ban that prevents
BT and other phone companies from transmitting entertainment
services. BT has argued that it cannot justify heavy investment in a
new network without a guarantee that it will be able to provide such
lucrative services over it.
The ban was imposed to promote the growth of the cable television
industry and introduce greater local competition to the phone market.
It is due to run until at least 2001, with a possible review by by
Oftel, the regulator in 1998. The committee said that if BT was to invest
in a new high capacity network, the Government must make it clear that
the ban would be lifted nationwide by the end of 2002.
Mr Caborn said the committee favoured an "evolutionary rather than a
big bang approach." with the ban being lifted in some cable franchise
areas as early as next year and then gradually in all others.
One condition on easing the restrictions should be that BT was forced to
provde "fair and open" access to its network to allow other companies
to play a role in building the superhighway. BT, which has lobbied for
the ban to be lifted, Mercury Communications and the Cable Television
Association all welcomed the report's recommendations.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 94 18:07:24 EDT
From: AdamRCohen@AOL.COM
Subject: File 5--Essay Contest - Future of Print
I thought you might like to hear about an essay contest sponsored by
the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The subject is, "Print: Roadkill on
the Information Superhighway - Yes or No?" Top prize is $2,500. Essays
are due 9/7/94.
Basic information about eligibility and the Audit Bureau follows. For
more complete information and entry forms, call ABC's Colleen O'Grady
at 708-605-0909. Please share this notice with anyone who might be
interested. Many thanks.
Entry Requirements: Entrants must be employees of ABC-member companies
and have worked in the advertising, marketing or publishing industries
for 5 years or less as of 9/7/94. Over 4,000 publishers, advertisers
and ad agencies are members of ABC. To verify your eligibility, call
Ms. O'Grady at 708-605-0909.
The Audit Bureau of Circulations is the first and largest
circulation-auditing organization in the world. ABC establishes ground
rules for circulation auditing and provides buyers and sellers of
print advertising with independent verfication of the circulation
information needed to make well-informed media decisions.
Adam R. Cohen
Member, ABC Young Media Professionals Committee
AdamRCohen@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 00:37:34 -0500
From: spaf@CS.PURDUE.EDU(Gene Spafford)
Subject: File 6--Announcing the COAST Security FTP Archive!
Announcing the COAST Security FTP Archive!
The COAST group at Purdue are happy to (finally) announce the
availability of our security archive. The archive is currently
available via FTP, with extensions to gopher and WWW planned soon.
The archive currently contains software, standards, tools, and other
material in the following areas:
* access control
* artificial life
* authentication
* criminal investigation
* cryptography
* e-mail privacy enhancement
* firewalls
* formal methods
* general guidelines
* genetic algorithms
* incident response
* institutional policies
* intrusion detection
* law & ethics
* malware (viruses, worms, etc)
* network security
* password systems
* policies
* privacy
* risk assessment
* security related equipment
* security tools
* social impacts
* software forensics
* software maintenance
* standards
* technical tips
* the computer underground
The collection also contains a large collection of site "mirrors" of
interesting collections, many of which are linked by topic to the rest
of the archive.
You can connect to the archive using standard ftp to
"coast.cs.purdue.edu". Information about the archive structure and
contents is present in "/pub/aux"; we encourage users to look there,
and to read the README* files located in the various directories.
If you know of material you think should be added, please send mail to
security-archive@cs.purdue.edu and tell us what you have and where we
can get a copy. In order of preference, we would prefer to get:
-- a pointer to the source ftp site for a package
-- a pointer to a mirror ftp site for the package
-- a uuencoded tar file
-- a shar file
-- a diskette or QIC tape
If you are providing software, we encourage you to "sign" the software
with PGP to produce a standalone signature file. This will help to
ensure against trojaned versions of the software finding their way
into the archive.
Any comments or suggestions about the archive should be directed to
"security-archive@cs.purdue.edu" -- please let us know what you think!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 14:09:07 CDT
From: Victor Li <li@ASIAINFO.COM>
Subject: File 7--CALL FOR PAPERS - Symposium on Computer Information Mgmt
The 4th Beijing Int'l Symposium on Computerized Information Management
(BISCIM'94)
Technological Innovations and Marketing in Information Service
Industry in Developing Countries
October 14-18, 1994
Beijing, People's Republic of China
The Organizing Committee of the 4th BISCIM cum Technical
Exhibition'94 cordially invites you to participate in this important
event with a view to promoting the application of computer, CD-ROM
and multimedia technologies in information management. The
Symposium will include an extensive Technical Exhibition and an
entertaining social programme.
The following topics are suggested for contributing papers, but the
list is not exhaustive:
--Information marketing, promotional techniques and pricing
structures
--Information equipment and information technology in library and
information centres
--Automation of information processing
--Database development and quality control
--Computer and communication integrated new information services
--Communication infrastructure for information services
--CD-ROM versus on-line services
--Multimedia publishing and electronic books
--Standards and norms in information exchange and information
technology
--Internet and its future in developing countries
Participants wishing to present papers should submit a full paper
in English together with the filled Paper Contribution Sheet to the
Secretariat of the Symposium not later than 31 August 1994.
An official invitation letter to facilitate entrance visa applications
will be sent by the State Science and Technology Committee of China
to you upon receiving your registration fee and your full paper.
Submissions should be sent to:
4th BISCIM '94 Secretariat
c/o Division of International Relation and Cooperation
Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (ISTIC)
P.O. Box 3827, 15 Fuxinglu, Beijing 100038,
People's Republic of China
Voice: national 8514020
international +86 1 8514020
Fax: +86 1 8514025
Telex: 20079 ISTIC CN
For more information contact:
Victor Li
AsiaInfo Services
E-mail: li@asiainfo.com
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #6.71
************************************