Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1575-997380411-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 09 Aug 2001 11:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 31357 invoked by uid 510); 9 Aug 2001 17:09:00 -0000 Received: from n26.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.76) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2001 17:09:00 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1575-997380411-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.53] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Aug 2001 18:06:53 -0000 X-Sender: azb@llnl.gov X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 9 Aug 2001 18:06:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 45967 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2001 18:03:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2001 18:03:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-2.llnl.gov) (128.115.250.82) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2001 18:03:51 -0000 Received: from poptop.llnl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-2.llnl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3/LLNL-gateway-1.0) with ESMTP id LAA12825 for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from catalyst.llnl.gov (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id LAA08871 for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010809103958.00b515a0@poptop.llnl.gov> X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: iwar@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <200108091448.HAA16371@big.all.net> References: <200108091424.HAA16114@big.all.net> From: Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 11:14:57 -0700 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [iwar] Computer and Network Security vs. Information Privacy and Confidentiality (fwd) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 07:48 AM 8/9/01 -0700, you wrote: >Per the message sent by Anonymized for your protection: > > > Some federal judges are protesting the monitoring of their computers by > > Washington managers concerned about personal Internet use. The judges > > of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco claim the > > practice is illegal. They are pressing to get it stopped, and the > > Supreme Court chief justice and other judges will consider the request > > next month. To demonstrate their discontent, judges of the 9th Circuit > > ordered staff to disable monitoring software in May. The weeklong > > shutdown affected 10,000 court employees in the Circuit, which covers > > nine states and two territories, and two other court > > districts......continued...... > >We have given up our personal freedoms in exchange for 'security' - but >we are not getting security - are we? Indeed, we are getting less >security and the federal law enforcement types are getting more power to >monitor and coalate information on us. Our rights to privacy and >ownership are eroding and the threat/fear of cyber terrorism and other >suchthings are being used to take these things away from us. The right >to free expression is being pushed as well - by the arrest of the >Russian who published a paper on how to break a code after DefCon - for >example... I concur. "Anonymized" also offered the general observation that, due to the complexity of the technology, infrastructure management is gaining De Facto peer rights to information content. Since there is (IMHO) no practical way to avoid this situation, the only remedy would appear to be laws that prohibit infrastructure management from taking any actions, based upon revealed content, that are not aimed directly at infrastructure integrity. In this digital age, the fact that "data" to one process can be "process" to another process makes the "content vs infrastructure" distinction increasingly problematic. The debate parallels that involving encryption. There is no doubt that ubiquitous strong crypto will hamper many law enforcement efforts, and yet pervasive cryptography could also serve to harden the entire infrastructure to broader strategic threats. Someone (on this list, I believe) asked, "What is more important, law enforcement or national security?" ____tony____ Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, CA 94551-9900 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:39 PDT