Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1585-997469127-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); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 9337 invoked by uid 510); 10 Aug 2001 17:47:34 -0000 Received: from n10.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.60) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 17:47:34 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1585-997469127-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.53] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Aug 2001 18:45:29 -0000 X-Sender: azb@llnl.gov X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 10 Aug 2001 18:45:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 22184 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 18:44:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2001 18:44:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-2.llnl.gov) (128.115.250.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 18:44:53 -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 LAA24955; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:44:51 -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 LAA19006; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010810105852.00b6b3c0@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: <20010810075656.43238.qmail@web14510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010809132329.00b541c0@poptop.llnl.gov> 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: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:55:57 -0700 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [iwar] Computer and Network Security vs. Information Privacy and Confidentiality Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 12:56 AM 8/10/01 -0700, you wrote: >--- Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov> wrote: > > At 03:06 PM 8/9/01 -0400, you wrote: > > >Tony wrote.. > > > > >The web is already an anonymus venture in some ways, however, if we are >forced to accept pervasive encryption as the only manner in which we >can protect out privacy, we are headed toward a type of >compartmentation that only our pals in the intelligence community have >to deal with. Protecting information about classified programs is one >thing. Becoming a classified person with the ability to be a peeping >tom on the net concerns me a great deal. I'm not sure what you mean by a "classified person". If you mean that persons who protect themselves vie encryption will yet be able to invade the privacy of those who do not use such protections, then you are right. But those who choose not to protect themselves are at fault, not the the ones who do. As Fred indicates, it is far more troubling when it is government that holds the "we can see you and you can't see us" card. We imbue government with extraordinary powers in order to do a job on our behalf, yet we must scrutinize the application of that power at every turn, for power easily grows unchecked into abuse. Unlike troublesome individuals, government wields extensive powers to investigate and coerce behaviors across the broad spectrum of citizenry, and the threat is ever present that such power will be used to thwart the people's ability to effect legitimate control over government activities. >There is clearly a >significant problem when the issue of computer security and personal >liberties are conflicted. How can we "deconflict" this situation, or >without a oversight body, will the net become more like the "Dodge >City" of old? It will be people v security v verification. >This has already become a problem with online businesses. What's next? > >Tony's possible solution is interesting, but does it require all on the >net to be as cyber-literate as many on this space? I would like to hear >any suggestions. There was a time when one needed to be very "cyber-literate" in order to do something as simple as FTP a file, or send an e-mail. I have forgotten most of the command-line flags that were then necessary to configure such activities. Today, folks just point and click, and there are helpful dialog boxes for exceptional cases. Ok, it is still not a simple proposition. A robust key-management infrastructure is required, and although (average) users would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of those mechanics, key management is precisely the core "trust issue" that must remain in the hands of the individuals, or else the resulting "security" is illusory. Regarding the "compartmentation" issue: With ubiquitous encryption and authentication controls in place, the "providers" of either information content or discussion fora will always have the freedom to allow, or disallow anonymity and confidentiality on a venue-by-venue basis. Here in "meatspace" I can join with select individuals and carry on a very private conversation, or choose to stand on a soapbox (as I am right now) and express my views publicly. The ability to choose among such venues should not have to suffer in the cyber realm. Cheers! ___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