1994-03-28 - words, words, words: debate at Stanford on March 30

Header Data

From: Marianne.Mueller@Eng.Sun.COM (Marianne Mueller)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 39a64f65e944ce865f606b1844ade761435bb4e12fa46979894f922ca15ce3f7
Message ID: <9403282340.AA21424@puffin.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-28 23:41:24 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 15:41:24 PST

Raw message

From: Marianne.Mueller@Eng.Sun.COM (Marianne Mueller)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 15:41:24 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: words, words, words: debate at Stanford on March 30
Message-ID: <9403282340.AA21424@puffin.Eng.Sun.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I guess Oxford style debates are all the rage.

with apologies if this already showed up on the list,
mrm

----- Begin Included Message -----

From: ceh@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carey Heckman)
Newsgroups: su.school.gsb.events
Subject: Encryption, Digital Communications Debate, 3/30 5:30 pm
Date: 23 Mar 1994 11:20:05 GMT
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Sender: ceh@leland.stanford.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cardinal.stanford.edu

                     ENCRYPTION AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS:
                          LAW ENFORCEMENT OR PRIVACY?

                            An Oxford-Style Debate


                     J. Kent Walker, Jr. (Stanford Law '87)
        Assistant U.S. Attorney and Coordinator, High-Tech Task Force

                       Marc Rotenberg (Stanford Law '87)
     Washington Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility


                       Wednesday, March 30, 1994, 5:30 PM
                         Stanford Law School, Room 290
                           Light Refreshments Served


This debate brings together two nationally prominent experts in 
this area. You won't want to miss the verbal fireworks and the 
opportunity to learn more about this important question.

Background
==========

The Clinton Administration is promoting use of the Clipper Chip 
technology that provides encryption, but in a form that law 
enforcement can unscramble. It also backs legislation requiring 
design of digital communications networks so ongoing surveillance 
will be feasible.

Law enforcement officials argue that these proposals are necessary 
to protect society from criminals and preserve important 
investigative tools.

Privacy advocates contend that these proposals grant broad new 
powers to law enforcement agencies and diminish protection for 
future users of the National Information Infrastructure.
Sponsored by the Stanford Law and Technology Policy Center and the 
Stanford Law and Technology Association.

Additional Information
======================

Contact the Stanford Law and Technology Policy Center by email 
(Law.Tech.Policy@forsythe) or telephone (5-7788).





Thread