From: Jim Gillogly <jim@mycroft.rand.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 09:33:40 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Another view of the CFP
Message-ID: <9403301733.AA15513@mycroft.rand.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


This is redistributed with the author's permission.  Do a search on
"Lytel" for some especially interesting stuff.

	Jim Gillogly
	Sterday, 8 Astron S.R. 1994, 17:30

------- Forwarded Message

Subject: CFP summary

Lorrie Cranor's CFP94 Conference Review

The following is my second annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy
conference report.  Last year I wrote a report on CFP93 for my advisor
and friends and soon had requests to distribute it around the world
(followed by rebuttals from half the EFF board).  So this year I'll go
ahead and grant permission for reposting in advance.  If you do repost
or if you have any comments or corrections, please let me know.  I
have tried my best to accurately quote people and get the spelling of
speakers' names right.  However, I have not had the opportunity to
listen to a tape of the proceedings, double check with the speakers
themselves, or even carefully edit this report, so there may be some
(hopefully minor) errors.  Anyway, here is the CFP94 conference as I
experienced it.  All unattributed opinions are my own.

I flew into Chicago around noon on March 23 and took the train to the
Palmer House Hilton, the conference hotel.  I was impressed with the
way the train stopped almost right at the hotel entrance -- until I
realized that my room was almost directly above the train station.  At
CFP93 last year I was often tempted to skip a session, enjoy the
sunshine, and walk along the bay.  However, at CFP94, held in a high
rise hotel in the middle of a maze of very tall buildings and
elevated train tracks that prevented all but the most determined sun
beams from making their way down to street level, this was not a
temptation.

I missed the morning pre-conference tutorials, but arrived in time to
attend a three-hour afternoon tutorial session at the John Marshall
Law School (a few blocks away from the conference hotel).  The
election tutorial I had planned on attending was canceled, so I went
to a tutorial on cryptography instead.  Despite the hot stuffy air in
the room (as they wheeled in auxiliary air conditioners and draped air
hoses around the room the people from Chicago kept explaining that it
wasn't supposed to be 75 degrees in Chicago in March and that very
tall buildings don't adapt well to temperature change), the
cryptography tutorial was quite interesting and informative.  Lawyer
Mark Hellmann gave some good background information in his
introduction, but Matt Blaze of AT&T Bell Labs stole the show with his
presentation titled "Everything you need to know about cryptography in
just 60 easy minutes."  Blaze explained why cryptography is
useful/necessary, how some popular cryptosystems work, some
applications in which cryptography is used, and questions people should
ask before using a cryptosystem.  His conclusion was "Be realistic,
but be paranoid."  Douglas Engert of Argonne National Laboratory
followed with a rather rushed and confusing explanation and
demonstration of Kerberos, a "practical implementation of encryption."

Conference chair George Trubow officially opened the single-track
conference at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday morning.  He announced some
changes to the conference program and introduced John McMullen,
scholarship chair.  McMullen introduced the scholarship recipients
(including myself) and noted that three-time scholarship winner Phiber
Optik would not be in attendance because he is currently in jail.

The keynote address, originally scheduled to be delivered by John
Podesta, was delivered by David Lytel of the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy.  Lytel first spoke about the
administration's plans for the National Information Infrastructure
(NII), explaining that the white house was attempting to lead by
example by accepting email correspondence (and maybe soon actually
responding to it properly) and making white house publications
available electronically.  (Look for a "welcome to the white house"
WWW server sometime soon.  Information from the II task force is
currently available via gopher from iitf.doc.gov.)  Lytel then put
himself in the line of fire by discussing the administration's
encryption policy.  He stated the goals of this policy as 1) to
provide a higher baseline security for everyone and 2) to maintain
the ability to do wiretaps.  Notably, he stated: "There will be no
restrictions on domestic use of encryption," and "If you don't think
Clipper is secure, don't use it."  Then the bombing began.  In the
following Q&A session, Lytel claimed ignorance on many points of the
Clipper proposal, but did make some interesting claims.  He stated
that (here I've paraphrased):

- Clipper will be a government procurement standard that agencies may
  choose to use in addition to other standards.

- The establishment of a public key registration system for all public
  key cryptosystems is important (this has not been officially proposed).

- Clipper-encrypted messages may be further encrypted with another
  cryptosystem.  However, messages may not be encrypted before being
  encrypted with Clipper.

- The public is more at risk from criminal activity (which Clipper may be
  able to prevent) than from government abuse of power.

- Clipper was designed by the government for it's own use.  But they
  wouldn't mind if it becomes popularized as a commercial product.

- Clipper was only designed to catch "dumb criminals."

- Clipper does not make it easier or harder for law enforcement to get
  permission to do a wire tap.

After a short break, Lytel took the podium again as one of six
panelists in a discussion of "The Information Superhighway: Politics
and the Public Interest."  The panelists generally agreed that the
information superhighway should provide "universal access" and two-way
communication.  They all seemed to fear a future in which the
information superhighway was simply a 500 channel cable television
network in which two-way communication only occurred when consumers
ordered products from the home shopping network.  Jeff Chester of the
Center for Media Education stressed the need for public activism to
prevent the form and content of the information superhighway from
being determined only by cable and telephone providers.  In the
following Q&A session the "information superhighway" was dubbed a bad
metaphor ("The vice president's office is the department of metaphor
control," quipped Lytel.), and subsequently used sparingly for the
remainder of the conference.

Thursday's lunch (all lunches and dinners were included in the price
of admission) was the first of many really bad meals served at CFP.  I
requested vegetarian meals and winded up eating plate after plate of
steamed squash.  My meat-eating friends claimed not to enjoy their
meals either.  Fortunately the lunch speaker was much better than the
lunch itself.  David Flaherty, Canada's Information and Privacy
Commissioner, explained what his job entails and gave some
interesting examples of privacy cases he has worked on.

The first panel discussion after lunch was titled "Is it Time for a
U.S.  Data Protection Agency?"  The panelists agreed that with all the
information currently being collected about people, it is time for the
U.S. to institute an organization to help protect privacy.  Currently,
litigation is the only way to force compliance with the "patchwork" of
privacy laws in the U.S.  However, the panelists disagreed on what
form a privacy protection organization should take.  The most concrete
proposal came from Khristina Zahorik, a congressional staffer who
works for Senator Paul Simon.  Simon recently introduced legislation
to form a five-member independent privacy commission.  Martin Abrams
of TRW objected to the formation of a commission, but supported the
formation of a "fair information office."  Law professor Paul Schwartz
then discussed the European draft directive on data protection and
stated that once the Europeans approve this directive the U.S. will
have difficulty doing business with Europe unless a U.S. data
protection board is formed.

In the next panel discussion, "Owning and Operating the NII: Who, How,
and When?"  Mark Rotenberg of Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR) played talk show host as he questioned four
panelists.  The panelists stressed the importance of universal access
and privacy for the NII.  Barbara Simons, chair of ACM's new public
policy committee USACM, was particularly concerned that the NII would
be viewed as an electronic democracy even though large segments of the
U.S. population would be unlikely to have access to it.  "I worry that
when people talk about electronic democracy they might be serious,"
she said.  She added that NII discussions are exposing all of the
major problems with our society including poverty and poor education.
Her comments were interrupted by a call to the podium phone, which
turned out to be a wrong number.  Jamie Love of the Taxpayer Assets
Project pointed out problems that could occur if NII providers do not
have flat rate fees.  For example, listservers, which are often used
as organizational and community-building tools, would not be able to
exist unless somebody volunteered to pick up the tab.  Somebody from
the audience pointed out that throughout the day panelists had been
opposing plans for carrying entertainment on the NII, despite the fact
that most Americans want entertainment, especially shows like Beavis
and Butthead.  Love explained that the panelists were not opposing
entertainment plans, just plans that only include entertainment.  He
noted, "I personally like to watch Beavis and Butthead."

After the panel discussion, conference organizers scurried to hook up
a teleconference with Senator Patrick Leahy, author of the 1986
Electronic Privacy Act.  Jerry Berman acted as moderator, speaking to
Leahy through the podium phone as audience members watched and
listened to Leahy on a projection TV.  The teleconference began with
some technical difficulties during which the audience could see Leahy,
but only Berman could hear him.  Berman reported this problem to Leahy
and then told the audience, "Senator Leahy may hold his speech up in
front of his face."  Once the technical difficulties had been worked
out, Leahy discussed the NII and problems with the Clipper proposal.

The final panel discussion of the day was titled, "Data Encryption:
Who Holds the Keys?"  The discussion began with a presentation from
Professor George Davida, whose 1970s crypto research brought him some
unwanted attention from the National Security Agency (NSA).  Davida
explained the importance of cryptography for both privacy and
authentication.  The Clipper proposal, he said, was a bad idea because
it would attempt to escrow privacy.  He pointed out that the bad
guys have a lot of money to hire hackers to write encryption schemes
for them that the government does not hold the keys to.  Furthermore,
he opposed the idea of the NSA being responsible for an encryption
scheme that many people would use to guard their privacy.  "Asking the
NSA to guarantee privacy is kind of like asking Playboy to guard
chastity belts," he explained.  Next, Stewart Baker of the NSA took
the podium to deliver an ultra-slick presentation on the "Seven Myths
about Key Escrow Encryption."  His main points (here paraphrased)
were:

- If you think key escrow encryption will create a "brave new world" of
  governmental intrusion, ask yourself how bad governmental intrusion
  is today.  If won't be any worse with key escrow encryption.

- If you think unreadable encryption is the key to our future liberty,
  you should be aware that the beneficiaries of unreadable encryption
  are going to be bad guys.

- If you think key escrow encryption will never work because crooks
  won't use it if it's voluntary and therefore there must be a secret
  plan to make key escrow encryption mandatory, you're wrong.

- If you think the government is interfering with the free market by
  forcing key escrow on the private sector, remember that nobody is
  forcing the private sector to use Clipper.

- If you think the NSA is a spy agency and thus has no business worrying
  about domestic encryption policy, you should realize that the NSA also
  designs encryption technology for government use.

David Banisar of CPSR followed Baker with more anti-Clipper arguments.
Banisar pointed out that communication systems are designed to
communicate, not to provide intelligence information.  If we build
communications systems as intelligence systems, we are treating
everyone as a criminal, he said.  He pointed out that there were about
14 million arrests in the U.S. in 1992, but only about 800 wire taps.

The encryption panel was followed by the annual EFF awards reception
and the conference banquet.  (Incidentally, I can't complain about the
EFF board the way I did last year because most board members were not
present this year.  Seriously, though, I have been much more impressed
with the way EFF has been reaching out to its members this year.)
During dinner (more squash) Ben Masel of NORML lectured my table on
how to legally harvest marijuana.  After dinner, the lights dimmed,
choir music played, and Simon Davies walked through the banquet hall
garbed in pontifical robes.  The founder and Director General of
Privacy International, Davies told the audience he would read from
"The Book of Unix."  Davies read a witty parable about privacy in the
U.S. and then urged the audience to "get off their computer screens
and start lobbying ordinary people."  He said efforts like CPSR's
anti-Clipper petition only reach people on the net, not the general
public.  Unless the public becomes aware of privacy problems, there
will be no privacy in the U.S.  within 15 years he stated.

Following Davies' talk, conference participants went to
Birds-of-a-Feather sessions, some of which ran until almost midnight.
I stopped by a BOF for scholarship winners before attending a lively
discussion on "Censorship of Computer-Generated Fictional
Interactivity."

The second day of the conference began at 9 a.m.  Many participants
had not gotten enough sleep the night before, and many skipped the
first session on health information policy.  Congressional staffer Bob
Gellman discussed a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that
would provide for comprehensive rules for using health information,
patient rights for access to and correction of their health
information, and security of health data.  He said the bill was
important because health reform will increase the use of medical
information.  (The bill is available via gopher from cpsr.org.  An OTA
report on privacy of computerized medical information is available via
FTP from ota.gov.)  Janlori Goldman of the ACLU added that privacy has
been an afterthought in health care reform proposals.  All panelists
agreed that if the privacy problem is not dealt with, patients will
withhold important information from their doctors so that it does not
appear in their medical records.  In response to a question from the
audience about the use of social security numbers as medical
identification numbers, the panelists gave conflicting responses.
Goldman opposed the use of the SSN for identification purposes because
it is not a unique identifier and because it is already used for other
purposes and thus easy to cross reference.  However, Gellman argued
that if a new identification number is introduced, it will soon have
the same problems as the SSN.  He said the SSN should be used, but
there should be restrictions on its use.  Lee Ledbetter of HDX added
that most databases can do cross references based on telephone
numbers.  The panelists also discussed the problem of informed
consent.  Gellman explained that people often sign away privacy rights
through informed consent because they think they have to, not because
they really are informed or consenting.

The next panel was titled, "Can Market Mechanisms Protect Consumer
Privacy?"  This discussion, which centered around whether privacy is a
right or good, was probably most easily understood by the lawyers and
economists (I am neither) in the audience.  Of note, panelist Eli Noam
suggested that consumers could reduce intrusion on their privacy by
telemarketers if telemarketers could only reach them through personal
900 numbers.  Mark Rotenberg explained that the real problem with
caller ID is that the phone companies use it to sell rights to
consumers.  One audience member challenged a panelist's proposal that
people should own the information about themselves asking, "Who owns
your birthday -- you or your mother?"

The lunch lecture was eloquently delivered by Phil Zimmermann, author of
Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), a public key encryption tool.  Zimmermann,
who is being investigated for export control violations but has not been
indicted, told the audience that the future of privacy in America
is not hopeless.  Referring to the Clipper proposal he said, "We
live in a democracy here... we ought to be able to stop it."
Zimmermann explained why he developed PGP and allows it to be distributed
free of charge.  He also spoke out against the fact that all public
key cryptography patents are in the hands of one company (thus
those who use PGP without licensing the cryptographic algorithm may
be breaking the law).

The next panel discussion focused on "Creating an Ethical Community
in Cyberspace."  Computer science professor Martin van Swaay began by
explaining the importance of trust in a free society.  "Freedom is not
the absence of restraint, but the presence of self restraint," he
stated.  He said freedom is necessary to earn trust, and trust is
necessary to give laws meaning.  Philosophy professor Bruce
Umbaugh then discussed anonymity and pseudonymity in cyberspace.
He gave some examples of cases where pseudonymity is useful but
anonymity is not and explained why anonymity is much more
of a threat than pseudonymity.  Steven Levy, author of Hackers,
then discussed the hacker ethic and how it is helping to shape
cyberspace.  In response to a question, van Swaay said he reserves
the right to ignore anonymous messages because, "If you have
something real to say, why do you want to hide?  And if you want
to hide, it makes me wonder why."

Most non-computer-scientists skipped the next panel discussion,
"Standards for Certifying Computer Professionals."  However, among
computer scientists, the panel was quite controversial.  Professor
Donald Gotterbarn explained that both ACM and IEEE are considering
licensing proposals.  He discussed one proposal that would impose
mandatory licensing on computer professionals.  The proposal called
for various levels of licensing, based on skill and areas of
competence.  Attorney Steve Barber explained some of the problems with
a licensing model, including the fact that licensing is usually
handled by the states and thus varies from state to state.  John
Marciniak of CTA Inc. stated that the computer industry does not need
licensing because the companies, not the programmers, stand behind their
products.  He suggested that a voluntary certification program be
considered instead.  Another panelist (whose name was not in the
program) insisted that "when a B777 [a plane with completely
computerized controls] goes down, we will have licensing."  He
suggested that computer professionals come to a consensus about what
kind of licensing they want so that they can tell congress when
congress demands licensing.  Gotterbarn urged people interested in
working on a licensing proposal to contact him at d.gotterbarn@computer.org.

The final panel of the day, "Hackers and Crackers: Using and Abusing
the Networks," was led by Emmanuel Goldstein, publisher of 2600
magazine.  Goldstein hung a sign reading "hackers" on the table where
the four other panelists sat.  He hung a sign reading "crackers" on an
empty table at the opposite side of the podium.  "One thing that
distinguishes hackers from crackers is that hackers are here and
crackers are not," said Goldstein.  After rattling off several other
differences he looked under the empty table and retrieved three boxes
of crackers (the edible kind).  "Alright I stand corrected," he
quipped.  As Goldstein spoke admiringly about hackers and their quest
for knowledge, several audience members were mumbling that they didn't
understand.  Goldstein then unveiled a large photograph of hacker
Phiber Optik and played a taped message that Phiber recorded from
prison.  Panelist Bruce Fancher of Mindvox said he used to think there
was no problem with breaking into other peoples' computer systems.  "I
think my opinion changed when I started running a public access
Internet site....[I discovered that a breakin] wasn't that
charming."  He encouraged hackers to explore and learn about computer
systems, but urged them not to break into other peoples' systems.
Panelist Robert Steele described hacking as "elegance."  He explained,
"Hacking is doing it better than it has ever been done before," no
matter what "it" is.  He added that hackers should not be blamed for
breaking into systems because most systems are wide open to attack.
"Ethics is nice.  Engineering is better," he stated.  Panelist Bob
Strantton of UUNET discussed the need for an electronic "place" people
can go to learn things without disrupting the work of others.  During
the Q&A session Goldstein illustrated how unsecure computer and
telecommunication systems are by picking up a cellular phone call on a
hand-held scanner, much to the amazement of some audience members.

The day's program concluded with a dinner reception at Chicago's
Museum of Science and Industry.  The food was tasty (finally a decent
meal) and the museum exhibits were both educational and enjoyable.

The final day of the conference began with a 9 a.m. panel on "The Role
of Libraries on the Information Superhighway."  Carl Kadie, editor of
Computers and Academic Freedom News, described several cases in which
he had turned to library policies when recommending solutions to
computers and academic freedom problems.  Kadie explained that
libraries have adopted policies that protect free speech and free
access to information.  Next Bernard Margolis, director of Pikes Peak
Library District discussed the roles of libraries on the information
superhighway, describing libraries as on ramps, filling stations, and
driver training schools.  He also noted that as electronic resources
have been added to the Pikes Peak libraries, the demand for
traditional resources has not decreased.  Elaine Albright of the
University of Maine library described some of the issues related to
electronic information delivery currently being discussed by
librarians.  A pamphlet discussing these issues is available from the
American Library Association by contacting u58552@uicvm.uic.edu.

The next panel, "International Governance of Cyberspace: New Wine in
Old Bottles -- Or is it Time for New Bottles?" was another discussion
for the lawyers in attendance.  I got lost in the legal jargon as
panelist discussed whether cyberspace has sovereignty and what sort
of laws could be practically enforced there.  Panelist Herbert Burkett
described the net as "the greatest threat to national sovereignty
since the opening of the first McDonalds in Paris."  In the Q&A period,
cypherpunk Eric Hughes put the whole conversation in perspective (for me
at least) when, referring to people who use cryptography to hide their
identities, he asked "How is national sovereignty going to have
any effect if you can't find us?"

The final conference lunch featured more squash and short
presentations from three of the student paper competition winners (the
fourth winner, a student from the computers and society course I
taught last semester, was not able to attend the conference).

The first panel after lunch discussed "The Electronic Republic:
Delivery of Government Services over the Information Superhighway."
This was an interesting, but relatively low bandwidth session about
how governments can use information technology to collect and
disseminate information.  Panelists from information "kiosk" vendors
had nothing but praise for pilot projects in several states.  However,
Jeff Arnold of the Cook County circuit court raised a number of
concerns about allowing the public to access computerized court
records.  In particular he was concerned about people who want to use
court records to generate advertising mailing lists (a list of recent
divorcees or traffic offenders for example) and liability for
incorrect information.

The next panel, "Education and NREN, K-12" was quite interesting, but
not well attended.  (By this time most conference participants were
networking in the hallway outside the main conference room.)  The
panelists generally agreed that most schools are organized in a way
that is not reflected in the organization of the Internet.  Panelist
Steve Hodas explained that schools are usually organized into tidy
departments and that information flows mostly in one direction (from
book to student).  In addition schools generally regard the absence of
censorship as a system failure.  The Internet, on the other hand, is
not tidy, allows a two-way flow of information, and views censorship
as a system failure.  Hodas warned, as people rush in to protect schools
from the net, "we must remember to protect the net from the schools."
Panelist Philip Agre added, "American democracy is suffering, in part
because of educational practices."  Janet Murray, a school librarian,
gave a humorous presentation in which she emphasized the importance of
freedom of access to information.  "If you're worried about what students
can access on the Internet, think about what else they have access to," she
said as she displayed slides of racy material found in popular
news publications.

The final CFP94 session was titled "Guarding the Digital Persona."
The panelists first discussed the problem of too much personal
information finding its way into the hands of direct marketers.
Possible solutions discussed included requiring yellow-page style
advertising and creating a new legal fiction -- an electronic person
with the right to own money, communicate electronically, and not be
arbitrarily deleted.  The legal fiction suggestion was motivated by
the idea that it would be impossible to create useful profiles of
people if all the information about them was compartmentalized and
each compartment had a separate identity.  This idea seemed to be
bordering on science fiction, and thus the final speaker, science
fiction writer Bruce Sterling, seemed an appropriate choice to bat
cleanup.

I had considered writing an abstract for this lengthy report, but I
don't think I could do as good a job as Sterling did in his remarks.
I have read some of Sterling's books, but this was the first time I
have heard him speak.  I must say, the man can speak as well as he
writes, and he writes pretty darned well.  Sterling began his talk by
stating his general lack of concern about privacy.  "Being afraid of
monolithic organizations, especially when they have computers, is like
being afraid of really big gorillas, especially when they are on
fire," he explained.  "How can privacy abuses be kept a secret?"  He
then proceeded to describe what he will remember about CFP94.  He
characterized this conference (the fourth CFP) as "the darkest CFP by
far."  Referring to the administration's proposed encryption policy he
stated, "I see nothing but confrontation ahead."  Sterling reminded
the audience of David Lytel's unsettling key note address ("Who was
briefing that guy?") and Stewart Baker and the seven myths that the
NSA wants you to believe are not true ("a tone of intolerable
arrogance").  And he mentioned Dorothy Denning, one of the few Clipper
supporters in the computer science community.  Denning was not in
attendance this year, but she was worth mentioning because she was
certainly present in spirit.  Read the talk yourself if you see it
posted on the net.

I think Sterling identified what was on the minds of most conference
attendees.  While some attendees were extremely concerned about their
privacy, most had never really considered that they had anything to
hide, or even anything that anyone else really wanted to know.  And
yet, almost everyone was bothered by the Clipper proposal and the fact
that it would treat them as if they had something to hide.  Last
year's conference was much more animated and controversial.  People
were constantly complaining that there wasn't enough time for all
views to be heard.  This year there was much more harmony; but it
was a dark harmony.  The disagreements among panelists seemed
relatively insignificant when compared to the disagreement between
the people and their government.

Epilogue: As I rode the train out to the airport, I noticed an
advertisement for the Chicago Sun-Times "Social Security Sweepstakes."
It seems the Sun-Times is asking people to send in their names and
social security numbers for a chance to win a trip to Hawaii.  Is this
informed consent?

                             -- Lorrie Faith Cranor
                                March 27, 1994

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Lorrie Faith Cranor                 Engineering and Policy, Computer Science
Washington University        http://dworkin.wustl.edu/pub/lorracks/home.html
1 Brookings Dr Box 1045
St. Louis, MO 63130        "UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
lorracks@cs.wustl.edu   nothing is going to get better. It's not." -Dr.Seuss
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

------- End of Forwarded Message