From: analyst@Onramp.NET (Benjamin McLemore)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 94 19:54:10 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Pseudonymous ID cards?
Message-ID: <199407130255.VAA02121@ns.onramp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On the bright side, at least the Clinton administration is trying to stir
up interest in privacy issues amongst the general public.

Between the administration's support of Clipper, National ID cards,
National Health cards and Digital Telephony (have they supported this
yet?), there should start to be a lot of public interest in these issues.

Personally, rather than _just_ naysay everything that is being proposed
(which I will do, strongly), I would like more concrete recommendations and
proposals to make on the positive side that use technologies like digital
signatures and reputations to *protect* privacy while still allowing many
of the familiar sorts of social/economic interactions that we take for
granted. Perhaps we can pull an Aikido maneuver on this sudden gov power
grab (ok,ok, pretty far-fetched).

But, short of tracking down the Scientific American article from a couple
of years ago and re-reading it (and I'm sure it's out of date), I'm not
really sure what we can do with pseudonymous reputations and whatnot given
the current state-of-the-art.

So, I'd like suggestions, comments about alternative ways of establishing
digital IDs, insurance cards, credit cards, etc. that protect privacy
instead of divulge it, while still providing some of the societal controls
that we have come to expect (e.g. that drunk drivers will be deprived of a
license to drive).

Do we have alternative suggestions to make in this dark hour so that we can
actually win back some of our privacy? Can these sorts of technologies be
implemented in a way that is understandable by the average citizen-unit?

--
Benjamin McLemore
analyst@onramp,net

PS
I wonder what exactly Justice and/or the spooks have on Clinton that's so
effective? Or are he and Gore actually as stupid as they act?