From: jya@pipeline.com (John Young)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:48:14 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Report on Privacy Enhancing
Message-ID: <199603042134.QAA02905@pipe2.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   Does anyone how to get a copy of the report on "privacy 
   enhancing technologies - the path to anonymity" cited in 
   this paper from the Canberra/OECD conference on Feb 7-8: 
 
      http://www.nla.gov.au/gii/oconnor.html 
 
   Issues Facing Government : Meeting Public Concerns 
 
   Kevin O'Connor 
   Privacy Commissioner, Australia 
 
   [Giant snip] 
 
      In my own sphere of activity, there is some discussion 
      taking place over the potential of new technologies and 
      applications to assist with privacy protection.  A 
      recent report from the Dutch and Ontario Privacy 
      Commissioners entitled Privacy enhancing technologies - 
      the path to anonymity, offers some intriguing 
      suggestions about the potential of public key 
      cryptography for use in digital signatures to act as 
      'identity protectors' - allowing transactions to be 
      completed and accounted for without the true identity of 
      the participants needing to be known. 
 
      While there are some obvious concerns about such 
      technologies from a law enforcement perspective, which 
      we have already heard about from the previous speaker, 
      these should not be insuperable obstacles.  On the other 
      hand, the registration of digital signatures and public 
      keys, with sufficient integrity to gain commercial and 
      governmental confidence, itself raises additional 
      privacy concerns.  The complex issues involved are only 
      just starting to be addressed. ... 
 
   ----- 
 
   Encouragingly, another paper by Matthew Bowcock 
 
      http://www.nla.gov.au/gii/bowcock.html 
 
   states: 
 
   [Big snip] 
 
      Controls on Encryption Technology 
 
      There has been much heated debate worldwide about 
      restrictions on the use of encryption technology, so 
      that law enforcement and national security agencies can 
      continue to intercept communications. Two questions are 
      worth asking in this debate. 
 
      Firstly, is interception of private communications a 
      governmental right, which must therefore be protected in 
      the face of technological change, or is it an accidental 
      consequence of the weaknesses of the communication 
      techniques that we have been using? I would argue that 
      it is the latter and that there is no community 
      obligation to protect it. 
 
      Secondly, is a country better served by a vibrant, 
      efficient, electronic economy, using trusted secure 
      communication techniques for its day to day business, or 
      by attempting to reduce organised crime by restricting 
      use of technology? So far, much of the opposition to 
      restrictions on the use of encryption technology has 
      centred around a right to privacy and civil libertarian 
      issues. Perhaps, instead, we need to quantify the 
      opportunity cost, in economic terms, of delayed and 
      lower levels of adoption of electronic commerce by the 
      business community because the security mechanisms are 
      not sufficiently trustworthy. It may be that the cost to 
      the economy of restricting the use of encryption 
      technology outweighs the benefits to the community. ...