FC: Privacy: Dems criticize GOP, Calif, Australia, and Carnivore

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

*********
More privacy stuff at: http://www.cluebot.com/search.pl?topic=privacy
*********

http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/25/2351218&mode=nested

   Democrats Criticize Census Data Sharing
   posted by cicero on Wednesday October 25, @06:49PM
   from the hypocritcal-congresscritters-so-what-else-is-new dept.

   David Sobel of EPIC just sent us a letter that a pair of Democratic
   legislators are circulating on Capitol Hill. Turns out they
   want to stop a Republican plan to share some Census data with other
   government agencies. The opposition from Carolyn Maloney and John
   Dingell is certainly welcome, but it's important to realize that this
   is a simple partisan manuevering. While they piously bleat that
   "Congress should be protecting personal privacy," neither voted for
   privacy-protective measures when they had the chance, according to a
   Wired News scorecard.

The letter, dated October 25:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/25/2351218&mode=nested




http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/24/226242&mode=nested

   CIX: E-mail Headers Aren't Legal Carnivore Fodder
   posted by protozoa on Tuesday October 24, @04:38PM
   from the slippery-slope-vs-vertical-slope dept.

   The Commercial Internet Exchange Association has published this
   white paper (PDF format) arguing that e-mail headers shouldn't legally
   be considered the same thing as telephone numbers dialed. Why is that
   important? Because according to the paper's introduction,"[t]hrough
   programs like "Carnivore," the government seeks real-time access to
   the e-mail addresses and other transactional elements of e-mail
   communications under the low "pen register" standard used to trace the
   digits dialed on a telephone,". It's a tricky legal distinction, but a
   very important one -- such a finding in court could cut the FBI's net
   surveillance plans off at the knees. I've included the paper's
   introduction below.

The CIX introduction (in HTML):
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/24/226242&mode=nested





http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/21/1517258&mode=nested

   California Creates State Privacy Office
   posted by protozoa on Saturday October 21, @09:58AM
   from the you-said-what-to-who? dept.

   According to this press release, California Governor Gray Davis
   signed twenty bills yesterday tailored to protect privacy and
   other consumer interests for state residents. Most noteworthy of these
   bills is SB 129, which creates the first-ever statewide Office of
   Privacy Protection under California's Department of Consumer Affairs.
   Other new laws include and procedural assistance for identity theft
   victims and new consumer "opt-out" reqirements for credit bureaus. Dan
   Gillmor wrote a column about identity theft and privacy protection in
   California back in March, expressing his support for two stronger and
   more far-reaching bills in this arena. Neither of them were among
   those passed.




http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/21/1421235&mode=nested

   Australian Privacy Legislation Inches Forward
   posted by protozoa on Saturday October 21, @09:07AM
   from the privacy-privacy-oi-oi-oi dept.

   An Australian Senate committee has produced a set of
   recommendations (in PDF form) governing private corporations' data
   collection practices. The bill is scheduled to be considered during
   the coming session. The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000
   aims to update regulations in light of the "dramatic developments in
   information technology and data communication practices" since the
   passage of the Privacy Act in 1988. The recommendations include an
   exemption for small businesses (except in instances where medical
   information is involved) and a strategy for accordance with the
   European Data Directive. Electronic Frontiers Australia called the
   bill "complex, unwieldy, ineffective and an insult to the citizens of
   Australia" in its testimony in May, citing numerous loopholes and
   inadequate enforcement provisions. Many of their concerns appear to
   have been ignored. ABC (that's A for Australian) ran a brief piece on
   Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams' support of the bill. As it
   says at the bottom of the box: Post your comments below. Can any
   privacy legislation better than none? Is ineffectual privacy
   legislation worse than none?




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------