|
CPSR/Boston Newsletter (Jun, 91)
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
From: [email protected] (Ronni Rosenberg)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: June Newsletter Text (ascii)
*************************************************************************
CPSR/Boston Newsletter June 1991
*************************************************************************
In This Issue
[1] CPSR/Boston's 1991-92 Agenda
[2] CPSR/Boston Welcomes Gary Chapman
[3] Call For Participation in PDC'92
[4] CPSR/Boston Testimony on Caller ID
[5] Computers & Social Change Conference
[6] Report on CPSR/Boston Symposium
[7] CPSR Seeks Information on Secret Service Computer Raids
[8] CPSR Lawsuit Seeks Bush Directive on Computer Security
[9] CPSR Testimony on The Use of the Social Security Number
as a National Identifier
[10] CPSR Resolution on Gulf War
[11] Semiconductor Industry Association Letter
[12] ACM's Position on Privacy
[13] Privacy of Student Computer Files
[14] Intellectual Property in Computing: (How) Should Software
Be Protected?
[15] The National Conference on Computing and Values
[16] CPSR/Boston On-line Mailing List
*************************************************************************
[1]
CPSR/Boston's 1991-92 Agenda
Monday, June 17
6:30 P.M. (note earlier time)
545 Technology Square, Cambridge, 8th floor
Several projects are in the works for the upcoming year: the 21st Century
Project, the next Participatory Design Conference, grassroots initiatives on
Caller ID and Electronic Surveillance, a possible booth at MacWorld Expo, and
a Boston site for the 1991 Annual Meeting. It's looking like a busy year for
the chapter, and your involvement would be a great help. Please bring any
friends who are interested in CPSR and any ideas and suggestions you might
have as to our future directions.
545 Technology Square is on Main Street, right next to the railroad tracks.
Free parking is available in front of the building. Signs will be posted to
direct you to the room. Refreshments will be served. For more information,
call 617-864-7329. Hope to see you there!
*************************************************************************
[2]
CPSR/Boston Welcomes Gary Chapman
Gary Chapman has relocated to Cambridge. Gary has been CPSR's Executive
Director since 1984. Now, as a CPSR Program Director, he is focusing on the
21st Century Project (described in the last CPSR/Boston newsletter), which
recently received a grant from the Compton Foundation. Gary can be reached
at 617-864-7329 or by e-mail at [email protected].
*************************************************************************
[3]
Call For Participation in PDC'92
CPSR Participatory Design Conference Targets Fall 1992, Boston
Dan Williams
CPSR/Boston is organizing the second U.S.-based international Participatory
Design Conference-PDC'92 -scheduled for Fall 1992 in the Boston area. We are
asking people to join us in this major organizing effort. We encourage you to
join our steering committee or one of several project areas. We also are
looking for other organizations and companies to co-sponsor PDC'92.
The Boston chapter took the initiative to organize a PDC'92 steering committee
this spring. Our work is aligned closely with members of CPSR's Computers in
the Workplace Project, based in Palo Alto (sponsors of PDC'90 in Seattle), as
well as members of the ACM. ACM members are proposing a Technical Interest
Group on Participatory Design, which would actively support PDC'92. At this
writing, we are finalizing a date and a specific conference site. We are
attempting to coordinate our scheduling with CSCW'92 (Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work), which will take place in Toronto in early November 1992.
While participatory design elicits a range of views and underlying motives, a
common thread is the painfully obvious perception to many that America must
reconstruct its social and economic infrastructure. That will require, in
part, innovative models to design systems, both human and technological.
People of various disciplines working to rebuild society on a more humane,
yet competitive, footing are exploring participatory design as a model that
merits attention. Participatory design is commonly considered the process of
integrating users and those affected by technology into the design process.
The objective of PDC'92 is to bring together computer specialists, design
professionals from other fields, scholars, and members of labor and business
communities to further define participatory design in an American context. We
hope to advance the level of both theory and practice in this area, and to
promote public awareness and the need for participation in the design process.
Participatory design, applied to the building of computer systems in the U.S.,
is a relatively new concept. It has been most successful in Scandinavian
countries, supported by strong social democratic governments and a largely
unionized work force. Without strong institutional support in the U.S.,
participatory design poses a unique set of questions specific to the American
experience. For example, will the global demand for product quality spur
American management to consider innovative design techniques, such as
participatory design, that can enhance quality in the product development
process? What does it take to maintain management support of participatory
strategies over time? How do you counter the argument raised by some segments
of unions, that management often use participatory approaches to undermine
more meaningful strategies for control in the workplace? Our intention at
PDC'92 is to create an open environment where we can explore such questions
and share ideas and experiences.
The PDC `92 Program Committee is seeking:
o Proposals for papers, workshops, and innovative ways of presenting
our material and views to one another
o Suggestions about subject matter and speakers
o Ideas about how to make PDC `92 participatory
Possible workshops include:
o Methods for participatory design
o Implementing participatory design in the product development process
of a particular culture, nation, or industry
o Case studies of design processes, positive and negative examples
o Reports on participatory design work in progress
o Examples of participatory design from other fields, such as
organizational design
o Studies of theories of design
o Experiences from other disciplines, such as architecture or civil
engineers (What can we learn from city planners?)
o Participatory design research paradigms
Possible topics include:
o "Defining Participatory Design as a Field" (a panel comprised of an
industry vendor, a labor representative, a European designer, an
organizational consultant)
o "The Pros and Cons of Participatory Design in the U.S." (a
roundtable debate)
o "Why is Participatory Design an Important Paradigm to the Further
Realization of Democracy?" (a speaker)
o "How can we make Participatory Design more Accessible?" (a panel)
o "Stories of Participatory Design"
o "Participatory Development of a Taxonomy of Participatory Design"
(a workshop)
In addition to working on the Program Committee, we are in the process of
organizing an outreach committee. We are undertaking a public campaign during
the next year, to educate the public about participatory design issues. We
are also establishing a "mini" speakers bureau. We hope to visit workplaces,
groups of designers, or other interested parties, to facilitate discussion on
participatory design. We also can provide the videotape "Computers in
Context," produced by California Newsreel. The videotape reviews the approach
taken in Scandinavia to computers in the workplace, concentrating on the needs
of employees in three different work environments (banking, newspaper graphic
design, and jet aircraft maintenance).
At this writing, the PDC'92 steering committee is comprised of:
Jo Ann Brooks [email protected]
Elizabeth Dykstra [email protected]
Sarah Kuhn (co-chair) [email protected]
Steve Miller [email protected]
John Mills john@bellcore.com
Michael Muller (co-chair) michael@bellcore.com
Dan Williams [email protected]
If you want to get involved in PDC `92 or would like more information, please
contact Sarah Kuhn, Dan Williams, or Michael Muller at the above addresses, or
call (617) 828-4199 (Dan's home).
*************************************************************************
[4]
CPSR/Boston Testimony on Caller ID
Written by Ronni Rosenberg, Ph.D., CPSR/Boston Member and CPSR Director
Presented by Coralee Whitcomb, Chair, CPSR/Boston
[On May 29th, CPSR/Boston presented the following oral testimony to the MA
Department of Public Utilities, on a proposal by New England Telephone for
"PhoneSmart" Service (Caller ID, Repeat Dialing, Call Return, and Call Trace).
A longer version of the testimony (7 pages) will be available at our June
meeting, or contact Ronni Rosenberg for a copy ([email protected]). Thanks to Jeff
Johnson, Marc Rotenberg, and Erik Nilsson for their prior writings on Caller
ID.]
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am Coralee Whitcomb. I teach
Computer Information Systems at Bentley College and am a doctoral student in
the Law, Policy, and Society program at Northeastern University. I am
testifying on behalf of the Boston chapter of Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility, a national public-interest organization of computer
scientists.
Most of my comments are about the service marketed as Caller ID. This is
misleading, because the service identifies the phone used to place a call, not
the person making the call. To correct this misnomer, I use the name
Calling-Phone ID.
Calling-Phone ID serves the needs of businesses, not residential customers.
By linking phone numbers to reverse directories and third-party information
services, businesses can compile, then sell, elaborate dossiers of
callers-without the callers' knowledge or consent. At a phone-industry seminar
on Caller ID, the debate was framed as pitting "individual consumer privacy"
against "new billion dollar marketing and productivity opportunities." The
industry marshalls vast resources to take advantage of this opportunity.
Consumers depend on agencies like the DPU to uphold their interests, including
privacy. Concern about privacy protection is a powerful political force,
evidenced by the recent consumer uprising that prevented Lotus Development
Corporation and Equifax from marketing their Marketplace:Households product.
Calling-Phone ID satisfies business needs at the expense of residential phone
users. The central problem with Calling-Phone ID is that it infringes on the
right of individuals to control the release and use of personal information.
Phone subscribers should decide when, to whom, and under what circumstances
their numbers are disclosed. Calling-Phone ID violates a central test of
privacy protection-it compels the disclosure of personal information without
the caller's consent. When you disclose personal information without consent,
or effectively compel the disclosure as the cost of having phone service, you
diminish privacy.
NET's proposal to sell Call Blocking is unacceptable, because it is selling
back the privacy interest phone users now possess gratis. Per-call Blocking is
inadequate and onerous. Consumers will not be satisfied with stop-gap measures
that require them to do extra work, just to retain their current expectation
of privacy. Per-line blocking is needed.
Misleading marketing is directed by phone companies to residential users.
Calling-Phone ID does not provide the benefits to residential users that are
claimed. It allows subscribers only to see a "user-unfriendly" number, not to
know who is calling. Unless the caller always calls from the same number, and
you have a miraculous memory, you will not be able to convert the number into
the caller's identify. Further, the claim that residential users want to call
back their harassing and obscene callers is a marketing device that does not
reflect consumer needs.
Other services are preferable to Calling-Phone ID. Call Trace is designed
specifically to deter harassing and obscene phone calls. Last Call Return can
be used to return missed calls and talk to parents of children who make crank
calls. Answering machines can be used to screen calls. Priority Ring assures
that certain calls get answered. Call Rejection controls the calls that one
accepts, giving call recipients greater control over the invasion of their
privacy. None of these services reveals anyone's phone number without their
consent.
In addition, new services could virtually eliminate privacy problems while
vastly improving the usefulness and accuracy of the information for
residential callers. A real version of Caller ID would be a welcome service.
Real Caller ID would optionally provide the caller's identity (which could be
captured in a number of ways), not a numerical identifier best suited to be a
database key.
In conclusion, no phone number should be disclosed without the user's
knowledge and consent, except in emergencies. If a person does nothing,
subscribes to no new service, current expectations of privacy should not
change.
The privacy interests of both the call originator and call recipient can be
accommodated. Call originators have the right to decide when to disclose their
numbers. Call recipients have the right to decide whether to accept calls.
Free per-line blocking is provided now by default, because Calling-Phone ID is
unavailable. Any weakening of this policy takes a service away from customers.
CPSR/Boston recommends the following modifications to make the Phonesmart
service acceptable:
1. Per-call and per-line Call Blocking should be provided to all
customers, gratis.
2. Per-line Call Blocking should continue to be the default service
for all customers.
3. Per-line and per-call Call Rejection should be provided to all
customers, for a nominal monthly fee.
4. Call Trace should be provided to all customers, for a nominal
per-use fee (several states are considering $1 per use) and no
monthly fee.
In addition, the phone company should obtain customers' approval before
using customer information for any purpose other than that for which it was
collected. The company always should tell customers why they are collecting
information and should not require that customers agree to blanket use of
information.
Finally, I urge the DPU to send the phone company back to the drawing board
to develop a true Caller ID service, one that meets the real needs of their
residential customers without compromising their privacy.
*************************************************************************
[5]
Computers & Social Change Conference
Jayne West
I had a very good time at the Computers and Social Conference, held in Boston
on April 26-27. The conference was organized by the Boston Computer Society
(BCS) and co-sponsored by CPSR. After the endless media euphoria over all the
"smart" missiles and bombs used in the Gulf War, it was a relief to be among
so many people who feel that our smart technology should be used to benefit
people rather than kill them.
The conference began on Friday night with a seminar on Technology and Peace.
BCS president Tracy Licklider said the motivation for the conference was to
unite computer professionals concerned with social change, with social
activists who want to use computers. He was followed by five speakers:
Howard Fredericks, PeaceNet - For the first time, peace groups have the
technology once reserved for the military. He gave examples of the impact
of people's computing: Chinese students' used telecommunications to transmit
information on government repression, and PeaceNet carried accurate data on
the Gulf war. (Use of PeaceNet grew enormously after the war.)
Jason Pramas, New Liberation News Service (NLNS) - The problem during the Gulf
war was too much information: The NLNS used only 5% of what they got from
their sources. "We've got to get equipment into the hands of more people.
We've got to get people over their technophobia. We must do grassroots
organizing; don't wait for machines to effect social change."
Rich Cowan, War Research Information Service - For every good computers bring,
there is a concurrent danger, e.g., CD-ROMS are a boon to library research,
but the way they organize information may not be useful to activists.
"What's most important for social change is to involve people; computers
won't do that. Computer information doesn't necessarily mean power. News
and information must come with emotional support. Information does not equal
action. Information may end up in the `bit bucket of the Global Village.'"
Ed Argo, New England War Tax Resistance - Censorship on the Left: "We use
neutral words like `peace' and `social change.' We try so hard to be
acceptable that we become ineffective and demoralize ourselves. ...Your job
is to raise hell."
Jonathan King, MIT Biology Professor and member of Engineers for Peace and
Jobs for Peace - Military technology is destroying American society. "Weapons
are a black hole of society. ...What if all technology were applied to
society? If our talents were applied to mass transit-wow!" We should:
o Have meetings like this.
o Introduce these issues into the professional lives of our colleagues.
o Don't let the peace movement be fragmented; make special efforts not
to be divided.
"The notion that 10% controls the technology is wrong at this stage of human
history. Everyone has a role in human history-you must find your place."
The next day, workshops were offered in three categories: skills, management,
and tools for liberation. I attended three tools-for-liberation workshops:
"Capitalism, Computers and the Military: Prospects for Economic Conversion,"
"Computers in the Third World," and "Health Concerns of Computer Users."
The luncheon seminar on the second day was "Technology for Poor People." The
first speaker, Tracy Licklider, said the challenge for us was to:
o get 500 new volunteers this year,
o liberate all idle computers, o develop cooperative purchasing,
o build advocacy groups,
o build community advisory boards, and o gather every year to
celebrate.
Next, Eric Roberts, CPSR president, said we must democratize access to
expertise, study the feminization and automation of poverty, and address
computers in the workplace.
Nelson Merced, State Representative and Director of La Alianza Hispania, urged
us to remember that when you go to a community group, their job is more
important than your resources.
Antonia Stone, of Playing to Win (NY) and the Somerville Community Computing
Center, said the problem for communities isn't space, hardware, or money; it's
community ownership. She ended with rousing words, "We aren't we, we aren't
they, we're ALL!"
A Resource Room was open throughout the conference, and many groups had
resource tables with literature, volunteers, and equipment.
At a final meeting, people said they liked the conference and felt it was a
success. The conference inspired me to greater computer activism. There will
be a meeting on Wednesday July 5, in MIT Building 68, Room 165, at 7:30, to
plan next year's conference. I plan to go, and I hope other CPSR members will
too.
*************************************************************************
[6]
Report on CPSR/Boston Symposium
Lewis Tucker
On April 28th, the day after the Boston Computer Society's "Computers and
Social Change Conference," CPSR/Boston held a one day symposium on "Future
Directions for CPSR." Participants discussed ways in which CPSR should address
the issues facing the organization on the 1990s.
Gary Chapman outlined CPSR's new 21st Century Project, a program designed to
shift government priorities away from military needs and toward areas of
social concern. This opened up a wide-ranging discussion on CPSR's role in the
debate over broad societal issues, how best to use our expertise, and how we
might assist other groups focused on workplace and environmental issues. The
impact of cuts in defense spending on the local economy and the effects of
technology in the workplace and environment has particular relevance for
CPSR/Boston.
The discussion shifted next to planning for the second Participatory Design
Conference, PDC'92, to be held in Boston in 1992. This conference follows a
highly successful PDC conference held in April 1991 in Seattle. It is expected
that this event will play a key role in the organizing effect for the Boston
chapter this next year. See the article about PDC'92 elsewhere in this issue,
for more information about the conference and how to get involved.
The final agenda item concerned ways to re-vitalize the Boston Chapter.
Eric Roberts spoke about the past prominence of Boston in CPSR history
and challenged the participants to find ways to make history again. As a
first step, Ed Frankenberry volunteered to set up an e-mail address list
([email protected]) as a vehicle for CPSR announcements and for keeping
in touch with the membership.
The meeting naturally closed with an appeal for donations to ease the ever
present fiscal needs of the organization.
As a newcomer to CPSR, I was genuinely impressed with both the vision and
realism of the symposium participants. Having observed CPSR's work on SDI,
civil liberties, and computers and privacy over the last several years, I was
prompted to attend to see what the Boston chapter was doing. With the recent
events in the Gulf War, it certainly seemed time to investigate how to curb
this nation's appetite for high-tech solutions to sociopolitical problems. The
BCS conference and CPSR symposium provided much needed forums for discussing
strategies and actions for change. Right now, for the Boston chapter at least,
it seems imperative to find ways to bring others into the organization. Time,
of course, is the most scarce resource for most of us in this business, and I
can only urge other "silent" members to join together to make CPSR/Boston the
vibrant organization we all know it can be.
*************************************************************************
[7]
CPSR Seeks Information on Secret Service Computer Raids
WASHINGTON-Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility filed a lawsuit in
Federal District Court today to obtain documents relating to a series of raids
conducted by the Secret Service that involved the seizure of computer
equipment and diskettes.
The Secret Service raids, conducted under the code-name "Operation Sun Devil,"
occurred on May 8, 1990, in various cities across the United States. Over 150
special agents of the Secret Service, teamed with numerous state and local
law enforcement agencies, participated in the raids. According to the Secret
Service, the operation was the culmination of a two-year investigation of
"illegal computer hacking activities." During the Sun Devil raids, 40
computers and 23,000 disks were seized by the agency.
Critics of the operation contend that the investigation was far broader in
scope than the Secret Service claims, that much of the seized information and
equipment was unrelated to any criminal activity, and that the Secret Service
may have violated applicable federal search guidelines. In an effort to learn
more about "Operation Sun Devil," CPSR filed a Freedom of Information Act
request with the Secret Service in September 1990. The agency refused to
release the information on the ground that its disclosure would interfere
with ongoing enforcement proceedings.
The Freedom of Information Act provides a legal right for individuals to
obtain records held by government agencies. According to CPSR Legal Counsel
David Sobel, "The FOIA does permit agencies to withhold certain information
when the needs of law enforcement so require. It is, however, quite unusual
for an agency to withhold all information relating to a particular
investigation, as the Secret Service has done in this case."
For more information: David Sobel, Marc Rotenberg, 202/775-1588
*************************************************************************
[8]
CPSR Lawsuit Seeks Bush Directive on Computer Security
WASHINGTON (1/4/91)-Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility filed
a lawsuit in Federal District Court today to obtain a classified government
directive on computer security.
The document at issue was signed by President Bush on July 5, 1990. It is
intended to replace a controversial security policy signed by President Reagan
in 1984. The Reagan policy, designated "NSDD 145," put the super-secret
National Security Agency ("NSA") in charge of computer security, raising
concerns about government secrecy. Congress sought to limit NSA's role
through passage of the Computer Security Act of 1987, which transferred
responsibility for federal computer security to the National Institute for
Standards and Technology, a civilian agency.
The administration contends that the revised directive complies with the
Computer Security Act, but so far has released to the public only an
unclassified summary of the new directive. According to Marc Rotenberg,
Director of CPSR's Washington Office, "Computer security policy should not be
made behind closed doors or through the issuance of classified directives.
At a time when computer technology touches every aspect of our lives, it is
essential that the public be fully informed about our government's policy."
CPSR first requested a copy of the revised directive from the Defense
Department under the Freedom of Information Act last August. The organization
also sought a copy from the National Security Council the following month.
To date, neither agency has responded to CPSR's requests.
The Freedom of Information Act provides a legal right for individuals to
obtain records held by government agencies. According to CPSR Legal Counsel
David Sobel, "Agencies are required to respond to requests within ten working
days. When agencies fail to respond within a reasonable period of time,
requesters often begin legal proceedings to obtain the information."
For more information: David Sobel, Marc Rotenberg, 202/775-1588
*************************************************************************
[9]
CPSR Testimony on
The Use of the Social Security Number as a National Identifier
[On 2/27/91, Marc Rotenberg, Director of CPSR's Washington Office, testified
before the House Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means.
Excerpts from his testimony follow.]
The unrestricted use of the Social Security Number (SSN) facilitates the
compilation of personal information and undermines privacy. The SSN allows
organizations to obtain information about individuals with whom there may be
no prior relationship. This diminishes an individual's ability to control
information about himself or herself and leads to the compilation of secret
files containing detailed personal information.
A 1973 government report identified the privacy problems with the unregulated
use of the SSN and recommended strong statutory safeguards to control the
misuse of the SSN. Congress adopted many of these recommendations in the
Privacy Act of 1974.
Similar restrictions are necessary today to curtail the misuse of the SSN in
the private sector.
..
Recommendations
There is no necessary reason that the widespread misuse of Social Security
Numbers should continue. Reasonable alternatives exist for organizations to
manage their record systems. Continued reliance on the Social Security Number
will simply undermine expectations of confidentiality and privacy safeguards.
CPSR recommends that Congress develop legislation that would prohibit the
collection and use of Social Security Numbers where not required by law. We
propose fines and sanctions for companies that seek to obtain the Social
Security Number without explicit statutory authority.
CPSR also recommends that the legislation require organizations that request
the Social Security Number to comply with the same standard that was
established for federal agencies by the Privacy Act of 1974. Companies must
(1) provide clear legal authority for using the number; (2) reveal whether
disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; and (3) explain how the number will be
used. Any organization that fails to satisfy these goals shall be required to
pay a stipulated damage aware to the person whose Social Security Number was
wrongfully obtained.
CPSR further recommends that organizations not be permitted to transfer social
security records to any third parties or to use social security records
for purposes unrelated to the original collection. Such uses may well
be prohibited by the Privacy Act of 1974. CPSR also recommends that the
Committee identify those instances where the disclosure of the Social Security
Number is currently required by law and then determine whether alternative
schemes might be available to manage these record systems.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that these are strong measures. However, such steps
taken at this point would be an appropriate "mid-course" correction. The
legislation would allow organizations to continue to make use of automated
information systems without compromising privacy.
Almost twenty years ago to this day MIT President Jerome Weisner testified
before Senator Sam Ervin's Committee on the need for strong privacy measures.
Professor Weisner stated:
"It is obvious that means for effective record-keeping, information gathering,
and data processing are essential needs of a modern society. The problem for
us is to determine how to reap the maximum assistance from modern technology
in running a better society and at the same time, how to keep it from
dominating us. In order to do this we may need to adopt some stern measures in
the form of very strict controls on who can do what with private information
about any individual in the society."
I hope that the Committee will take Professor Weisner's good advice and
support these proposed restrictions on the use of the Social Security Number.
*************************************************************************
[10]
CPSR Resolution on Gulf War
[The CPSR Board of Directors endorsed the following resolution, submitted by
CPSR/Berkeley.]
"WE'VE SEEN SMART BOMBS. LET'S SEE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. Some have called it a
great triumph of American technology. During the armed conflict against Iraq,
the U.S. government launched the most devastating assault on a country in the
history of the world. An arsenal of laser guided, computer-controlled weaponry
laid waste to Iraq. A United Nations fact-finding mission described the
effects of the bombing as "near apocalyptic." The U.N. team said, "most means
of modern life support have been destroyed or rendered tenuous," including
food supply, power generation, water purification, garbage disposal, sewage
treatment and essentials (New York Times, March, 24 1991). We are not proud
that the fruit of our labor-computer technology-has been used for such deadly
ends. We do not endorse the actions of the Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi
government. We do, however, value the lives of the Iraqi people. We believe in
the defense of our country and the protection of our national security. But,
our country's defense was not at issue in the Persian Gulf and our nation's
security must be measured by more than tanks and guns. Congressional and
military sources estimate that at least 100,000 Iraqis died in the war. Their
deaths did not improve the lives of 200 million Arabs living in the Middle
East. Nor did their deaths benefit the millions of Americans who continue to
face a declining standard of living and a collapsing infrastructure. We call
for new priorities. We call for conflict to be resolved through negotiation
rather than military force, for computer technology to advance public
well-being rather than wage armed conflict, and for our technical skills to
help solve the pressing problems of social justice and human survival.
o Instead of building smarter weapons, we should be educating our
children.
o Instead of dropping bombs from the sky we should be curing diseases
on the ground.
o Instead of destroying the infrastructure of countries overseas,
we should be re-building communities at home.
We have seen smart bombs. Now let's see human intelligence."
The Berkeley chapter is collecting funds to run this resolution as a full-page
ad in the New York Times (California edition). Contributions are welcome. If
you contribute $25 or more, you will get a CPSR/Berkeley T-shirt. The T-shirt
has a Macintosh Dialog box which reads "A fatal system error has occurred in
the Gulf. Continue?" on the front, and the "New Priorities" portion of the
above statement on the back. Send contributions to CPSR/Berkeley, P.O. Box
2648, Sausalito, CA 94966. Make checks payable to CPSR-Berkeley. Please
indicate whether you would like your name included in the ad, and size of
T-shirt (L or XL).
*************************************************************************
[11]
Semiconductor Industry Association Letter
[The following letter was sent to President Bush by the Semiconductor Industry
Association.]
We join in thankfulness for the cessation of hostilities in the Persian Gulf
on terms which promise a just peace. War is terrible, but the avoidance of
war, as well as the prosecution of war when it proves necessary, depend upon
our nation's capability to defend itself.
We are proud of America's men and women in the Gulf. We are also proud of the
role of American technology in this effort, exemplified by the Patriot
missile, which prevented terrorist enemy missiles from raining down on the
civilian populations of Riyadh and Tel Aviv. "Smart" weapons systems also
served to blunt the enemy's offensive capability.
Our industry supplies the American semiconductors which make these high
technology weapons possible. Our competitive edge depends not only on American
ingenuity, but on openness of foreign markets. This is especially true because
the military represents only eight percent of demand for our products. It is,
therefore, commercial markets which drive development of the technology needed
for advanced weapons systems.
To preserve our ability to make the advanced products required in the future,
we need a new agreement to open Japan's market to semiconductor trade which
is clear and enforceable. We also need the current GATT talks to result in a
tariff-free environment for trade in semiconductors and computer parts.
Mr. President, this is a time to assess and strengthen our national security,
which rests in large part on microelectronics. Please be assured of our pledge
of full cooperation in this vital endeavor.
We thank you in advance for your support.
*************************************************************************
[12]
ACM's Position on Privacy
Barbara Simons, ACM National Secretary
Marc Rotenberg, who in addition to running the Washington office of CPSR is a
member of the ACM Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights, did the
background work for this resolution.
The following statement was passed by ACM Council and will be issued as a
press release:
"Whereas the ACM greatly values the right of individual privacy;
Whereas members of the computing profession have a special responsibility to
ensure that computing systems do not diminish individual privacy;
Whereas the ACM's Code of Professional Conduct places a responsibility on ACM
members to protect individual privacy; and
Whereas the Code of Fair Information Practices places a similar responsibility
on data holders to ensure that personal information is accurate, complete, and
reliable;
Therefore, be it resolved that
1. The ACM urges members to observe the privacy guidelines contained
in the ACM Code of Professional Conduct;
2. The ACM affirms its support for the Code of Fair Information
Practices and urges its observance by all organizations that
collect personal information; and
3. The ACM supports the establishment of a proactive governmental
privacy protection mechanism in those countries that do not
currently have such mechanisms, including the United States,
that would ensure individual privacy safeguards."
*************************************************************************
[13]
Privacy of Student Computer Files
Fellow CPSR members:
The San Diego Chapter has become increasingly active in recent months (I am
posting copies of our two most recent newsletters in subsequent messages).
Among other things, we are undertaking a small chapter project focusing on the
development of a model policy concerning the privacy of student computer files
on university-owned systems. This project was sparked by an incident here at
U.C.S.D. in which a department conducted an arbitrary search of student files
in an effort to gather evidence for "unauthorized" (i.e., non-course-related)
use of the facility. As part of our background research, I am asking CPSR
members at other universities to please share with us any related policy
statements or experiences that they may have knowledge of. Thanks in advance!
Mark Dolson ([email protected])
*************************************************************************
[14]
Intellectual Property in Computing: (How) Should Software Be Protected?
On October 30, 1990, MIT hosted a panel discussion on intellectual property
protection for software. The colloquium focussed not on how existing law
should be interpreted but on what the law ought to be, what kind of software
industry we want or need, and what kind of laws would bring that about. The
lively discussion lasted about two hours, including questions and comments
from the audience. The panelists were Frank Ingari (Lotus), Mitchell Kapor (On
Technology), John Landry (Agility Systems), and Tom Lemberg (Lotus); Randall
Davis (MIT) acted as moderator.
Transcripts and videotapes of this colloquium are now available.
The transcript and the original press release are available via anonymous ftp
from theory.lcs.mit.edu [18.52.0.92], directory /pub/mernst/colloq-ip, files
transcript.[dvi,ps,tex,txt] and press-release.[tex,txt]. If you cannot ftp,
send electronic mail requesting the files to [email protected]. If
you have no access to electronic mail, hardcopy requests can be sent to the
address below.
We want to make copies of the tapes widely available, but have the funds for
only a limited number of copies and do not want to deal with the difficulties
of tracking down recalcitrant borrowers. Hence we have instituted the
following approach to ensure the tapes are available for free, but will not
disappear. Requests should be sent to the address below, and should contain:
(a) a self-addressed videotape mailer with (US) postage adequate for two
videotapes, and (b) as collateral, a check for $50 made out to MIT AI Lab.
We will send you the videotapes in your mailer. When you are done with the
tape, send it back along with a self-addressed envelope, and we will return
your check in that envelope. We do not want to cash the check; it is required
to encourage return of the tapes and to replace any that are not returned. We
expect that tapes will be returned within about two weeks.
You may copy the tape and transcript as long as you do not do so for
commercial gain and this restriction is maintained. User groups are encouraged
to view the tape.
Michael Ernst
MIT Lab for Computer Science
545 Technology Square, Room NE43-346
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-1365
e-mail: [email protected]
*************************************************************************
[15]
The National Conference on Computing and Values
12-16 August 1991, New Haven, CT
CPSR is cooperating in the planning of the National Conference on Computing
and Values. The conference will focus on six specific areas, each with its own
working groups:
1. Computer privacy and confidentiality
2. Computer security and crime
3. Ownership of software and intellectual property
4. Equity and access to computing resources
5. Teaching computing and values
6. Policy issues in the campus computing environment
The conference will include individuals from six different professional
groups: computer professionals, philosophers, social scientists, public policy
makers, business leaders, and academic computing administrators.
Active role for attendees - A special feature of the conference will be the
active role of all attendees. Each attendee will belong to a small working
group which will "brainstorm" a topic for two mornings, recommend future
research, and report the results of its activities to the assembled
conference. In addition, each person will be able to attend various other
events.
Free associate membership in the Research Center on Computing and Society -
Every attendee can become an Associate of the Research Center on Computing and
Society for two years, free of charge. Associates receive the Center
newsletter, announcements of projects, lower registration fees at
Center-sponsored events, and access to the Center's research library. The
Center is located at Southern Connecticut State University, which is hosting
the conference.
Take-home materials - The conference will provide a wealth of materials on
computing and values, including articles, government documents, flyers about
organizations and publications, a special "Resource Directory on Computing and
Society," and a "track portfolio" of materials for each of the six tracks.
Information and registration - Contact the conference co-chair:
Professor Walter Maner
Dept. of Computer Science
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
E-mail: [email protected], maner@bgsuopie.bitnet
(419) 372-8719 (answering machine)
(419) 372-2337 (secretary)
(419) 372-8061 (FAX)
CPSR/Boston On-line Mailing List
An electronic mailing list is being set up, to enable the chapter's executive
committee to distribute the newsletter and meeting announcements on-line to
chapter members and other distribution addresses. CPSR/Boston member Ed
Frankenberry ([email protected]) is creating and will maintain the list. Throughout
June, Ed will send test messages to all chapter members whose e-mail addresses
are on our membership list, and add the addresses that work to the new on-line
mailing list.
If you have an e-mail address and do not receive a test message from Ed by the
end of June, please tell him your address by sending mail to:
[email protected]
(Ed will forward these messages to the national office, so they can update the
national membership database.)
Send a message to the same address if you can suggest a distribution site that
should be added to our list. We want to add sites that would like to receive
CPSR announcements (e.g., of chapter meetings). Please suggest only those
sites that you know personally are willing to receive these messages.
We are grateful to Ed for volunteering to maintain the list, and to the
Electronic Freedom Foundation for providing a mail server.
*************************************************************************
|
|
