----------------------------------------------------------------------
Privacynotes Digest
Security Protecting Privacy is Good for Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by: Mike Banks Valentine Privacynotes
privacy@Privacynotes.com www.Privacynotes.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2002 Issue # 029
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.....IN THIS DIGEST.....
// -- MODERATOR COMMENT -- //
"Public Privacy Redux" ~ Mike Banks Valentine
// -- PRIVACY NEWS -- //
"The Latest in Privacy Issues"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
// -- MODERATOR COMMENT -- //
==> TOPIC: PUBLIC PRIVACY REDUX
Last week I asked, Do Americans have a right of privacy while
in public places? Nobody responded to that query.
This week, the news offers up two groups of privacy advocates
asking that same question while making public statements about
being watched. One news story [linked below] tells of an activist
promoting the use of a simple, inexpensive laser pointer to blind
security cameras while another group puts on performances for
those same cameras. The camera blinding can't be called illegal
as no property damage is done. The performers beg the question,
'what can be believed?' from those security cameras. Because it
recorded an event, does it mean it was truth or reality? One can
imagine that a new defensive move might be to suggest that actions
caught on security videotape were actually performances played
to the camera.
What are appropriate limits? We all put on performances when
we know we are on camera. What if we act out a crime, but don't
actually commit one? Is that wrong, illegal, unethical or simply
making public statements in public places because we know we're
being watched?
One of my favorite list moderators [who also subscribes to this
list] used to threaten to take out his pointy stick when discussion
slowed. I would be happy to ask questions directly of the privacy
watchers I know are on the list, but you should simply assume
that these questions are asked of all 400 of you. Maria? Bob?
Marc?
Anyone like to comment on IBM's new Tivoli Privacy Manager?
See linked news story below.
I look forward to meeting list members at The Digital ID World
conference as this issue goes to 'press' and hope to bring back
lots of material for discussion from Eric Norlin, the editor of
Digital ID World and Privacynotes list member. If Eric is able
to fit me in, I'll be sitting on a panel discussing privacy issues
there. See ya next week with a report!
// -- PRIVACY NEWS -- //
Moderator note: There are two ways to access previously listed
privacy news stories. One is to visit Privacynotes archives, the
other (simpler) way is to visit
http://privacynotes.com/privacy_news.html
where I also keep a privacy news archive.
International Business Machines Corp. will formally announce
on Tuesday its new "digital privacy cop" -- software designed
to automatically enforce privacy policies so that sensitive corporate
information won't get inadvertently leaked. Currently, companies
rely on privacy managers to set rules that employees must follow.
IBM's new Tivoli Privacy Manager would make that screening automatic,
the company said. For example, a firm's marketing department could
be prevented from inadvertently sending out personal information
on customers. "Now, employees write a privacy policy on paper
for others to follow. "Tivoli Privacy Manager interfaces with
other applications," serving as a digital privacy cop for a company.
http://news1.iwon.com/tech/article/id/224577|technology|10-07-2002:
Without dissent, the House passed legislation today to require
federal agencies to review the effects on personal privacy of
any new regulations that they propose and to let individuals go
to court to attack those reviews as inadequate. Representative
F. James Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican who heads the
House Judiciary Committee, said the passage of the bill would
"reaffirm our fidelity to the fundamental civil liberties cherished
by all Americans." Representative Robert C. Scott, Democrat of
Virginia, said the bill would help "protect Americans from unjustified
or unintended invasions of privacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/08/politics/08PRIV.html
Confronted with the unblinking eyes of surveillance cameras,
Michael Naimark believes he can hide in plain sight with the aid
of a $1 laser pointer. Mr. Naimark, a Silicon Valley artist and
technologist, His is a Little Brother response: using inexpensive
laser pointers to temporarily blind those omnipresent electronic
eyes. But in these security-conscious times, one person's civil
liberties can be another's shortsighted anarchy. "We have laws
prohibiting jamming police radar. It will be interesting to see
if camera-jamming becomes illegal." In New York City, the Surveillance
Camera Players, a guerrilla theatre troupe, is placing hand-drawn
maps of video camera locations on the Internet and staging brief
politically inspired performances in front of the cameras.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/07/technology/07ZZAP.html
A bipartisan report by some of the nation's leading information
technology and national security experts recommends that the Bush
administration develop a system to share intelligence gathered
in the United States and abroad among local, state and federal
agencies while developing guidelines to protect against abuses,
"Protecting America's Freedom in an Information Age," strongly
endorses giving responsibility for analyzing such information
not to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but to a new domestic
intelligence center inside President Bush's planned Department
of Homeland Security. Unless information provided by state and
local officials, as well as the private sector, is shared with
Washington, "we may wind up getting all of the disadvantages of
invasion of privacy with none of the national security gains,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/07/national/07HOME.html
