Subject: Al Gore favors "absolute protection of financial privacy"
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:04:51 -0400
From: JBJ[Al Gore tells William Safire that "I think that people ought to have a right to expect [one's bank account and the history of what checks one writes, and to whom] will remain private unless they affirmatively give up that right for whatever reason. And I don't think the current law goes far enough in protecting them." Perhaps the Gore Administration would repeal the Bank Secrecy Act that requires banks to spy on their customers? (and the rest of the banking regulations that require the collection of data?) - JBJ]Rep. Ron Paul's HR 518 would stop bank spying and HR 220 stops SSN abuses:
http://www.house.gov/paul/privacy/
Stop Cookie-Pushers
By WILLIAM SAFIRE, New York Times, June 15, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/safire/061500safi.htmlBecause Al Gore stands an even chance of becoming our next president, I thought it would be a good idea to nail down his position on a sleeper issue in this campaign: the abuse of computer technology to invade personal privacy... [snip]
"I can tell you what the ideas are that I believe in," he said. "I think that we should have absolute protection of financial privacy as well as medical privacy. I do not think that your bank account and the history of what checks you write, and to whom, ought to be marketable." [:-))]
Gore warmed to the subject: "I think that people ought to have a right to expect that will remain private unless they affirmatively give up that right for whatever reason. And I don't think the current law goes far enough in protecting them. Does that answer your question?"
Sure does. He also touched my button with "It should be illegal to trade in Social Security numbers. That's the single key fact that is most useful in compiling dossiers." [snip]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Privacy Proposal Draws Bank Industry Fire
June 15, 2000 American Banker Online http://www.americanbanker.comWASHINGTON - Treading carefully around the issue of medical privacy, industry representatives on Wednesday criticized a bill that would ban the sharing of consumers' health information among financial services affiliates and third parties.
In a hearing before the House Banking Committee, representatives of the American BankersAssociation, the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Council of Life Insurers, and other trade groups testified that, though they support protecting medical information, they believe the bill is unduly burdensome and would have unintended consequences.
http://www.americanbanker.com/cgi-bin/read_tagstory?20000615WASH963
------------------------
Additional information from the House Banking Committee's hearing on the Medical Financial Privacy Protection Act, including hyperlinks to witness testimony---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.americanbanker.com/cgi-bin/read_tagstory?20000615WASH970Austria to abolish anonymous savings
By WILLIAM HALL
Financial Times, 14 Jun 2000Austria, whose bank secrecy laws have been heavily criticised by fellow OECD members, has bowed to international pressure to abolish its anonymous savings "passbook" accounts, which can be used by criminals for money laundering purposes.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an inter-governmental body set up to combat money laundering, is expected to lift its threat to suspend Austria from its FATF membership later this week. Austria is a founder member of the FATF and its repeated refusal to implement the taskforce's anti-money laundering recommendations has undermined the FATF's credibility. [snip]
Austria has steadfastly resisted pressure from the European Union and the FATF to abolish its anonymous accounts, in spite of evidence that they were being bought and sold on the internet.
Matters came to a head in February when the FATF declared it would suspend Austria from its FATF membership if it did not take action to eliminate the anonymous passbook accounts. [snip]
The Austrian government has introduced legislation which will end the right to open secret bank accounts from November and phase out existing anonymous accounts by June 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------
US 'to help Indonesia trace funds'
Financial Times ; 14-Jun-2000 12:00:00 am
By JOSHUA CHAFFIN and TOM MCCAWLEY[Perhaps a "Know Your Customer" program for IMF and other governmentThe Indonesian government yesterday said the US had offered to help it track down substantial missing funds alleged to have been hidden by Suharto, the country's former leader. [snip]
officials makes sense - JBJ]Mr Suharto is now under house arrest in an official inquiry into corruption. Some Indonesian investigators believe the Suharto family has siphoned billions of dollars into offshore bank accounts.
Yet tracking down any such wealth would be technically and legally complex. The Indonesian government has already approached Kroll Associates, the firm that helped recover some of the Marcos wealth for the Philippines. [snip]
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/forum/skyline.htm :Census Worker Charged in Break-In
Associated Press Online - June 14, 2000 16:29GASTONIA, N.C. (AP) - A census worker has been charged with breaking and entering after a woman complained that the man entered her home without permission while her daughter was there alone. Hubert Lambert, 61, of Lincolnton, was charged Tuesday.
Jane Crump said her 14-year-old daughter was at home when a man knocked persistently on the front door. The girl, reluctant to open the door for a stranger, locked herself in a bedroom and phoned her mother, who called police from work. Her daughter heard someone enter the house and walk around, Crump said. The man returned to the house twice more. The third time, Crump said she was home. "He kept saying, `I work for the federal government and I'll do what I have to do to do my job,"' she said.
Lambert was released on bond, said Jerry Stahl, regional spokesman for the Census Bureau in Charlotte. Stahl said Lambert has told census officials that he never entered the home.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/20000614_xnjdo_medical_id.shtml:Medical ID number squashed again - Bill to prohibit funding of 'unique health identifiers' passed
By Jon E. Dougherty (c) 2000 WorldNetDaily.comAn amendment to the FY 2001 Health and Human Services appropriations bill to prohibit funding for the assignment of unique patient health identifiers was passed by the House of Representatives last night, extending a moratorium on funding in place since 1998.
Two years ago, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced a similar amendment prohibiting the federal government from funding the health identifier portion of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act passed by Congress in 1996. It was his measure that was again accepted by the House Tuesday, Paul spokesman Tom Lizardo told WorldNetDaily.
The voice vote adding the measure to other House legislation will keep the unique health identifier program unfunded for now, allaying privacy concerns among citizens and health-care advocates alike -- concerns which Twila Brase, a registered nurse and president of the Citizen's Council on Health Care, said are valid.
"A government numbering system will lead to government surveillance," Brase said Monday. "Government surveillance will introduce distrust between patients and doctors, and distrust will result in delayed access to care, incomplete sharing of information [between patient and doctor] and improper diagnoses."
The health identifier is a leftover piece of legislation originating with first lady Hillary Clinton's failed 1994 universal health care plan. Since the defeat of that measure by a Democrat-controlled Congress, bits and pieces of it -- including the health ID number -- have been resurrected in other bills.
To illustrate the claim, Blase pointed to a new federal home health data collection system -- which became effective in 1999 -- that collects a wealth of personal information without patient consent.
The system, called OASIS -- or Outcome and Assessment Information System -- collects "financial, medical, educational, relational and behavioral information without patient consent on all adult non-maternity patients receiving home health, whether they receive public assistance, use private insurance or pay cash."
A national patient identification system "would enhance the government's collection efforts," she told WorldNetDaily yesterday. "As with OASIS, all surveillance would be justified for purposes of quality assurance, fraud prevention and public policy formulation."
Brase also decried a lack of privacy considerations in "the so-called medical privacy regulations" proposed in 1999. Those rules, she said, would allow "unprecedented" access to medical records without patient consent and "would specifically forbid asking for patient consent in certain instances." Brase told WorldNetDaily that 13 entities, "including medical researchers, law enforcement agents, and government officials" would have access to patient data "without patient consent."
CCHC said the Department of Health and Human Services had received over 54,000 public comments about the proposed rules and are "in the process of evaluating them prior to issuing a final rule."
The imposition of unique health identifiers would not have proven beneficial for "patients, individual liberty, or our health care system," Brase said.
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.
Subject: Medical Privacy hearing
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:02:18 -0400
From: JBJ[Scott Rayder blasts DNC (Democratic National Committee) hypocricy (remember Larry Summers arguing the same thing?). Article on medical privacy. Also, Treasury responded to questions submitted by Rep. Ron Paul concerning money laundering: it will be distributed as soon as an electronic version is available - JBJ]
From: Rayder, Scott
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 4:02 PM
Subject: RE: Gore for privacy, says Safire (but from whom?)Go to the DNC website and check out there privacy policy. Also, when you go to Freedem.com to sign up for free email from the DNC, examine all the personal questions they ask you. No different than a company site. Under the Privacy Policy note:
Information CollectionTalk about contradictory, ScottThe Democratic National Committee (DNC) does not collect individual information about our web site users, unless an individual specifically provides us with such information. The web servers that host our site automatically collect information for our web site logs. This information is in the form of a record of which pages a user visits and the originating domain of the user. This information is not personally identifiable and we make no effort to match user statistics and site travel to an individual user.
---------------------------------------------------------
Limiting Use of Social Security Numbers
Institute for Health Freedom article on medical privacy hearing:
http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Privacy/CongHearing.htmlImagine the potential for abuse if an unscrupulous government official is able to access one's complete medical, credit, and employment history by simply typing the citizen's 'uniform identifier' into a database.
Congress Holds Hearing on Repealing Unique Health Identifier and Limiting Use of Social Security NumbersJune 14, 2000
The House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology held a hearing on May 18, 2000 to examine the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (H.R. 220). The legislation would forbid the federal government from assigning identifiers to citizens and it would help protect Americans against government surveillance, said Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), sponsor of the legislation. Specifically, H.R. 220 would repeal the section of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) that requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to assign a unique health identifier to each American. It would also prohibit the use of Social Security numbers (SSNs) for purposes not related to Social Security. Rep. Paul pointed out that federal funding for establishing a unique health identifier has been put on hold for the past two years. However, it could take effect this coming fall unless Congress acts to stop it. (1)
Increasing Use of Social Security Numbers
Rep. Paul told the subcommittee that since the creation of Social Security in 1935, there have been almost 40 congressionally authorized uses of the number as identification for non-Social Security programs. "Such congressional actions do not reflect the intent of the Congress that created the Social Security system as that Congress in no way intended to create a national identifier," he said. "In fact, Congress never directly authorized the creation of the Social Security number, they simply authorized the creation of an `appropriate record keeping and identification scheme.' The Social Security number was actually the creation of the Internal Revenue Service!"
Remember the IRS and FBI Abuses?
"I am sure I need not remind the members of this Committee of the sad history of government officials of both parties using personal information contained in IRS or FBI files against their political enemies," continued Paul. "Imagine the potential for abuse if an unscrupulous government official is able to access one's complete medical, credit, and employment history by simply typing the citizen's `uniform identifier' into a database. The history of abuse of personal information by government officials demonstrates that the only effective means of guaranteeing Americans' privacy is to limit the ability of the government to collect and store information regarding a citizen's personal matters. The only way to prevent the government from knowing this information is to prevent them from using standard identifiers," said Paul.
Encroaching Use of Social Security Numbers
Charlotte Twight, a professor of economics at Boise State University, also testified in support of H.R. 220. She explained that the SSN has become a key to our personal information. "Even the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) now describes American Social Security numbers as a `de facto personal identifier,'" Twight said. She also noted that every child must acquire a Social Security number at birth or shortly thereafter. "How was this radical change accomplished?" Twight asked. "Much as one conditions dogs: a bit at a time-and always with a reward attached," she explained. "First, Congress required by statute in 1986 that every child claimed as a dependent on federal tax forms have an SSN by age five. Then in 1988 Congress reduced it by statute to age 2; in 1990 Congress reduced it to age one. "Finally, in 1996, Congress passed a requirement that an SSN must be presented for anyone of any age claimed on federal tax forms as a `dependent.' No SSN, no federal tax exemption. In general, to obtain any federal benefit today, tax-related or otherwise, one must present the SSNs of all parties affected."
Professor Twight concluded, "The quest for information about private citizens is a by-product of the vast substantive powers now wielded by the federal government. Dr. Richard Sobel of Harvard Law School has stated that `centralized information is centralized power.' I would add that the converse is also true: with today's technology, centralized power is centralized information." She said that H.R. 220 would be a first step toward reducing both centralized information and centralized power.
Another witness, Robert Smith, publisher of The Privacy Journal, argued that being known as a number, not a name, is dehumanizing. "It allows people in authority as well as our neighbors and co-workers to treat us as less than human," he said. Smith also stressed that Congress should repeal the law requiring a Social Security number for children 16 years or younger unless they earn reportable income.
Efficiency Versus Privacy
Government witnesses expressed concern that H.R. 220 would interfere with the efficiency of government programs. Fritz Streckewald, the Social Security Administration's (SSA) associate commissioner for program benefits, testified that the legislation would make it difficult for the SSA to exchange data with other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Streckewald pointed out that such exchanges are necessary for ensuring accurate payments. "In the use of SSNs, we must carefully weigh the balance between protection of individual privacy rights and the integrity of the Social Security programs and other benefit paying programs," Streckewald said.
General Accounting Office (GAO) representative Barbara Bovbjerg testified that health care organizations always ask patients for their SSNs, but do not deny services if refused. She based that information on GAO's contact with officials representing hospitals, a health maintenance organization, and a health insurance trade association. Bovbjerg also reported that officials in the health care industry expect use of SSNs to increase due to growing coordination among networks of health providers.
Bovbjerg also acknowledged that the widespread use of SSNs provides a means for building and sharing databases of personal information-and can lead to identity theft. She stressed that Congress must weigh concerns about both individual privacy on the one hand and accuracy, fraud and abuse on the other.
How Much is Your Privacy Worth?
One of the most disturbing arguments presented at the hearing was the cost-benefit argument. Some government officials and members of Congress are apparently willing to strip Americans of their right to privacy in order to make government programs efficient. During the question-and-answer session, a member of Congress asked Rep. Paul how much his bill would cost taxpayers. Paul responded that an official cost estimate hadn't been completed yet, but the cost of individual liberty must be factored into the equation. This leads one to ask, "How much is privacy worth?" Until that question is asked of the 277 million individuals holding Social Security numbers, the government can't say for sure whether unrestricted use of Social Security numbers is truly cost-effective.
(1) Update as of June 14, 2000: The House of Representatives passed an amendment on June 13, 2000 to delay federal funding for a unique health identifier. If the amendment is signed into law, it would delay federal funding for one year only; it does not repeal the unique health identifier.
This article was originally published in the May/June 2000 issue of Health Freedom Watch, the bimonthly watchdog report published by the Institute for Health Freedom. Webmaster: Greg Dirasian
Subject: Paul Amendment Protecting Privacy Passes Congress
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:05:02 -0400
From: JBJ[The House adopts Rep. Ron Paul's medical privacy protection; the House banking cmte adopts KYC-lite; information on BSA's regulatory burden; a request for help, and EPIC's update - JBJ]
Paul Amendment Protecting Privacy Passes Congress
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2000/pr061400.htm
June 14, 2000Washington, D.C. - On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Congressman Ron Paul's amendment to an appropriations bill which will prohibit the federal government from imposing a "uniform standard health identifier" on the American people. As a doctor, Paul said it was crucial to insure people's privacy when speaking to their physicians.
"Unless Congress forbids the development of a medical ID, Americans may not be able to talk to their doctors about matters such as depression, impotence, or sexually transmitted diseases without fear of having this information accessed by government agencies!" said Paul. "As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. What happens to that trust when patients know any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient's 'unique personal identifier'?"
Millions of Americans are outraged over the increasing trend toward national ID cards. Paul said this anger towards Washington would increase exponentially if Americans were informed their doctor would not treat them until they produce their national health IDs.
Paul said, "I want to thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. It is the only way to guarantee that medical IDs do not become a reality. By listening to the American people, we have terminated the uniform standard health identifier. This is a great victory for privacy rights. Today we have done what the founders intended our government to do - protect the liberty of the individual."
-----------------------------------------------------------
International Counter-Money Laundering Act and Foreign Anticorruption Act of 2000 H.R. 3886, Dissenting View
signed by Reps. Ron Paul, Tom Campbell, Bob Barr and Walter Jones:We are pleased that the committee adopted the Campbell-Paul-Barr-Metcalf amendment adding a privacy advocate to the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group, opening up their meetings and seeking the advice of regulators concerning BSA penalties. Our preference would have been for the committee to strike the existing "Know Your Customer" requirements in the compliance manuals of the Bank Secrecy Act. This provision was voluntarily dropped by Mr. Campbell in committee after objections were raised. The rationale for offering this proposal in committee was the overwhelming public opposition to the KYC proposal.
The Bank Secrecy Act violates consumer financial privacy by requiring financial institutions to collect private, personal information. Bankers then use sophisticated computer software to make "profiles" of customers that some institutions then share with affiliates or sell to third parties in order to recover the regulatory cost of collecting the information in the first place. Explains a Thomson Financial Publishing letter last year trying to sell its Bank Secrecy Act compliance software, "You have to sell aggressively while complying with numerous regulations. To enhance profitability, you must sell more to your current client base."
Granting so much "discretion" to the executive branch in this bill raises other concerns. Congress would shirk its responsibility to address the issues and act accordingly by passing legislation rather than cede all authority to the executive branch. There is no limit on the size of transactions that could trigger retribution by the secretary of the Treasury. While it is one thing to expand regulation in a stealth manner through inflation such as the minimum transaction triggers for the Currency Transaction Reports, it is another to begin authorization without such limits.
Actions of the Financial Action Task Force and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicate that they are more interested in combating "harmful tax competition" rather than the drug trade. While Israel has no anti-money laundering laws, focus has been on the Caribbean and Pacific states - many of which do have anti-money laundering laws and cooperate with international investigations - but have lower taxes. Perhaps the reminder in Israel how bank secrecy saved Jews during the Nazi terror gives them a "free pass" with the multilateral organizations. Perhaps we should be as respectful of all individuals escaping persecution.
"Institutions in the developed world that have no authority under any treaty, convention, agreement or legal instrument known in international law, are simply attempting to bend the course of developing countries to their will by the use of crude threats and stigmas," said Barbados Premier Owen Arthur; he calls it "institutional imperialism." Barbados offers quality banking supervision and cooperates with international investigations, according to the OECD ("Reno To Hear Caribbean Complaints On Money Laundering," June 12, 2000, Dow Jones).
The most constructive and beneficial change we could have made to our money laundering laws would have been to pass the Barr-Paul-Campbell-Metcalf amendment to raise the threshold of Currency Transaction Reports. According to Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), financial institutions filed nearly 13 million CTRs last year. Each CTR requires an average of 19 minutes per report to fill out (in addition to another average of five minutes of record keeping time) in compliance time (and money). These CTRs constituted about 95% of the $110 million regulatory burden imposed by just the BSA last year. The $10,000 limit has never been raised or adjusted for inflation since it was imposed in 1970 and would be about $45,000 today. By reducing the number of forms, it is likely that the percentage of forms that are actually useful to law enforcement would rise. Currently fewer than 1/1000 of one percent of the CTR forms are ever used in a money laundering conviction, according to former Federal Reserve Board Governor Larry Lindsey citing Department of Justice figures.
In short, the bill shifts the institutional balance too far from the legislative branch in favor of the executive branch. The new requirements in the bill will further erode protections for consumer financial privacy. The current reporting requirements impose a large regulatory burden on financial institutions with little benefit to law enforcement, and the current approach of the multilateral organizations threatens diplomatic cooperation with our friends and allies which could reduce, rather than aid, the efforts to stem the problems associated money laundering. For these reasons, we oppose the bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This might be useful to those interested in cost of compliance:
In a response to a request from my office [Rep. Ron Paul], FinCEN provided the following information by fax on May 19, 2000. The information refers to
- the reports required,
- the amount of time required to comply with each form,
- the number of forms filed and
- the estimated cost of compliance of each form.FBARs (Foreign Bank and Financial Account Reports)
61 FR 7851, February 29, 1999
Reporting average of 10 minutes per response; recordkeeping average of 5 minutes per response.
Number of FBARs filed in 1999 was 166,500.
Cost $832,500.CMIRs (Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments)
65 FR 806, Thursday, January 6, 2000
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 11 minutes.
Number of CMIRs filed in 1999 was 149,576.
Cost $548,445.CTRs (Currency Transaction Reports)
65 FR 17341, Friday, March 31, 2000
Reporting average of 19 minutes per response; recordkeeping average of 5 minutes per response.
Number of CTRs files in 1999 was 12,986,000.
Cost $103,168,000.Casino CTRs (Casino Currency Transaction Reports)
64 FR 44267, Friday, August 13, 1999
Reporting average of 19 minutes per response; recordkeeping average of 5 minutes per response.
Number of CTRCs files in 1999 was 302,400.
Cost $2,419,200.DEPs (Designation of Exempt Persons Reports)
64 FR 23392, Friday, April 30, 1999
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper was 1 hour, 10 minutes.
Number of DEPs filed in 1999 were 34,512.
Cost $805,280.Bank SARs (Bank Suspicious Activity Reports)
65 FR 1229, Friday, January 7, 2000
The estimated burden per form is 30 minutes.
Number of Bank SARs filed in 1999 was 120,400; (47,500 estimated filed that most directly reflect BSA/anti-money laundering issues).
Cost $1,204,000 ($475,000 for the estimated 47,500 filings).Casino SARs (Casino Suspicious Activity Reports)
63 FR 12861, Monday, March 16, 1998
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper was 30 minutes for reporting and 5 minutes for recordkeeping.
Number of Casino SARs filed in 1999 were 436.
Cost $5,087.The total, estimated compliance cost amounted to $108,982,512 for 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------
Building a record of grievous government privacy violations
Forwarded from Scott Rayder at the Heritage Foundation:URL on IRS Privacy violation: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0500/052500m1.htm
We are trying to build a record of grievous government privacy violations--if you hear of any, please forward them to me. Thanks.
Scott Rayder, Senior Technology Policy Analyst
The Heritage Foundation
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies
214 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002-4999
Phone: (202) 608-6139 Fax: (202) 608-6087 www.heritage.org-----------------------------------------------------------
Letter in the Miami Herald:
The Fight Against Money LaunderingThe May 30 Herald article Money-laundering referrals decrease claimed that there was a decrease in cases referred by federal investigators for prosecution during 1994-1998. In fact, federal money-laundering investigations and prosecutions rose substantially during 1994-1998 and continue to rise. The article reported that the number of persons referred by investigators for federal money laundering prosecution declined to 1,473 in 1998 from 1,845 in 1994. But the statistics from just the agencies under my department's jurisdiction - the IRS Criminal Investigation Division and the U.S. Customs Service - tell a different story. From 1995-1999, the number of money laundering cases referred for prosecution by IRS rose 32 percent to 1,646 from 1,243. At Customs, from 1994 to 1999, the number of money laundering investigations opened increased to 5,312 from 4,759, while indictments in that period in-creased to 909 from 774. The upward trend at both IRS and Customs has accelerated significantly in 2000. Moreover, Justice Department figures show that the number of defendants indicted under the principal money laundering statute (on referrals from IRS, Customs, FBI or DEA) rose steadily between 1994-1999 to 2,044 from 1,596. This increased enforcement activity coincides with the fact that banks have been required since 1996 to file Suspicious Activity Reports when they suspect potential money laundering. The FBI estimates that it uses SAR information in 98 percent of all its bank-fraud cases. This administration is engaged in an unprecedented effort to crack down on money laundering. Indeed, today the House Banking Committee will consider legislation - on which the administration has collaborated with Congress - to enhance our ability to combat international money laundering. This fight against money laundering has our full and committed attention.
STUART E.EIZENSTAT, Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Washington, D.C.[Editor's note: The story cited data collected by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University and noted that the Internal Revenue Service disputed the numbers.]-----------------------------------------------------------==============================================================
@@@@ @@@@ @@@ @@@@ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @@@@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@@@@ @@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @@@ @@@ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@@@@ @ @@@ @@@@ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @ @ @==============================================================
Volume 7.11 June 14, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_7.11.html
=======================================================================
[4] Terrorism Commission Recommendations Could Threaten Privacy
=======================================================================The National Commission on Terrorism recently released its report, "Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism." The Commission was established shortly after U.S. embassies were attacked in 1998. The report puts forth several proposals that could threaten the legal rights and privacy of Americans.
One of the more troubling proposals would be the streamlining of procedures required before law enforcement agencies can begin surveillance as set by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Despite claims that "under ordinary circumstances, the FISA process can be slow and burdensome," USA Today recently reported that the number of wiretaps used in spying and terrorism investigations last year hit an all-time of 880. The process for authorizing this category of wiretap requests proceeds through a secret court with little public accountability.
Many of the other proposals in the report may also impact personal privacy. The Commission recommended the formation of a joint task force composed of representatives from all government agencies possessing information or authority relevant to possible fundraising for terrorist groups. The list of agencies that would fall under this broad recommendation include the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of State, U.S. Customs Service, Office of Foreign Assets Control and Internal Revenue Service. Other recommendations include closer monitoring of foreign students studying in the United States, new laws and international agreements to prevent "cyber crime" and the development of new sensors and detection devices to be used at entry points into the country.
The National Commission on Terrorism's report is available online at:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/commission.htmlMore information on FISA and wiretaps is available at: http://www.epic.org/wiretap/
=======================================================================
[6] EPIC Event Addresses Privacy and the Free Software Movement
=======================================================================On June 5, EPIC held a symposium at the National Press Club on the future of the Internet, and in particular the state of privacy protection and the rise of the free software movement.
Exploring the future of privacy were Deborah Hurley, Executive Director, Harvard Information Infrastructure Project, Kennedy School of Government; Professor Anita Allen-Castellito, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Professor David Flaherty, former Information and Privacy Commissioner, British Columbia; Professor Gary Marx, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Professor Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School, author "The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America"; and Robert Ellis Smith, publisher, Privacy Journal, author "Ben Franklin's Web Site: Privacy and Curiousity from Plymouth Rock to the Internet".
Speaking about the rise of the free software movement were Professor James Boyle, American University Law School; Professor Julie Cohen, Georgetown University Law Center; Whitfield Diffie, Distinguished Engineer, Sun Microsystems; Austin Hill, President, Zero Knowledge Systems; Barbara Simons, President, Association for Computing Machinery; and Peter Wayner, author "Free For All: How Linux and the Software Movement Undercut the High-Tech Titans".
Video coverage of the symposium is archived at: http://www.exbtv.com/index7.jhtml?subsectionId=6451
More information about the three new books highlighted at the event and EPIC publications is available at: http://www.epic.org/bookstore/
=======================================================================
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
=======================================================================First Annual Institute on Privacy Law: Strategies for Legal Compliance in a High Tech and Changing Regulatory Environment. Practicing Law Institute. June 22-23, 2000. New York, NY. PLI Conference Center. For more information: http://www.pli.edu
Telecommunications: The Bridge to Globalization in the Information Society. Biennial Conference of the International Telecommunications Society. July 2-5, 2000. For more information: http://www.its2000.org.ar
Successfully Managing the New Data Protection Laws. Privacy Laws & Business. July 3-5, 2000. Cambridge, England. For more information: http://www.privacylaws.com/
INET 2000: Internet Global Summit. Internet Society. July 18-20, 2000. Yokohama, Japan. For more information: http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
Infomediaries: Leveraging Consumer Profile Data on the Web. Institute for International Research. July 20-21, 2000. San Francisco, CA. Hyatt Regency Embarcadero Center. For more information:
http://www.iir-ny.com/conference.cfm?EventID=M1185First International Hackers Forum. The Green Planet. August 18-20, 2000. Zaporozhye, Ukraine. For more information: http://www.geocities.com/hack_forum
Surveillance Expo 2000. August 28-30, 2000. Arlington, VA. For more information: http://www.surveillance-expo.com
KnowRight 2000 - InfoEthics Europe. Austrian Computer Society and UNESCO. September 26-29, 2000. Vienna, Austria. For more information: http://www.ocg.at/KR-IE2000.html
One World, One Privacy: 22nd Annual International Conference on Privacy and Personal Data Protection. September 28-30, 2000. Venice, Italy. For more information: http://www.dataprotection.org/
Privacy: A Social Research Conference. New School University. October 5-7, 2000. New York, NY. For more information: http://www.newschool.edu/centers/socres/privacy/
Privacy2000: Information and Security in the Digital Age. October 31-November 1, 2000. Columbus, Ohio. Adam's Mark Hotel. For more information: http://www.privacy2000.org
=======================================================================
Subscription Information
=======================================================================The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. A Web-based form is available for subscribing or unsubscribing at: http://www.epic.org/alert/subscribe.html
To subscribe or unsubscribe using email, send email to epic-news@epic.org with the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes) or "unsubscribe". Back issues are available at: http://www.epic.org/alert/
to
the investor protection homepage - to
the Global Ivory Tower
wealth
privacy index - name index
- subjects & keywords
index