Subject: OECD under attack; OECD hypocrisy;
praise for tax competition; IMF protests; CEI on privacy
Date: Mon, 14/21 Aug 2000
From: JBJ[The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Financial Action Task Force's campaign against bank privacy and low taxes is causing a backlash. The OECD is a cartel of developed countries whose bureacrats are not accountable to the elected governments they purport to represent--much less non-member countries that they are bullying to end privacy and raise taxes. In addition, the OECD itself (as well as the IMF) are coming under fire for the management of their own accounts.In a great op-ed, Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation calls for the US to "reassess its funding of the OECD" for pursuing policies contrary to our interests. Jessica Melugin of the CEI explains well the problems with the government's attempt to "protect" privacy; and a national poll shows the people on her side - JBJ][see also: Waking up to the OECD
at: http://www.solami.com/ORWELL.htm and http://www.solami.com/billiard.htm]
Should U.S. tax policy be made in Paris?
Daniel Mitchell
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-200081312570.htmIn theory, the election this fall will determine tax policy for the next four years. A Bush victory, for instance, should result in repeal of the death tax, marginal tax rate reductions, and other changes that move the code closer to a simple and fair flat tax. Yet if a handful of unelected bureaucrats in Paris have their way, pro-growth tax policies could soon become a thing of the past. Based at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), these paper-pushers have launched a major attack against what they call "harmful tax competition."
According to this bizarre worldview, it is unfair for nations with low taxes to attract jobs, capital and entrepreneurial talent from countries with high taxes. This may sound too ridiculous to be true, but consider these words from the OECD's 1998 report, "Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue": "Globalization has, however, also had the negative effect of opening up new ways by which companies and individuals can minimize and avoid taxes. . . . These actions induce potential distortions in the patterns of trade and investment and reduce global welfare."
In other words, the OECD thinks it is bad if ambitious Canadians move to the United States to escape high taxes. The OECD thinks it is wrong when French citizens invest money overseas to avoid high taxes. Amazingly, the OECD even thinks the world economy suffers because workers and businesses are able to keep more of their income and wealth in the productive sector of the economy and out of the hands of greedy politicians.
Stripped of fanciful rhetoric, the OECD is pushing for a tax cartel. Politicians from high tax nations like France resent having to compete with other countries. Rather than cut tax rates, they would prefer that all industrialized nations join together in an agreement to keep tax burdens high. Under such a system, taxpayers would have no choice but to stand idly by while governments confiscated ever-larger shares of their income.
The logical question to ask, of course, is why the United States would want to participate in such a preposterous scheme? After all, by world standards, we are a low-tax nation. Our economy is outperforming the stagnant high-tax economies of Europe - in part because we are luring foreign savings and entrepreneurial ability to our shores.
The answer, unfortunately, is that the Clinton-Gore administration apparently thinks the U.S. is undertaxed and that we should be more like the French. Indeed, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has openly embraced the OECD's efforts, commenting about "the need to address globally the problem of harmful tax competition." Mr. Summers even has referred to the ability of taxpayers to protect their money as the "dark side to international capital mobility."
What is particularly worrisome is that the anti-taxpayer forces understand a tax cartel is inherently unstable. More specifically, they realize the whole system will collapse the moment one country decides to pursue a low-tax strategy. This is why they are so interested in undermining national sovereignty.
Following up on their 1998 report, the OECD recently released a new publication titled "Towards Global Tax Cooperation." This document, which the Clinton-Gore administration has endorsed, demands that the United States repeal by 2003 the provision of our tax code dealing with Foreign Sales Corporations. Moreover, the report requires that the U.S. and other nations not adopt any new measures that "constitute harmful tax practices."
Does this mean we are not allowed to eliminate the death tax? Will we be forbidden from repealing the capital gains tax? The OECD is quick to assert that countries would be allowed to adopt whatever tax policies they prefer, but this rings hollow considering their actions.
Another serious problem with the OECD's actions is the blatant disregard for financial privacy and constitutional freedoms. They may claim it is OK for the U.S. to adopt pro-growth tax policies, but they then would insist foreign tax collectors have the right to snoop through U.S. banks to make sure nobody from overseas is taking advantage of our "harmful" tax laws.
In its publication, "Improving Access to Bank Information for Tax Purposes," the OECD writes, "Ideally, all member countries should permit tax authorities to have access to bank information, directly or indirectly, for all tax purposes." Needless to say, it is bad enough that the U.S. government often disregards our Fourth Amendment freedom to be free from having our effects searched without probable cause. Giving foreign bureaucrats permission to snoop through our financial records as well is an outrage.
Notwithstanding the feverish rantings of OECD bureaucrats, tax competition is a good thing. When Ronald Reagan cut tax rates in the 1980s, he not only triggered the economic rebound we still enjoy, he also forced just about every other industrialized nation to cut tax rates in an effort to stay competitive. Because the OECD is unlikely to continue its pernicious efforts without U.S. approval, the outcome of this fight could depend on what happens in the U.S. presidential election.
Daniel J. Mitchell is the McKenna senior fellow in political economy at the Heritage Foundation.
OECD war on low tax countries
Daniel Mitchell
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-2000820101612.htm
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), made up of 29 industrialized nations, is pushing for "global tax cooperation" as part of a campaign to eliminate "harmful tax competition." Last Sunday's column explained that the OECD is trying to create a high-tax cartel, akin to an OPEC (Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries) for politicians. Given that the United States has lower taxes than most OECD nations, the article questioned why the Clinton-Gore administration is supporting an exercise that would undermine one of our biggest competitive advantages.----------------------------------------------------------------This column addresses an even more disturbing aspect of the OECD's actions. It turns out that the organization's bureaucrats -and the pro-tax politicians they represent - also want to dictate tax policies in nonmember nations. In other words, demanding that the United States and Switzerland raise taxes is not the only goal. Indeed, it probably is only a secondary objective.
The OECD's main mission is to ostracize, penalize and ultimately destroy the world's low-tax nations and territories. In other words, the real focus is to seize control of tax policy in countries such as Liechtenstein, the Bahamas, and Antigua. In a certain sense, the OECD mandarins are being very smart. They realize that a cartel of high-tax nations is doomed to failure unless every country in the world joins the club.
Consider what would happen, for instance, if all the OECD member nations agreed to implement and maintain high tax rates. At first glance, this would reduce "harmful tax competition." After all, Canadians no longer would have an incentive to escape to the United States and Europeans no longer would have an incentive to protect their assets in Switzerland. Yet this kind of cartel will not yield the OECD's desired result -more tax revenue for politicians -as long as investors and entrepreneurs still have the freedom to shift their activities to low-tax jurisdictions. Absent any other changes, after all, an OECD tax oligopoly would be great news for Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Monaco and other nations and territories that have taxpayer-friendly
policies.This, of course, explains why the OECD has launched an all-out assault against what it disparagingly refers to as "tax havens." In a display of imperialism not seen since the collapse of the Soviet empire, the OECD is demanding that these low-tax regimes surrender their sovereignty and agree to help the high-tax nations collect taxes.
This raises two logical questions. First, by what right can a bunch of Paris-based bureaucrats dictate tax policy to sovereign nations that are not even members of the OECD? As one might expect from a taxpayer-funded international bureaucracy that receives tax-exempt salaries, jets around the world in business class and maintains a private wine cellar, the OECD does not even bother trying to justify its actions. Instead, they rely on self-serving arguments about how low-tax nations are imposing harm on high-tax nations (the notion that these nations are hurting themselves and should instead reduce taxes to be competitive is never discussed).
The second question is how the OECD intends to enforce its demands. The answer, amazingly, is that the OECD wants its member nations to subject low-tax regimes to financial protectionism. This sounds impossible, given the OECD's stated support for "non-discriminatory liberalization of capital movements" and the "removal of restrictions on cross-border capital flows."
Yet one need only peruse page 25 of the OECD's recently published report, "Towards Global Tax Co-operation," to see the special fees, taxes, penalties and regulations that the organization would like to see imposed against 35 "uncooperative tax havens." In a truly Orwellian touch, the OECD even has the gall to refer to these threatened actions as "defensive measures" - sort of like Hitler's defensive attack on Poland.
If successful, the OECD's campaign will be bad news for taxpayers in the industrialized world. But it will be catastrophic for many developing nations that have boosted their economies by creating an attractive investment climate.
In a stunning understatement, the OECD acknowledges that its recommendations "may adversely affect the economies of some of those jurisdictions." So what is the alternative? As one might expect from a multi-national bureaucracy, the OECD's immediate suggestion is to boost foreign aid - as if giving money to local politicians can somehow compensate for the destruction of private-sector jobs.
The time has come for the United States to reassess its funding of the OECD. The organization is promoting policies that will harm taxpayers, both in this country and abroad. It is advocating the destruction of financial privacy and undermining the sovereign right of nations to determine their own tax policies.
Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gore administration has been an avid supporter of the OECD's "harmful tax competition" project, even though this position is completely contrary to U.S. national interests. France and other high-tax nations certainly should be free to create a tax cartel, but the United States should not participate. And it certainly should not allow the OECD to bully low-tax nations in our hemisphere into being tax collectors for Europe's welfare states.
Daniel J. Mitchell is the McKenna senior fellow in political economy at the Heritage Foundation.
OECD must assess itself - down to the wine cellars:
Organisation is reforming its systems and budget management after criticism.
By FRANCESCO GUERRERA and MICHAEL PEEL
Financial Times ; 14-Aug-2000
[snip] A private report on the OECD completed this year by Arthur Andersen, the professional services firm, described how an antiquated system of reporting made the organisation's finances hard to penetrate. "No standards are available, nor is there a consistent policy," the report said. "Therefore the financial information as currently presented cannot be interpreted without extensive (narrative) support."The document described how these failures have afflicted frequency, content and composition of reporting, to OECD member countries and to its management. "Presently, the financial information does not provide all relevant information about the organisation's assets, liabilities and net assets and about their relationship with each other at a moment in time in accordance with internationally accepted accounting principles," the report says. [snip]
Its financial and management systems have been tacked together in much the same way, leading to outmoded practices becoming entrenched. One official says this made the systems hopelessly complex. For example, the budget was split into 1,800 separate components, some as small as FFr50,000 (Pounds 4,600). "No sensible business would think of having so many budget lines," the official says. "This comes from the obsession with micro-management." The official adds that the lack of modernisation of the system fostered a culture of complacency among staff, with jobs seen as sinecures. "I was genuinely appalled," he says. "There was just an immense degree of laxity." [snip]
A second independent report in 1998 criticised the organisation for a lack of financial transparency and a reluctance to share information internally, adding weight to Mr Johnston's argument for change. But as the reforms progressed a bombshell arrived: an employee alleged that there was financial malpractice within the organisation. Mr Johnston says he decided the only sensible thing to do was to call for independent scrutiny, in the form of Arthur Andersen. [snip]
OECD criticised over its accounting system:
Body to speed up reform of financial procedures
By FRANCESCO GUERRERA and MICHAEL PEEL
Financial Times; 14-Aug-2000
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's internal accounting system has been criticised as outdated and inadequate. According to an independent report by Arthur Andersen, the system fails to provide a clear view of the body's finances and the way it spends its Dollars 200m annual budget. The report was commissioned by the OECD itself in response to accusations of financial malpractice.Details have emerged at a delicate time for the organisation - the forum for 29 of the richest nations to debate economic and social issues is in the middle of a high-profile campaign to promote financial transparency in tax havens and other financial centres. [snip]
The OECD has been cutting staff and costs in the past few years after coming under pressure from the US, which wanted to reduce its budget contributions. Mr Johnston said the OECD had already begun a programme to address the problem areas identified by Andersen and other reports in the last few years. [snip]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Where industrialised nations talk about globalisation
By FRANCESCO GUERRERA and MICHAEL PEEL
Financial Times ; 14-Aug-2000
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been called a rich men's club, a think-tank and an unacademic university, but none of these definitions fully captures its true nature and history, write Francesco Guerrera and Michael Peel... [snip]"The globalisation phenomenon has made this organisation much more relevant," says Donald Johnston, secretary-general. "Governments need to determine . . . guidelines for behaviour and standards without engaging in the interminable processes of conventions." [snip]
Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked
by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul - August 14, 2000
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst081400.htmFrom time to time, some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans so it can operate more efficiently. While I do not doubt their good intentions, I would remind them that in the United States, the people should never be asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government a little easier. The government is here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to invade their privacy in the name of efficient government.
With that in mind, I have introduced two key pieces of legislation aimed at curtailing governmental privacy invasions. The first is the "Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act" (HR 220). This bill forbids federal or state governments from using your Social Security number for purposes not directly related to administering the Social Security system. When Social Security was introduced, the American people were told that their number would never become a form of national identifier. In fact, until the 1970s all Social Security cards stated on the back that the card was not an ID card. Unfortunately, cards issued today do not contain that same phrase, and Congress has been all too eager to expand the use of Social Security numbers.
For example, in 1998 over 200 members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to vote. Also, day-to-day private business dealings are becoming increasingly difficult without a Social Security number. You cannot open a bank account, get married, or even obtain a fishing license without disclosing your Social Security number. My bill will restore privacy to Americans who currently are being abused by overreaching government.
The other piece of legislation I have introduced is the "Census Privacy Act" (HR 4085). This bill will prohibit the Census Bureau from collecting any information from citizens except for their name, address and the number of people per residence. That is all Congress needs for a head count of the population in order to re-draw congressional districts every ten years as is required by the Constitution.
I introduced this legislation after scores of calls to my office during the recent census process from constituents who thought the long forms were too intrusive. There is no reason why the federal government needs to know how much money you make or how many bathrooms you have in your home. This information is personal and private, and I am committed to restoring to Americans the peace of mind that comes from knowing that every detail of their lives is not being recorded.
On a more positive note, privacy advocates scored a major victory this summer when the House passed an amendment I proposed to an appropriations bill that will prohibit the federal government from imposing a uniform standard health identifier on the American people. As a doctor, I know how important it is to insure patient confidentiality, and I am very pleased my colleagues supported the amendment. It is the only way to guarantee that national medical IDs do not become a reality.
The other major privacy victory recently was when the federal government withdrew proposed Know Your Customer regulations which would have forced banks to report practically every customer transaction to the government. I was proud to lead the effort on the Banking Committee to stop this invasion of privacy with my "Bank Secrecy Sunset Act" (HR 518), would have overturned any such regulations. Fortunately, the proposal was withdrawn before the legislation was needed, but I believe this will be an ongoing battle. Those advocating more intrusion by the government will continue their legislative efforts, and we must stand ready to face that constant threat.
Czech Police and Army Get Ready for Protests at I.M.F. World Bank Meeting
By STEVEN ERLANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/081200imf-precautions.html
PRAGUE, Aug. 11 -- [snip]
One might think that these are preparations for the battle in Central Europe that NATO war-gamed for so many years. But it is only the annual autumn meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, a conference that the Czech Republic eagerly sought in 1993 as a millennial symbol of the country's return to capitalism and the West. [snip]But since Prague sought this honor, the monetary fund and the World Bank have become targets of rage against globalization and indifferent capitalism. The fund in particular has for some the same negative connotations that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has for far-right groups in the United States.
Already, on various Web sites critical of the fund and its policies, like www.destroyimf.org -- "a Web resource for all those mobilizing to end the poverty and injustice inflicted by global capitalism" -- there is the cry: "Turn Prague into Seattle!" There, late last November, 40,000 demonstrators paralyzed the city, damaged businesses, clashed with the police and tied up a meeting of the World Trade Organization.
Organizers and Czech officials expect 20,000 to 50,000 protesters -- some peaceful, some not -- to come here. The protests will certainly be the largest here since 1989, and perhaps the largest invasion of foreigners since the Soviets dropped by with their tanks in 1968. [snip]
Chelsea Mozen is a 25-year-old American who quit a job in Washington to help organize the initiative's program of nonviolent demonstrations, dance and street theater intended to educate citizens. "It's not our main aim to shut the meeting down, although we think the I.M.F. and World Bank should be dissolved," Ms. Mozen said. "We want a grass-roots display of our disagreement." [snip]
But she says the police have been monitoring the group and its planning, including a meeting outside Prague last month. "We're definitely under surveillance," she said.
On Aug. 2 the group handed out fliers and performed a bit of street theater in Old Town Square, holding a symbolic soccer match between multinational corporations and representatives of the world's poor. The corporations won by bribing the referee, who represented the I.M.F. and the World Bank.
Chuck Reinhardt, a high school teacher from New York, played the part of McDonald's during the match. "The World Bank is not accountable," he said. "They give out loans but don't bear responsibility for what is being done with the money, and most people around the world get no benefits from it at all."
Ragnhild Eide Skogseth, 18, a Norwegian student who played Shell Oil, said the fund and the bank "always say they want to help the poor, but the results are always the opposite." [snip]
Still, for the designers of the Web site, the meeting "will be protected by a Czech police operation run by the F.B.I." It says, "The challenge to the workers' movement is to shut down that summit with the biggest international demo Europe has ever seen." [snip]
[Rep. Ron Paul has introduced HR 1147 to withdraw the US from the World Bank and IMF: http://www.house.gov/paul]
Politics & Privacy
* Jessica Melugin
Competitive Enterprise Institute: advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government
http://www.cei.org/UpdateReader.asp?ID=1066 From the 7/1/00 issueNew developments in the online-privacy debate are threatening to push federal and state bureaucrats' desire for regulatory control to critical mass. Not only are new Internet privacy regulations unnecessary and potentially harmful to things like free speech and the free flow of information, they're also creating a great deal of confusion for this season's political candidates.
Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore has been reassuring voters on the campaign trail, "No matter how our technology grows and changes, your fundamental right to privacy is something that must never change." A fellow aspirant for high office close to the president agrees. In a June speech, Hillary Rodham Clinton told broadcast executives that citizens "shouldn't give up [their] privacy when they... buy a book on the Internet."
In practice, the Democratic Party machine seems to have a better handle on the online-privacy issue than its candidates do. The Democratic National Committee recently announced that, in exchange for answering twenty personal questions, interested individuals could receive free Internet access. When questioned about the privacy implications of such a deal, DNC Chairman Joe Andrew pointed out, "Privacy concerns are not about volunteering information."
Quite right. But is that arrangement much different from what some politicians hope to stop commercial websites from doing?
Not really. When commercial websites gather consumer information, they either ask the visitor to fill out a form or they send a tiny file known as a "cookie" to the visitor's hard drive. The cookie keeps track of what sites he visits and what advertisement banners catch his attention. This information can be kept by the business for in-house use, sold for use in a larger marketing list, or cross-referenced with other consumer information.
This consumer information reduces the chances of apartment-dwellers getting lawn-care solicitations, dog owners receiving cat food coupons, or Ford executives getting campaign information about Ralph Nader. It's win-win. Companies don't waste their resources sending ads to uninterested consumers and consumers are more likely to be interested in the ads they see.
Not convinced?
Neither is John McCain, former candidate for the GOP presidential nomination and current chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. He recently criticized the current default "opt-out" privacy approach of most sites. In the opt-out arrangement, consumers who do not want their viewing habits observed, stored, or sold must explicitly ask to be excluded from these records. He then described one site's particularly lengthy opting-out process, adding, "That's not exactly permission for privacy as some of us understand it."
McCain was apparently unaware that his campaign website's privacy policy didn't even offer a clear link to opting-out, let alone provide a quick and easy method to do so. But it is true that some consumers may be uncomfortable sharing their information or loath to wade through detailed privacy policies. It is also true that these concerns are being addressed by new technologies and software tools better than costly regulations could.
Consumers already control their personal information by selectively visiting websites based on the privacy policies offered. In addition to sticking to sites they trust, Internet users can choose not to fill out registration forms, and set their browsers to get user permission before accepting any cookies (learn how at www.cookiecentral.com). They can also take advantage of technologies available to help avoid lengthy opt-out processes. One can browse anonymously, browse under an authenticated digital pseudonym (www.zeroknowledge.com), or be shown a "just-in-time" summary of any site's privacy policy (www.enonymous.com).
Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush recently commented that "people should not be able to use your information or mine without permission." Bush declined to say what legislation incorporating that approach might look like. But it's clear he's leaning towards an "opt-in" approach wherein sites would have to get explicit permission before collecting any information. These types of regulations would likely prove fatal to many small businesses on the Web and would guarantee to restrict choices to consumers.
The task of striking a balance between the free-flow of personal information and the right to be left alone is best left to be worked out by the parties involved-consumers with their computers, and operators of sites which would like to attract them. Politicians genuinely interested in privacy should just butt out.
Jessica Melugin (jmelugin@cei.org) is a policy analyst at CEI.
Internet users take hard line on privacy
By ARAVIND ADIGA
Financial Times ; 21-Aug-2000An overwhelming majority of internet users want tougher policies to protect their online privacy than those favoured by the US government and most high-tech companies, a new survey suggests. [snip]
However, only 24 per cent said the government should set these rules. [snip]
The survey also reveals that Americans have started to adopt protective measures to safeguard their privacy from web surveillance. Some 24 per cent of those surveyed admitted to having lied outright to avoid giving sensitive information. A smaller number had engaged in a range of measures such as the use of multiple passwords, e-mail encryption, and the use of software to hide their computer's identity from websites.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-2000821164622.htm
Downloading common sense * Brett Schaefer / Adam Thiererhttp://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-2000821163929.htm
Prohibition lives: It is killing D.C. residents too * Rob Kampia and Matt Mercuriohttp://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38329,00.html
Top Guns Want to Probe Carnivore * Declan McCullagh (declan@wired.com)http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/082000privacy-health.html
U.S. Toughens Rules on Medical Privacy, but Some Want More Limits
* ROBERT PEAR
Two from Declan's list:
[Eviathar has no more information, and a cursory news search turns up nothing. Anyone? --DBM]
*******
From: "Eviathar H. Ben-Zedeff" <evi@research.haifa.ac.il>
To: "declan" <declan@well.com>
Subject: Israeli security service is asking for authorization
to tap
internet, sattelite-links and email
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:22:39 +0200
hi, I've just returned from a vacation, and found in Tuesday's
paper here (in Hebrew) a piece about an initiuatve to include in the SHABAK
(General Security Service) Act Proposal, elaborated between the Israeli
Justice Dept., the Knesset (parliament) and the GSS, that the GSS would
be authorized to listen to Email, Internet, and sattelite-links in Israel
as well as phones and cellphones that are already authorized.
eviathar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
Subject: FBI
gets new hacking tools - any ideas?
[Bcc'ing this to Cypherpunks and some others who need to know about this ASAP.)
Got a call from a journo, Michelle Quinn of San Jose Mercury News (+1 408 920 5749, mquinn@sjmercury.com) relating to info they obtained from the court in the case of US v. Patrick Naughton. The case revolves around a programmer type (Naughton) who allegedly crossed state lines with intent to engage in sex with a minor (this was another of those cases where the "minor" was a FBI agent, so it's questionable whether any crime was committed at all; looks like entrapment). After a bit of a court fight, Naughton agreed to capitulate to a greatly reduced sentence (no prison time), in exchange for creating 5 pieces of software for the FBI.
The court document is 20+ pages, *compeletely* redacted with black pen other than a single paragraph, which says that these are tools the FBI did not yet have, and that they consist of:
* "IP number capturing" software
* "chat monitoring" software
* "image matching" software
* "steganography detection" software
* a "framework for a program" to enable remotely searching subjects'
PCs.
Any of these could raise some obvious concerns. I'm curious if anyone might have a clear idea what "image matching software" is, and whether "steganography detection software" is even feasible and what one might do to defeat it. The others are fairly obivious in both intent and viability.
I'm expecting a fax of the relevant part of the document shortly, and
will put it up on our web site at:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/
Filename to be determined; it'll be at the top of the index. May
take a while to get it - the reporter's on deadline. That said, she'd probably
appreciate any additional info if anyone has any.
--
Stanton McCandlish mech@eff.org
http://www.eff.org/~mech
Online Communications Director/Webmaster, Electronic Frontier Foundation
voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 fax: +1 415 436 9993
to the
investor protection homepage to the
Global Ivory Tower
wealth
privacy index name index subjects
& keywords index