NODE da20ca1cMacWorld Special Report
dmandl@lehman.com (David Mandl)Mon, 24 May 93 08:29:48 PDT
There's a pretty solid Special Report in the new issue of Macworld (July,
1993) on the ever-increasing threats to electronic privacy. Part One is
called "Bosses with X-Ray Eyes: Your Employer may be Using Computers to
Keep Tabs on You"; Part Two is "Privacy in Peril: How Computers are Making
Private Life a Thing of the Past."
Highlights: The reporters performed a little test to see how easy it is to
get information on people electronically. They managed to get stacks of
personal, legal, and financial data on, among others, Janet Reno, Clint
Eastwood, Edwin Meese, George Lucas, Joe Montana, William Hearst, and the
CEO of Bank of America with very little trouble. A poll on employers'
invasions of workers' privacy found that 21.6% of companies search employees'
files. There's also a sidebar on the insecurity of email. Favorite quote:
"The U.S. is a laughingstock among privacy experts because we protect video-
tape-rental records, but not medical records."
In the same issue, columnist Stephen Levy is harshly critical of the Digital
Telephony Bill. He goes off on a tangent about cryptography, and, while he
doesn't mention Clipper, he speculates that if the bill is passed, the banning
of strong crypto would very likely be next. He mentions PGP in passing.
These pieces are all very strongly pro-privacy.
It's nice to see this kind of coverage. I think articles like these are a
tremendous help in furthering cypherpunk goals.
--Dave.
NODE ddf07d05MacWorld Special Report
Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>Mon, 24 May 93 11:20:03 PDT
Re: MacWorld
Kudos to Mitch Ratcliffe for the MacWorld coverage. He's a strong
advocate of privacy issues and makes sure his magazine covers them.
Eric
NODE 36ad93ddRe: MacWorld Special Report
Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>Mon, 24 May 93 12:03:29 PDT
Dave writes:
> In the same issue, columnist Stephen Levy is harshly critical of the Digital
> Telephony Bill. He goes off on a tangent about cryptography, and, while he
> doesn't mention Clipper, he speculates that if the bill is passed, the banning
> of strong crypto would very likely be next.
I don't think that's a tangent, Dave.
Thanks for the pointer.
--Mike