When did Mondex ever claim to be anonymous?

I've been researching the ways in which new payment systems incorporate
anonymity,  traceability, or identification, and the ways in which those
properties are presented by various people to various people.

Recently I've been looking particularly at Mondex. I remember receiving the
impression several years ago, when I first heard of Mondex, that it was
purporting to be anonymous, or at least private.  Now, however, I'm
beginning a systematic analysis of their press releases and of press
accounts, and I  find very few references to privacy.  One reference is in
their web page FAQ, which says that Mondex transactions are "private, just
like cash".  Simon Davies, in his complaint to the British Trading Standards
authorities, also cites this FAQ, claiming that it used to read "anonymous,
just like cash".  Davies also refers to an anonymity claim in the Mondex
Media Pack.  But I've found very little else that suggests that Mondex ever
hyped privacy. 

Can anyone give me an idea of how I got the idea that Mondex was making
privacy one of its selling points?

David Phillips
Visiting Instructor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Michigan
Doctoral Candidate, Annenberg School for Communication, University of
Pennsylvania

I believe you will find much of what you want at 

http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/mondex/

which describes the trading standards complaint filed in the UK, and
largely upheld by the UK government; the complainant alleged Mondex was
saying it was anonymous when it was not.

See also, 

http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/oceanno.htm#xtocid583129

for a discussion of Mondex (surrounded by a discussion of its
competitors).  The article was written prior to the decision referenced
above.

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, David J. Phillips wrote:

> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:10:16 -0400
> From: "David J. Phillips" <djphill@umich.edu>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com, e$@vmeng.thumper.com, dcsb@ai.mit.edu
> Subject: When did Mondex ever claim to be anonymous?
> 
> I've been researching the ways in which new payment systems incorporate
> anonymity,  traceability, or identification, and the ways in which those
> properties are presented by various people to various people.
> 
> Recently I've been looking particularly at Mondex. I remember receiving the
> impression several years ago, when I first heard of Mondex, that it was
> purporting to be anonymous, or at least private.  Now, however, I'm
> beginning a systematic analysis of their press releases and of press
> accounts, and I  find very few references to privacy.  One reference is in
> their web page FAQ, which says that Mondex transactions are "private, just
> like cash".  Simon Davies, in his complaint to the British Trading Standards
> authorities, also cites this FAQ, claiming that it used to read "anonymous,
> just like cash".  Davies also refers to an anonymity claim in the Mondex
> Media Pack.  But I've found very little else that suggests that Mondex ever
> hyped privacy. 
> 
> Can anyone give me an idea of how I got the idea that Mondex was making
> privacy one of its selling points?
> 
> David Phillips
> Visiting Instructor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Michigan
> Doctoral Candidate, Annenberg School for Communication, University of
> Pennsylvania
> 

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law |
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

I'm a student at Exeter University in England.  If you are researching
Mondex, I am sure you are aware that we are currently undergoing a
world-wide Modex trial.

The National Westminster Bank have teamed up with the University to
provide every student with an "Intelligent Student Card" to replace our
old Student ID.

The new card has an electronic chip which can store a variety of
information on it.  We are not sure of exactly what it holds, but it can
store "cash" - placed onto it from specific points around campus, or any
Nat West Cash Point machine, or even using any phone box (Yep, the bank
have also teamed up with the phone company (BT) in order to get the
thing working).

The card can be used to pay for almost everything around campus.  Even
in the student pubs and bars.  The Uni are offering cheaper drinks for
those who pay by Mondex.  It is a wierd sight to watch people handing
over their student cards to pay for a pint!

I can give you as much information on the system as I can get hold of if
you want it.

As far as privacy is concerned, The claim that Modex is as private as
cash is plainly incorrect.  Both the card chip and the card reader store
details of the transaction.  The student can use a phone box, card
reader or Nat West Bank Cash Machine to get details of the last ten
transactions stored on the card.

As for the Bank, they get details on the item the student has purchased,
purchase location (the building and exact 'Mondex point' in the bar/shop
where the transaction took place), the exact time and date the
transaction was carried out, together with (obviously) the name and ID
of the purchaser, etc.

Should the police require the information for Criminal purposes, then (I
am almost certain) the Bank/University would be obliged by law to hand
over the information.  Where's the similar "privacy" for cash
transactions?

As far as the card is concerned, we need it to enter all of our student
facilities.  Without the card, you can't play sports in the sports hall,
or get into many Univerity social events.  I think we will even be able
to use the card to electronically vote.  (The implications of this are
obvious - will the hierarchy know your poitical standing in
elections???)

It's funny, I never realised how much information they have on me, until
I've just sat down and thought about it.

If you want any more details, just send us an Email.


	Rob.



 

_____________________________________________________________________

    cs94rjb@dcs.ex.ac.uk        Rob Blakemore, Exeter University.
_____________________________________________________________________

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

R.J.Blakemore wrote:
> 
> I'm a student at Exeter University in England.[...]
> The National Westminster Bank have teamed up with the University to
> provide every student with an "Intelligent Student Card" to replace
> our old Student ID.[...]
> As far as the card is concerned, we need it to enter all of our 
> student facilities.  Without the card, you can't play sports in the 
> sports hall, or get into many Univerity social events.  I think we 
> will even be able to use the card to electronically vote.  (The 
> implications of this are obvious - will the hierarchy know your 
> poitical standing in elections???)

Unfortunately, it's not obvious enough. There is talk of doing
something similar at Stanford, though bureaucratic incompetence and a 
few expressions of concern about privacy have delayed implementation 
considerably.

Details of the uproar (and lawsuit?) would be appreciated to help 
convince the powers that be that a similar project here would be
unwise.

- -rich
 not quite speaking for the stanford civil liberties union
 not quite on cypherpunks, so please cc if you want me to read it
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service

iQBFAwUBMnVkPSoZzwIn1bdtAQExvQGAw2mKlb45D8u3MHHd/cr1TJk9Q1MOOhFl
OOd1rEh679ChzPIOhliCmjWgEbiX3Lhd
=Hc1C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, R.J.Blakemore wrote:

> As for the Bank, they get details on the item the student has purchased,
> purchase location (the building and exact 'Mondex point' in the bar/shop
> where the transaction took place), the exact time and date the
> transaction was carried out, together with (obviously) the name and ID
> of the purchaser, etc.

And you all accept this without complaining? (Not you personally,
since you obviously are complaining, at least on this list.)
Aren't students supposed to be rebellious?

> As far as the card is concerned, we need it to enter all of our student
> facilities.  Without the card, you can't play sports in the sports hall,
> or get into many Univerity social events.  I think we will even be able
> to use the card to electronically vote.

Well, then don't go to the sports hall or any social events.
Pay for the beer with cash even if it costs a few pennies more.
And, for Godzilla's sake, don't vote (it won't make any difference
anyway).

Open your own, competing services just outside campus limits.

Try to discredit the system. Spread (false, if so be it)
rumours about the selling of beer-drinking records to future
employers, about you knowing a guy who's father, a devote
Latter Day Saint working in the security department of a bank,
spanked the guy for his outrageous social activities, about
the guy who got unfriendly with a 'hacker' and suddenly ran
a bill for 2000 beers in a week, and so on. Yes, especially
stories about fraud and personal loss of money are good. Such
things scare people.


Asgaard

In message <Pine.HPP.3.91.961029010401.17479B-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>, Asgaard w
rites:
>Try to discredit the system. Spread (false, if so be it)
                                      ^^^^^
	I don't think spreading false rumours is a good idea - it can discredit
the spreader if anyone bothers to check any details.

	There is some information about Mondex and the company being sued for
falsely claiming that the system is anonymous at the following URLs:

http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_2.13.txt
http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/mondex/complaint.txt

	Derek

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Derek Bell wrote:

> I don't think spreading false rumours is a good idea - it can discredit
> the spreader if anyone bothers to check any details.

Disinformation is a time-honoured weapon in political struggle.
A rumour is called just that because it can't easily be checked
- somebody heard from somebody, who heard from somebody etc. The
spreader is hardly ever discredited since he does not guarantee
the validity of the information. 'It's just a rumour, but...'

Those arguing in favour of Big Brother - 'the needs of law enforcement'
- frequently use (probably false) information that is hard to check, to
impress the public: about terrorists stopped by wiretapping, pedophiles
in great hordes lurking on the net, the infamous 'If you knew what I have
been confidentially told' and so on.

If you doubt that disinformation, including rumour campaigns, can be
effective, read the book on CIA by the renegade Phillip Agee.


Asgaard

In message <Pine.HPP.3.91.961029194511.27228A-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>, Asgaard w
rites:
>Disinformation is a time-honoured weapon in political struggle.
>A rumour is called just that because it can't easily be checked
>- somebody heard from somebody, who heard from somebody etc. The
>spreader is hardly ever discredited since he does not guarantee
>the validity of the information. 'It's just a rumour, but...'

	The problem I have is with the "hardly ever" part - there is always
a chance of being caught out. I prefer the idea of something that can be
verified - like the lawsuit against Mondex. Making a case with documentation
is more impressive, IMHO.

>Those arguing in favour of Big Brother - 'the needs of law enforcement'
>- frequently use (probably false) information that is hard to check, to
>impress the public: about terrorists stopped by wiretapping,

	This is interesting, as the UK police don't claim they need such
powers to deal with the IRA. Now they may already have large wiretapping
powers under law, but I get the impression that most successful anti-IRA
action is due either to infiltration or informers.

>pedophiles in great hordes lurking on the net,

	I know the scares are overblown - there are paedophiles on the net,
but not as many as, say, the tabloid press would claim.

>the infamous 'If you knew what I have been confidentially told' and so on.

	This argument alone would make me suspicious of the claimant.

	IIRC, the bullshit claims are enough to annoy most netizens, though
the politicians aren't aiming at us. Still - I think documented risks of,
say, Mondex would hold more weight.

	Derek