Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: nobody@alumni.cco.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Jerry Berman on pseudonymous privacy
Date: 24 Apr 1993 10:38:38 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 108
Sender: daemon@cs.utexas.edu
Message-ID: <9304241538.AA10342@alumni.cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Hello all,
I thought you all might like to see this. It's a letter from Jerry
Berman to David Chaum from November of 1985, in response to
information that Mr. Chaum sent to Mr. Berman.

While I have to congratulate EFF for its prompt response to the
Clipper Chip announcement from the White House, I think it's important
to recognize the philosophy of their Executive Director, as explained
below.

I agree that legal remedies are important, but when pressed, I'd
prefer to retain the ability to use purely technical solutions to
preserve my privacy, because they'll hold up under fire.

Mr. Chaum has consented to the publication of this letter on the Net. 

I don't work for, nor am I a member of EFF, ACLU, or any similar
organizations, but I do agree with them on a great many things. 

					--Aristophanes

----------


                     AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION


                       WASHINGTON OFFICE        
                                                               
                                                    122 Maryland Avenue, NE
 November 1, 1985                                   Washington, DC 20002
                                                    --------------------
                                                    National Headquarters
Mr. David Chaum                                     132 West 43rd Street    
Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science         New York. NY 10036    
P.O. Box 4079                                       (212) 944-9800        
19O9 AB Amsterdam                                   Norman Dorsen           
                                              President        
Dear Mr. Chaum:                                     Ira Glasser
                                                      Executive Director
                                                    Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      CHAIR
                                                    National Advisory       
                                                  Council
                                                                         
                                                                         
                                                                            
 
                                              

	Thank you for sending me a most interesting article.   A
society of  individuals  and  organizations  that  would  expend  the
time and resources to use a  series  of  'digital  pseudonyms' to
avoid data linkage does not in my opinion make big brother
obsolete but  acts  on  the  assumption  that  big  brother  is  ever
present.  I  view  your  system  as  a  form  of  societal  paranoia.

	As a matter of  principle,  we  are  working  to  enact  formal
legal protections for  individual  privacy  rather  than  relying  on
technical solutions.   We want to  assume  a  society  of  law  which
respects legal limits rather than  a  society  that  will  disobey  the
law, requiring  citizens  to  depend  on  technical  solutions.  e.g.
require  a  judical  warrant  for  government  interception  of  data
communications rather than  encrypt  all  messages  on  the  assumption
that regardless of the lawt  the  government  will  abuse  its  power
and invade privacy.

	As a  matter  of  practicality,  I  do  not  think  your  system
offers much hope for privacy.    First, the trend toward universal
identifiers  is  as  much.-a  movement  generated  by  government  or
industry's desire to keep track of all citizens as it is by
citizens seeking simplicity and convenience in all transactions.
At best,  your  system  would  benefit  the  sophisticated  and  most
would opt for  simplicity.  The  poor  and  the  undereducated  would
never use or benefit from it.

	Finally where there's a  will, there's  a  way. If  government
wants to link data bases, it  will,  by  law, require  the  disclosure
of various individual pseudonyms used by citizens or prohibit it
for data bases which the government wants to link.      Since
corporations  make  money  by  trading  commercial  lists  with   one
another, they will never adopt  the  system  or  if  it  is  adopted,
will use "fine printn  contracts  to  permit  selling  various   codes
used by their customers to other firms.

	The solution remains law, policy, and consensus about limits
on government or corporate intrusion into areas of individual
autonomy.  Technique can be used to enforce that consensus or to
override it. It cannot be used as a substitute for such
consensus.



                                            Sincerely Yours,

                                             /Sig/

                                            Jerry J. Berman
                                            Chief Legislative Counsel
                                            & Direrector ACLU
                                            Privacy Technology Project


   cc: John Shattuck




