TUCoPS :: Privacy :: priv_233.txt

Privacy Digest 2.33 10/27/93

Better a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.


PRIVACY Forum Digest     Wednesday, 27 October 1993     Volume 02 : Issue 33

          Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
            Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A.
	
                     ===== PRIVACY FORUM =====

   	  The PRIVACY Forum digest is supported in part by the 
	      ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy.


CONTENTS 
	PRIVACY Brief (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
	Re: "Digital Detective" (David Dyer-Bennet)
        CPSR Alert 2.03 [Extract re: Medical Privacy -- MODERATOR]
	   (Dave Banisar)
	Politics is private property in the panopticon society
	   (Jeffrey S. Sorensen)
	Re: Personal Privacy vs. the "Digital Detective"? (Paul Robinson)
        ALAWON Vol. 2, No. 47 [OMB PLANS TO CONSOLIDATE POWER OVER 
	   FEDERAL INFORMATION -- MODERATOR] (ALA Washington Office)
	CPSR Crypto Resolution (Dave Banisar)


 *** Please include a RELEVANT "Subject:" line on all submissions! ***
            *** Submissions without them may be ignored! ***

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet PRIVACY Forum is a moderated digest for the discussion and
analysis of issues relating to the general topic of privacy (both personal
and collective) in the "information age" of the 1990's and beyond.  The
moderator will choose submissions for inclusion based on their relevance and
content.  Submissions will not be routinely acknowledged.

ALL submissions should be addressed to "privacy@vortex.com" and must have
RELEVANT "Subject:" lines; submissions without appropriate and relevant
"Subject:" lines may be ignored.  Excessive "signatures" on submissions are
subject to editing.  Subscriptions are by an automatic "listserv" system; for
subscription information, please send a message consisting of the word
"help" (quotes not included) in the BODY of a message to:
"privacy-request@vortex.com".  Mailing list problems should be reported to
"list-maint@vortex.com".  All submissions included in this digest represent
the views of the individual authors and all submissions will be considered
to be distributable without limitations. 

The PRIVACY Forum archive, including all issues of the digest and all
related materials, is available via anonymous FTP from site "ftp.vortex.com",
in the "/privacy" directory.  Use the FTP login "ftp" or "anonymous", and
enter your e-mail address as the password.  The typical "README" and "INDEX"
files are available to guide you through the files available for FTP
access.  PRIVACY Forum materials may also be obtained automatically via
e-mail through the listserv system.  Please follow the instructions above
for getting the listserv "help" information, which includes details
regarding the "index" and "get" listserv commands, which are used to access
the PRIVACY Forum archive.  All PRIVACY Forum materials are also
available through the Internet Gopher system via a gopher server on
site "gopher.vortex.com".

For information regarding the availability of this digest via FAX, please
send an inquiry to privacy-fax@vortex.com, call (818) 225-2800, or FAX
to (818) 225-7203.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOLUME 02, ISSUE 33

   Quote for the day:

	"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike."

		-- From the original "ADVENTURE" computer game, initially
		   written in FORTRAN, and ported to virtually all computer
		   architectures and operating systems.  Original version by
		   Will Crowther, most "current" (circa the late 70's)
		   features by Don Woods.

		   XYZZY!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Privacy Brief (from the Moderator)

---

A California jury has recently convicted a man of murder, some 30 years
after the event, based solely on a computer fingerprint match.  The prints
lifted at the scene of the murder were fed through the new California
fingerprint computer, which identifed the man, who was 18 at the time of the
crime.  He has steadfastly denied any knowledge of the murder, and claims to
have been in military training at the time of the event.  Apparently over
the span of years most of the persons who could potentially testify at the
trial can no longer be located or have died, and records involving the period
are very sparse.  The jury took only a few hours to convict, and jury
members said later that in the absence of other evidence, they had to
convict solely on the basis of the fingerprint match, regardless of the
man's claims.  He plans to appeal.

Question: Is the use of computer technology to provide such a 
"match," long after most other evidence has been lost or is no
longer available, a positive or negative development?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 11:31:28 CDT
From:    ddb@anubis.network.com (David Dyer-Bennet)
Subject: Re: "Digital Detective" [Subject field chosen by MODERATOR]

lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) said:

 > There is certainly a philosophical underpinning to all of this.  By
 > analogy, Pat's view that everyone should have access to all the information
 > available on everybody seems similar to the view that the way to solve the
 > violent crime problem is to make sure that everyone in the country is
 > carrying a gun at all times and is provided with plenty of ammunition.
 > While some will no doubt agree with both of these concepts, hopefully many
 > of us do not.

I strongly support the principle that there should be few or no individuals or
organizations with privileged access to information (other than information
they collect themselves).  The information easily available to large
corporations should be available to small coroporations and individuals.  I
support this on the basis of fairness, and also because the broad availability
of the information will make it more likely that people will _know_ what
information is available.  Public policy on information is not likely to
become sensible until people encounter the effects in their personal lives.

Note that this does _not_ mean that I support the availability of much of the
information that is in fact available.

Since _you_ raised the always-controversial gun issue: there is a technical
term for countries where there's always a policeman there when you need him.
They are called "police states."  It's clearly established in law and
practice that the police have no legal duty or obligation to protect any
particular individual (you can't sue if they take 30 minutes to show up, or
drive past while you're being assaulted and don't do anything, or whatever).
Protecting yourself is your right and duty.  As is nearly always the case with
a major political conflict, repression is not the answer.

 > It should now be crystal clear that the privacy situation in this country
 > is in shambles.  You can't just sit there, read this, and then file it off
 > and forget it.  Sooner or later, and most likely sooner, *you* are going to
 > be affected.

I'm not sure I can't.  The thing that I'm _sure_ I'm worried about is the lack
of quality control in databases, and the lack of recourse against incorrect
data in them.  I might well be able to live with broad availability of
information. 

Living in a goldfish bowl would be a tremendous and fundamental change in
society, and I'm sure the transition would be exciting, but I'm not sure the
result would be bad.  Yes, my wife could easily find out where I really spend
my time when I claim I'm working late, and my employer could discover which
bars I hang out in (possibly deducing a non-mainstream lifestyle, say).  But
if everybody were out of the closet about what they _really_ did, there'd be a
lot less hypocrisy around.  Societal standards would have to change when it
became apparent that Ward and June Cleaver don't live here any more.  

What's important is that the goldfish bowl be transparent _all over_, not just
in front of the eyes of big corporations.  It might be tolerable to live in a
real goldfish bowl society; it would _not_ be tolerable to live in a society
where your present and potential future employers could see everything about
you, while preserving their own secrecy.

(Yes, I'm ambivalent at best about living in the goldfish bowl.  I'm sure the
transition would be traumatic for nearly everybody, including Ward and June
Cleaver.  But it's not the end of the world _if it applies to everybody_.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet             Network Systems Corporation
ddb@network.com               Brooklyn Park, MN  (612) 424-4888 x3333
ddb@tdkt.kksys.com            My postings represent at most my own opinions.

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 11 Oct 1993 23:23:38 EST
From:    Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Subject: CPSR Alert 2.03 [Extract re: Medical Privacy -- MODERATOR]

	[ I have extracted the following item from
	  CPSR Alert 2.03 -- MODERATOR ]

[3] Health Care Reform and Privacy

The recently released President's Health Security Plan includes
important new provisions on privacy protection.  The plan recommends new
federal legislation based on a Code of Fair Information Practices.
Currently, there is no federal protection for medical records.

The new proposal also includes a provision for a national medical
identity card, which is described in the plan as "like ATM cards, the
health security card allows access to information about health coverage
through an integrated national network. The card itself contains a
minimal amount of information."

President Clinton was asked about the privacy implications of the
medical security card at a town hall meeting in Sacramento, CA on
October 4.  He replied that the card will be used to ensure that in an
emergency that a person could be identified and that it "will have the
same sort of protections that a Social Security card would..." He
recalled opposition to the past attempts to expand the use of the SSN
and noted that the card was only "for the purposes of establishing that
you belong to the health care system."

Another important aspect of the proposal is the identifying number. The
proposal calls for  the establishment of "a system of universal
identifiers for the health care system." The proposal notes that "The
unique identifier may be the Social Security Number or a newly created
number limited to the health care system...In either case, the national
privacy policy explicitly forbids the linking of health care and other
information through the identification number."   This will be
determined by the National Health Board.

In April 1992  CPSR sent a letter to Hillary Clinton with the
endorsement of over two dozen privacy and computer experts requesting
that  the SSN not be used as  the identifier.  The letter cited privacy,
security, and fraud problems and pointed out that other countries, such
as Canada, have created limited purpose identifiers for medical record
information.

Other Privacy Provisions

o The creation of mechanisms for effective enforcement including
significant penalties.

o Establishing a privacy framework based on the Code of Fair Information
Practices including a right to know about and approve the uses of the
data, assurance of no secret data systems, right to review and correct
data, assurances that the data is only collected for legitimate
purposes.

o Issue effective security standards and guidance for health care
information

o Establishing as Data Protection and Security Panel to set privacy and
security standards and monitor implementation of the standards, sponsor
of conduct research, studies and investigations, and developing of fair
consent forms.

The relevant privacy provisions of the health care plan are available at
the CPSR Internet Library /medical_privacy/
clinton_health_reform_plan.txt. A copy of the letter sent to Hillary
Clinton is also available as hillary_letter.txt

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 10:38:53 -0400
From: sorenjs@pb.com (Jeffrey S. Sorensen)
Subject: politics is private property in the panopticon society

	[ This item is extracted from RISKS Forum 
	  Digest V15#11.  -- MODERATOR ]

The _New Haven Register_ had an AP story about the probe into the industrial
spying performed by a group of cable system operators.  This spying included
surveilance, tracking down license plates and investigating long-distance call
records.  According to the cable companies all of this was done using publicly
obtainable information.

The money involved in the deals between cable and television has
driven the cable companies to use such tactics because they are afraid
that regulators are fraternizing with telephone company executives.
I can almost see William Gibson's vision of the future unfolding before
my eyes.  I also see democracy being ground between the gears of industry
and government.  (Perhaps I should also mention the three part series of
articles in _In These Times_ on the new pseudo-grass roots lobbying firms 
that sell the line "How many angry constituents do you want calling your 
legislators each day?  Name your price.")

According to the article, a company called _Scanners_ out of Denver will "fax
a list of toll calls made by anyone, anywhere, for up to $125."  (No doubt the
company takes their name from the movie about people who make your blood boil
and your veins pop out on your head.)  It seems that while the content of
calls is private and cannot be monitored without a court order, the billing
information is not protected.

The larger problem is that our law currently only provides us with a
modicum of protection when we have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that no reasonable
person can ever expect to have any privacy.  I wish that someone in the
news media would get our legislators to WAKE UP by publishing a complete
list of the legislators' calls.  It worked in the Bork/Video-tape rental
records case (or at the very least, a law addressing this was put on the
books; I'm not sure it's enforced.)

Jeffrey Sorensen  sorenjs@pb.com

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 13 Oct 1993 11:31:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Personal Privacy vs. the "Digital Detective"? 

				-----
For the benefit of other readers, comments from Lauren Weinstein
(Lauren@vortex.com> are prefixed with "> ", comments from 
Patrick Townson <ptownson@telecom.chi.il.us> are prefixed with ">> ":

> A few days ago, in my capacity as PRIVACY Forum moderator, I received
> an e-mail submission from Patrick Townson, politely asking if I would
> consider publishing it in the digest.  (Pat is moderator of the 
> TELECOM digest; we have various communications regarding digest
> matters from time to time.)
>
> The submission was essentially an ad promoting a new service he is 
> offering.  I informed him that my policy is not to run ads, though
> particular products and services may be mentioned in the context
> of informational or discussion messages submitted to the Forum.  

>> I wish to announce my recent aquisition of some databases which are
>> primarily used by skip-tracing, investigative and government agencies
>> to locate people, any assets they may have, and other pertinent and
>> personal details of their lives.
>> 
>> These databases are being made available to anyone who wishes to have
>> access to them. The charges are simply being passed along, 'at cost'
>> based on what I am paying. 

Seems a little higher than 'at cost'.  I don't particularly care one way
or another whether Pat makes money off this service or not (and if it's
valuable, he should.)

>> You provide an SSN. I will advise you of all the names which have
>> been used with this SSN

Let's see: drivers licenses, voting records, and possibly matches from
credit reports.  (I think that while giving out the information in a credit
report requires permission, it may not be prohibited for a credit
reporting company to use collected information to add to or correct other
infomrmation files, e.g. putting SSAN into name collections.  If it is not
permitted, then this isn't one source for the base data.)  If I sat down,
I could probably think of a few more places to get this from. 

Oh yes, the Selective Service Registration requires filing by the
Selective Service with every County Clerk of each male in that county who
is registered.  When I was visiting the Los Angeles County Courthous to
renew my ficticious name registration, the list for that week or month was
posted for anyone to look at.  I don't remember if the list included the
Social Security number or not. 

You now have to - courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service - have to file a
notice with your social security number when you buy or sell a house.

A former Commissioner of Social Security - Dorcas Hardy - had considered
sharing their SSA database with some credit reporting companies.  There
was a rather serious opposition to this, and it was dropped, fortunately.

>> You provide a name. Any name okay, but very common names will
>> render a useless list. Middle initials and last known address is
>> requested if possible.  You'll receive a listing of every person who
>> has that name, along with other data:...
>> It can be searched by telephone number only: You provide the phone
>> number, I will respond with the person's profile and neighbor listing.

Two points - I remember this; some company in Florida or Texas or somewhere
is providing this computerized service, and they get reports from
courthouses and search firms around the country who supply them with local
information.

Also, R.L. Polk & Company does - or did - operate a city directory service
where they published cross-index directories; I remember doing a lookup in
a Polk guide more than 20 years ago.  Look up a street and it
will tell you the name of everyone there that they could find either by 
canvassing the neighborhood and asking people, or leaving post cards asking
for a call back (cards were marked 'urgent') or reading the directory sign
in apartment buildings if there was one.  In one famous copyright case, a
company was doing this, then using the phone book to verify the accuracy
of their information.  The courts ruled that while the information in a
telephone book was protected (not the case now) it is not infringement to
use one to verify an independently collected batch of information.  And
Polk even printed a number to call in their St. Louis office to
specifically ask NOT to be listed.  You had to give them your information
in order to identify which listing not to be printed; it sounds strange,
but it makes sense: unless they know which item not to print, they can't
remove it.

Lotus was planning to offer a similar service on CD ROM, until public
complaints forced them to drop it (thousands of people asked not to be 
included.  Technically, since the information is collected from public
sources, Lotus didn't HAVE to remove the information.)

I believe also Compuserve is now running a similar service for people
searches.

Here's another one: MIT runs a newsgroup scanner, either on 'Pit-Manager'
or 'RTFM' or some place.  (Or I may be wrong and it's some other school.)
If anyone on Internet posts a message on any newsgroup (or I suppose, on
any list that it receives) it captures the name and E-Mail address.  So
you can query that database for people's names or E-Mail addresses, and it
even tells you the date that the particular name was seen.  I don't know
how often the cache is flushed, but it's one place to find recent E-Mail
addresses.  In one case I queried it for my account and it gave me a list
of all the identifiers I had used. 

The Whois database used to do this for anyone who requested registration;
now, you have to have a reason to be there, like contact point for a
network or a domain.  (I'm still there; if anyone does a 'WHOIS TDARCOS'
they will get my name and address because I hold an Internet Class C
Address block.)

>> Consumer Credit reports availale from one bureau,     $60

I once called one of the local offices of a national credit bureau.  I
pretended to be an employer, and asked them, if I was just interested in
getting an occastional listing because I am checking perhaps 5 or 6 people
a year as potential employees, and not doing enough business to justify a
$15 a month subscription, was it possible for me to obtain reports even
though I am not a subscriber.  'Certainly'.  I have to send in a written
statement indicateing (1) that I have a legally authorized reason to
obtain the information, and (2) what that reason is, e.g. type of request,
employment, credit, etc.  (They send out a packet of information along
with their forms to apply for srvice and the request for a non-subscrber
pull.) The subscriber rate for pulls in commercial requests is $8 apiece,
and the non-subscriber rate was $15.  Employer requests are slightly
higher because different information had to be requested. 

I used to work for a real-estate office that rented out property.  The
owner would routinely obtain credit reports - and reports of people who
had been evicted, sued for unpaid rent, etc. - from a clearinghouse that
handled information for that purpose; all they had to do was to collect
the reports from the 50 or so courthouse in Southern California where
evictions were filed.  Also, if you were sending someone the preliminary
5-day ("Notice to Pay Rent or Quit"), you could report this to them. 

I think only the credit reports needed proof of a legitimate business
reason.
 
All the other stuff is out there if you want to dig for it.

>> Information should be available to everyone, not just the lawyers
>> and bankers and government agencies. I'll provide information to
>> anyone, at anytime from the categories above. Hope to hear from
>> you soon with your requests.

All Pat is doing is making available to the general public,
something that only the 'big boys' have had access to.  This seems to
sound like the exact same argument that erupted when Caller-ID became
available to anyone, even though ANI has been available on 1-800 number
calls for many years.  Pay minimum and you get an ANI list at the time you
get your bill.  Pau more and you get it in real-time while the call is
coming in.  

>> Regards criminal histories for example, if someone does not like the
>> information being given out, then their real beef is with the concept
>> of free, open to the public trials in the USA.   In every courthouse in
>> America, anyone is free to walk in, sit down and observe a trial going
>> on. We do not have secret trials in the USA. 

Except for Juvenile Court where ther trials *are* secret.  The public is
not allowed to visit those trials, and the records on those are sealed.
Ostensibly this is to "protect" the juvenile that is arrested.  (Note that
appeals, however, are NOT sealed because appeals make the court reporter
cases, they do, however, only print the first name and first letter of the
last name where a juvenile is a party in a case, which is why the famous
"Born Innocent" case (Girl sues NBC over someone getting the idea of using
a houshould object to commit rape from that movie), was known as "Oivia N.
v. National Broadcasting Company". 

Otherwise this is correct; all court cases are open to the public. 
Sometimes the judges would prefer to railroad people in secret, as they
sometimes ask why you are watching a case (I was asked by a judge once,
I'm not sure whether it was because he was wondering if I was one of
the litigants in a case or if he wanted to know why I was there.  So I
said that I was just there to watch.)

> But here's the *real* issue.  If we assume that Pat is right in his
> statements that all of the information to which he has access is
> legally distributable, it goes far to pointing out what an utter
> disgrace the state of privacy and privacy laws in this country
> have become.   

I don't know where 'have become' came from.  Until recently - which 
means the last 20 years or less - communicating long distance was
expensive and keeping records required huge manual files on paper.
Now we have cheap national communications and computers can store
information for about 1/5c per page (figuring 1 megabyte of disk
at $1 and 1 page at 2048 characters).

But the fact is that courthouse records have been open to the public for
more than 200 years.  It's only with the cheap transmission and storage
capability that the issue of privacy has surfaced, since now, records
tend to be cheap to keep around for long periods of time.

> There is certainly a philosophical underpinning to all of this.  By
> analogy, Pat's view that everyone should have access to all the
> information available on everybody seems similar to the view that the
> way to solve the violent crime problem is to make sure that everyone in
> the country is carrying a gun at all times and is provided with plenty
> of ammunition.  While some will no doubt agree with both of these
> concepts, hopefully many of us do not.

Funny you should say that.  The places with the most restrictive gun laws,
Washington and New York, have the worst gun homicide rates.  Ones with
controls but not as severe - Chicago, Los Angeles - are almost as bad.  In
Phoenix it is legal to wear a gun in public - wich almost nobody does -
and thethe number of homiceds there are much less.  (There are probably
other causes such as the goverment telling people in the slums that they
are vicitms and it's okay to feel that government is their only hope, and
since the government doesn't really plan to put people in prison, it's
okay to commit any crime since you probably won't do time.)  In
Switzerland by law every male is required to keep in their house, loaded,
a FULLY AUTOMATIC machine gun which the government gives them.  Gun homicides
are rare there.

> It should now be crystal clear that the privacy situation in this 
> country is in shambles.  You can't just sit there, read this, and
> then file it off and forget it.  Sooner or later, and most likely
> sooner, *you* are going to be affected.
>
> And just exactly what, my friends, are we going to do about it?

Short of declaring a civil war and pulling another Magna Charta, I doubt
there is much that can be done.  But there is a wider issue: access to
credit, to money, and other valuable things requires that those who offer
access have reasonable assurances they will be repaid.  Credit databses
got started because people didn't always pay their bills or sometimes
moved from town to town to escape judgements.  The credit reporting laws
came into effect because the people running the reporting agencies were
not careful in how they handled the information they got.  

A future employer may have reason to want to know if a person who handles
money is running large debts and not paying bills; this may indicate that
they are a possible risk.  A company that issues a mortgage wants to be 
certain it will be repaid; a person renting out a house or apartment wants
to be certain their rents will be paid on time.  Without access to the 
information, people may have to charge more.

And in some places, getting people to take a check is almost impossible
because getting information suitable for skip tracing if the person
doesn't pay is restricted.  Where there are restrictions in the access to
data, the honest suffer when guilty people cannot be located.  One man in
California mentioned that even with a court judgement, because of fears
of misuse, he can't get access to someone's address from their drivers'
license, even though a private investigator or insurance company
representative can.

---
Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 22 Oct 1993 17:05:12 -0400
From:         ALA Washington Office <alawash@alawash.org>
Subject:      ALAWON Vol. 2, No. 47 [OMB PLANS TO CONSOLIDATE
	      POWER OVER FEDERAL INFORMATION -- MODERATOR ]


                                  ALAWON
                      ALA Washington Office Newsline
                     An electronic publication of the
              American Library Association Washington Office

                            Volume 2, Number 47
                             October 22, 1993

   In this issue: (310 lines)
     OMB PLANS TO CONSOLIDATE POWER OVER FEDERAL INFORMATION

***************************************************************************

          OMB PLANS TO CONSOLIDATE POWER OVER FEDERAL INFORMATION

The Office of Management and Budget is planning to open a new front in the
century-old battle between Congress and the Executive Branch over who
controls the production and dissemination of government information.  The
ALA Washington Office has obtained a portion of the draft legislation that
OMB plans to include in the "October package" that contains the
Administration's National Performance Review recommendations.  The
Administration hopes that Congress will pass this package by the time it
adjourns close to Thanksgiving.

This proposed legislation repeals the statutory authority of the Joint
Committee on Printing to "use any measures it considers necessary to remedy
neglect, delay, duplication, or waste in the public printing and binding
and the distribution of Government publications" (44 U.S.C. 103).  JCP is
the Committee that has worked with the library and public interest
communities for over 150 years to enact a series of laws, starting with the
1895 Printing Act and continuing with the GPO Access Act (PL 103-40), to
protect the public's access to government information.  JCP stood up to OMB
during previous Administrations and insisted that government information
continue to be distributed without charge to the public through depository
libraries.

The Government Printing Office, overseen by the JCP, would be dismantled
and much of its responsibilities and functions shifted to OMB, the General
Services Administration and individual federal agencies.  Each agency would
procure its own printing and be responsible for dissemination.  There is no
enforcement mechanism included to make agencies provide their information
to the depository program, since 44 U.S.C. 1701 (GPO's authority to
disseminate) is eliminated.

This bill also includes transfer of the printing of the _Federal Register_
to the executive branch and knocks the Public Printer off the
Administrative Committee of the _Federal Register_.  It is quite likely
that the _Federal Register_, and many other Executive Branch publications,
would no longer be sold through GPO.

The text of the draft OMB bill follows:

Description of the Draft Bill, the "Government Information Dissemination
and Printing Improvement Act of 1993"

     The National Performance Review recognized that public access to
federal information should be enhanced.  It also recommended improving the
printing practices of Executive agencies.  To accomplish these goals, the
proposed legislation would:

*    incorporate the information dissemination policies contained in
     revised OMB Circular A-130, particular [sic] as they relate to
     expanding electronic information dissemination.

*    reaffirm the role of the depository library program.

*    promote the establishment of a Government Information Locator Service
     which is being designed, under the auspices of the Administration's
     Information Infrastructure Task Force, to enhance the ability of the
     public to identify and acquire government information dissemination
     products.

*    remove Executive branch printing from the GPO monopoly over a two-year
     transition period following enactment.

*    (During a two year transition period, GPO would remain the mandatory
     source for Executive branch printing as defined by the GSA
     regulations.  However, during this period Executive agencies would be
     authorized to procure printing jobs up to $2500 through open bidding.)

*    give GSA responsibility for promulgating printing policy.

*    ensure that agency procurements of printing services are conducted in
     accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation using full and open
     competition to acquire the best value products and services.

*    permit GPO to compete for agency printing business on an equal basis.


                                DRAFT BILL

To further the goals of the National Performance Review to improve the
dissemination and printing of government information.

Section 1.  Short Title.

     This Act may be cited as the "Government Information Dissemination and
Printing Improvement Act of 1993".

Section 2.  Authority and  Functions of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (the Director) shall
develop policies and practices for agency dissemination and sharing of
public information to ensure that agencies--

     (a) make information dissemination products available on timely,
equitable and cost effective terms;

     (b) encourage a diversity of public and private information
dissemination products;

     (c) avoid establishing, or permitting others to establish, exclusive,
restricted, or other distribution arrangements that interfere with the
availability of information dissemination products on a timely and
equitable basis; and,

     (d) set user charges for information dissemination products no higher
than sufficient to recover the cost of dissemination, except where required
by statute or specifically authorized by the Director.

Section 3.  Authority and Functions of the Administrator for General
Services

     (a)  The Administrator of General Services shall provide overall
policy direction for the acquisition of printing by executive agencies, and
may promulgate government-wide regulations as appropriate.  The authority
conferred upon the Administrator by this section shall be exercised subject
to direction by the President and to fiscal and policy control exercised by
the Office of Management and Budget.  Authority so conferred upon the
Administrator shall not be construed so as to impair or interfere with the
determination by agencies of their individual printing requirements.

     (b)  To the extent practicable and appropriate, the policies
promulgated by the Administrator for the acquisition of printing by
executive branch agencies shall be consistent with the principles contained
in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, promulgated pursuant to 41 U.S.C.
405a.

     (c)  The policies promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to this
section shall --

          (1)  ensure that the Government Printing Office has the
     opportunity to compete on an equal basis for agency printing
     acquisitions; and

          (2)  reaffirm agency responsibilities to cooperate with the
     Superintendent of Documents with regard to the distribution of
     government publications to the depository libraries, as required by
     Chapter 19, title 44 United States Code.

Section 4. Federal agency responsibilities.

The head of each agency shall --

     (a) promote public access to public information by establishing and
maintaining systems for dissemination of information that --

          (1)  ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to
     the agency's public information and that the agency disseminates
     public information in an efficient, cost effective, and economical
     manner;

          (2)  plan and budget for information dissemination at the time
     information is created or collected, and at other appropriate steps
     during the information life cycle; and,

          (3)  establish and maintain a comprehensive inventory of
     significant public information holdings in accordance with guidance
     issued by the Director under Section 5 of this Act.

     (b)  When providing for the dissemination and sharing of significant
public information --

          (1)  to the greatest extent practicable, disseminate in
     usable electronic formats (in whole and in part, and along with such
     available software in which the government may have license rights,
     indices, and documentation) public information maintained in
     electronic formats; and

          (2)  before taking any action to initiate, terminate, or
     significantly modify the dissemination of public information--

               (A)  solicit and consider public comments on the proposed
          action; and

               (B)  provide notice to the Superintendent of Documents and
          otherwise comply with the requirements of section 1710, title 44
          United States Code.

     (c)  In determining how to fulfill its public information
dissemination functions, consider--

          (1)  whether dissemination is required by law;

          (2)  whether dissemination is necessary for the proper
     performance of the functions of the agency;

          (3)  whether disseminating public information would assist in
     public oversight of agency operations or would promote the general
     social or economic welfare of the United States;

          (4)  whether an information dissemination product available from
     other Federal or nonfederal sources is equivalent to an agency
     information dissemination produce [sic] and reasonably fulfills the
     dissemination responsibilities of the agency;

          (5)  dissemination methods that will maximize the utility of the
     information to the public, including dissemination through the
     Superintendent of Documents to the depository libraries; and

          (6)  the economy and efficiency of Government operations.

     (d)  Establish fees and other dissemination arrangements in a manner
consistent with the policies and practices developed by the Director under
Section 2 of this Act.

Section 5.  Establishment and Operation of Government Information Locator
Service

In order to assist agencies and the public in locating information and to
promote information sharing and equitable access by the public, the
Director shall--

     (a)  cause to be established and maintained a distributed agency-based
electronic Government Information Locator Service supported by agency
inventory systems which identify significant public information holdings;

     (b)  require each agency having significant information dissemination
products to establish and maintain a comprehensive inventory of such
products, and shall prescribe the minimum contents of such inventories,
subject to any technical standards developed pursuant to subsection (c);
and,

     (c)  establish an interagency committee, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Commerce, the Archivist of the United States, the
Administrator of General Services, the Public Printer, and the Librarian of
Congress, to develop such technical standards for agency inventory systems.

Section 6. Transition to Executive Branch Printing

     (a)  The Government Printing Office will remain the mandatory source
for Executive agency printing needs for two years after the effective date
of this Act.

     (b)  Notwithstanding subsection (a), Executive agencies are authorized
to obtain printing services under $2500 from commercial sources or other
printing sources operated by Executive agencies during this period.

Section 7.  Technical and conforming amendments.

     (a)  Section 103, title 44 United States Code, is repealed.

     (b)  Section 312, title 44 United States Code, is amended by striking
the word "Government" and inserting the words "Congress or the Judiciary
(other than the Supreme Court), and GAO" in the first sentence of the
section.

     (c)  Section 313, title 44 United States Code, is amended by inserting
the words "for the use of Congress or the Judiciary (other than the Supreme
Court), and GAO," after the words "otherwise" in the first paragraph
thereof.

     (d)  Sections 501, 503, 504, 508, 509, 510, 512, 513, and 514, title
44 United States Code, are repealed.

     (e)  Chapter 11, title 44 United States Code, is repealed in its
entirety.

     (f)  Section 1502, title 44 United States Code, is amended by striking
the words "and, together with the Public Printer," after the words
"custody" in the first section.

     (g)  Section 1503, title 44 United States Code, is amended by striking
the sixth sentence, which reads, "The Office shall transmit immediately to
the Government Printing Office for printing, as provided by this chapter,
one duplicate original or certified copy of each document required or
authorized to be published by section 1505 of this Title."

     (h)  Section 1504, title 44 United States Code, is repealed.

     (i)  Section 1506, title 44 United States Code, is amended by striking
the words "Public Printer or Acting Public Printer," with "Administrator of
GSA or his or her designee."

     (j)  Section 1701, title 44 United States Code, is repealed.

***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************

ALAWON (ISSN 1069-7799) is an irregular publication of the American Library
Association Washington Office, 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, DC
20002-5675.  Internet: alawash@alawash.org; Phone: 202-547-4440;
Fax: 202-547-7363.  Editor and List Owner: Fred King (fdk@alawash.org).
All or part of ALAWON may be redistributed, with appropriate credits.

ALAWON is available free of charge and is available only in electronic
form.  To subscribe, send the message "subscribe ala-wo [your name]" to
listserv@uicvm (Bitnet) or listserv@uicvm.uic.edu (internet).  Back issues
and other documents are available from the list server.  To find out what's
available, send the message "send ala-wo filelist" to the listserv.  The
ALA-WO filelist contains the list of files with the exact filename and
filetype.  To get a particular file, issue the command "send filename
filetype" to the listserv.  Do not include the quotes in your commands.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 21:40:51 EST    
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Subject: CPSR Crypto Resolution 

CPSR Cryptography Resolution

Adopted by the CPSR Board of Directors, San Francisco, CA October 18,
1993

WHEREAS,

Digital communications technology is becoming an increasingly
significant component of our lives, affecting our educational,
financial, political and social interaction; and

The National Information Infrastructure requires high assurances of
privacy to be useful; and

Encryption technology provides the most effective technical means of
ensuring the privacy and security of digital communications; and

Restrictions on cryptography are likely to impose significant costs on
scientific freedom, government accountability, and economic
development; and

The right of individuals to freely use encryption technology is
consistent with the principles embodied in the Constitution of the
United States; and

The privacy and security of digital communications is essential to the
preservation of a democratic society in our information age; and

CPSR has played a leading role in many efforts to promote privacy
protection for new communications technologies:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility supports the right of
all individuals to design, distribute, obtain and use encryption
technology and opposes any government attempt to interfere with the
exercise of that right; and

CPSR opposes the development of classified technical standards for the
National Information Infrastructure.

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 02.33
************************


TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2014 AOH