Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1580-997431123-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 21131 invoked by uid 510); 10 Aug 2001 07:14:09 -0000 Received: from n19.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.69) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 07:14:09 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1580-997431123-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.56] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Aug 2001 08:12:03 -0000 X-Sender: fastflyer28@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 10 Aug 2001 08:12:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 43782 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 08:12:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2001 08:12:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web14504.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.224.67) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 08:12:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20010810081201.36201.qmail@web14504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [12.78.116.63] by web14504.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:12:00 PDT To: iwar@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010809103958.00b515a0@poptop.llnl.gov> From: "e.r." <fastflyer28@yahoo.com> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [iwar] Computer and Network Security vs. Information Privacy and Confidentiality (fwd) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Former DCI asked that for his personal security, that the CIA owned computer used at home not be monitored. When he left his post and the machine was audited, porn sites and several other less than tidy things came up on his machines-to include his wife's emails. That is an example of your tax dollars at play. While the judges below may want to keep a journal, or write down thoughts when formulating opinions, I do thing it would be far wiser to keep work "at the office". Only one court in this country hears classified testimony on a constant basis. While we may have all used government owned systems for sending emails, or other personal matters, finding the DCI's porno collection makes the case that, unless dealing with classified material, a personal system is the better part of both valor, and personal security. --- Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov> wrote: > At 07:48 AM 8/9/01 -0700, you wrote: > >Per the message sent by Anonymized for your protection: > > > > > Some federal judges are protesting the monitoring of their > computers by > > > Washington managers concerned about personal Internet use. The > judges > > > of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco claim > the > > > practice is illegal. They are pressing to get it stopped, and > the > > > Supreme Court chief justice and other judges will consider the > request > > > next month. To demonstrate their discontent, judges of the 9th > Circuit > > > ordered staff to disable monitoring software in May. The > weeklong > > > shutdown affected 10,000 court employees in the Circuit, which > covers > > > nine states and two territories, and two other court > > > districts......continued...... > > > >We have given up our personal freedoms in exchange for 'security' - > but > >we are not getting security - are we? Indeed, we are getting less > >security and the federal law enforcement types are getting more > power to > >monitor and coalate information on us. Our rights to privacy and > >ownership are eroding and the threat/fear of cyber terrorism and > other > >suchthings are being used to take these things away from us. The > right > >to free expression is being pushed as well - by the arrest of the > >Russian who published a paper on how to break a code after DefCon - > for > >example... > > I concur. > > "Anonymized" also offered the general observation that, due to the > complexity of the technology, infrastructure management is gaining De > Facto > peer rights to information content. Since there is (IMHO) no > practical way > to avoid this situation, the only remedy would appear to be laws that > > prohibit infrastructure management from taking any actions, based > upon > revealed content, that are not aimed directly at infrastructure > integrity. > > In this digital age, the fact that "data" to one process can be > "process" > to another process makes the "content vs infrastructure" distinction > increasingly problematic. > > The debate parallels that involving encryption. There is no doubt > that > ubiquitous strong crypto will hamper many law enforcement efforts, > and yet > pervasive cryptography could also serve to harden the entire > infrastructure > to broader strategic threats. Someone (on this list, I believe) > asked, > "What is more important, law enforcement or national security?" > > ____tony____ > > > > > Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov> > Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory > Livermore, CA 94551-9900 > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:39 PDT