[109199] in Cypherpunks
Re: PIII ID # in use
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Hettinga)
Sat Mar 13 18:48:50 1999
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:03:00 -0500
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Reply-To: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
--- begin forwarded text
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 21:42:48 -0800
Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications
<CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications
<CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: Gabe Wachob <gwachob@AIMNET.COM>
Subject: Re: PIII ID # in use
To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Paul Anthony Gowder wrote:
> At 05:55 PM 3/12/99 -0800, Gabe Wachob wrote:
> >Yeah, but if I turn off the PIII id #, will I still be allowed to file a
> >court document electronically?
>
>
> Good lord, I didn't think this would go so far. What happened to the
> boycott?
>
> Q to group in general: do privacy advocates, you think, have the resources
> to compete with these guys? Given the low cost of starting something like
> this (iLumin? Who are they?
The CEO is Brent Israelsen, who has been very involved with the
electronification of Utah courts. I don't know much first hand, but he is
deeply involved with the Utah Electronic Law & Commerce Partnership (I
could have sworn it just used to be the Utah Electronic Law Project -
http://www.uelp/org/xmlpg.htm).
I don't think that group is active anymore -- I am helping to lead a
project to develop XML standards for law, and that's why this press
release jumped out at me.
<plug>
If you are interested in discussing the politics and issues
surrounding implementation of XML in law, there is an email list
(xml@legalminds.org) to which you can subscribe by sending an email to
listserv@legalminds.org with 'subscribe <youremail> <yourname>' in the
body of the email. There is also a technical work group if you are
interested -- please email me directly if you are interested.
</plug>
> Though, if anyone's read Player Piano by Kurt
> Vonnegut...), would a better strategy than simply fighting these people
> with boycotts be to offer privacy alternatives, to demonstrate the value of
> privacy to businesses? Just a thought.
Of course -- the problem is when alternatives are foreclosed by judicial
mandate (thou must file from a PIII ID enabled machine) or software
monopoly (thou must file through XXX Inc's software and web site because
they are the one's that installed the court's e-filing system and have an
exclusive contract with us).
There are already alternatives -- the issue is that Intel is trying to
convince people that a hardware, CPU-tied ID # is somehow a solution to
security on the Net. Those folks who know better know that Intel's
ID-on-the-chip doesn't mean a whole lot for the purpose of security of
e-commerce. I just get really scared when PIII ID #'s start to get used
for court-filing -- its not like an attorney has a choice there (except to
file with dead trees, of course).
-Gabe
P.S. Paul- Thanks for singing the WIPO RFC comment at
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~kopsahl/wipocomment.html! (neat how I snuck
that in, isn't it?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabe Wachob - http://www.findlaw.com - http://www.aimnet.com/~gwachob
As of today, the U.S. Constitution has been in force for 76,965 days
When this message was sent, there were 25,409,831 seconds before Y2K
--- end forwarded text
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@philodox.com>
Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
