[IP] EFF Announces New Privacy Tool

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:19:17 -0800
To: <dave@farber.net>, Ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Cc: "Prof. Jonathan Ezor" <jezor@tourolaw.edu>
Subject: Re: [IP] EFF Announces New Privacy Tool

At 5:36 PM -0500 2/7/05, David Farber wrote:
>...
>One implication of this, which is likely intentional, is that without logs,
>ISPs *can't* respond to subpoenae seeking to identify who was using a
>particular IP address at a particular time.  While that makes life easier
>for the ISPs (and makes it easier for the users to be anonymous), it makes it
>much harder for companies to identify and catch true cybercriminals.

For better and worse, legal advisors to [probably almost all!]
corporations routinely and systematically advise their management
[and especially their board members!] to keep absolutely as little
documentation as possible.

Corporations are ENCOURAGED to routinely destroy as many records of
their business activities as possible.  (Keep just enough to operate
the business, and pacify the IRS ... or, at least, argue with them.)

This is even more true in this day of fraud-on-the-market contingency
litigation at the drop of a hat (or, in this case, drop of a stock
price).

It's also especially applicable to email archives.  E.g.,
market-fraud litigators almost automatically file discovery motions,
immediately, to access a target corp's email files, which they then
eagerly fish-through, for any iota's evidence of wrongdoing by the
loot-seeking litigators.  (Did even ONE of your most junior engineers
ever scoff about a promised but missed delivery-date?)

So ... why should citizens be subjected to greater automated
"record-keeping" -- which can accurately be called "surveillance" --
by their service providers, via log-viles <sic>, etc. ... than might
be retained by [inhuman] "corporate persons"?

When I was a silly naive child, I recall civics teachers actually
suggesting that there was some kind of presumption of innocence.
PSCHAW!  That's clearly a foolish and unrealistic idea, especially in
the views of today's governments (and litigators).

--cynical-jim, who's almost-surely guilty of SOMEthing  ;-)

------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/