Fw: "What they demand, therefore, is that government just stand back..."

["Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Fleming <jfleming@anet-chi.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 8:59 AM
Subject: "What they demand, therefore, is that government just stand
back..."


>>@@@@@@@@@@ http://www.house.gov/commerce/schedule.htm
>>
>>Thursday, July 22, 1999
>>11:00 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn House Office Building
>>Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on
>>Domain Name System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?
>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>I hope that people following the ICANN saga understand that the
>>key issue will boil down to PRIVACY and the ICANN's recent endorsement
>>of the IPv6 "End-to-End" architecture which exposes all people on the
>>Internet to all others...in a global hot tub where they naively think they
>>will
>>be able to keep the water clean and sharks from swimming where they
>>please...this is a model born in academic circles and has proven not to
>>scale...despite that, the ICANN seems determined to convince the
>>government to "just stand back" while they clear the water and fend off
all
>>the sharks...Sorry folks...you can sit in that hot tub with the
ICANN...not
>>me...
>>
>>JF
>>
>>@@@@ http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/comments/005-cnet.htm
>>
>>"As of March 1998 the vast majority of privacy policies,
>>both in the public and private sectors, fail to properly
>>explain IP address collection as the collection of personally
>>identifiable information. Sites such as FTC.GOV and
>>CONSUMER.GOV have incorrect information concerning
>>this issue."
>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>@@@@ http://www.kithrup.com/brin/trans_chap1.htm
>>
>>"Supporting a quite different approach are some of the most vivid
>>and original thinkers of the information age. John Gilmore, Esther Dyson,
>>John Perry Barlow, and others on the (roughly) libertarian wing were
>>in the vanguard fighting against both the Clipper Chip Proposal and the
>>Communications Decency Act. Seeing little need or value in new laws, they
>>hold that a key factor in defending liberty during the coming era will be
>>technology. Fresh tools of encryption and electronic anonymity will
protect
>>individuals against intrusive spying by others... and especially by the
>>state. What they demand, therefore, is that government just stand back and
>>not interfere as a myriad anonymous personae and enciphered secrets throng
>>across the dataways."
>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>Ms. DEIRDRE MULLIGAN
>>The Center For Democracy & Technology
>>1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
>>Washington, DC 20006
>>(v) +1.202.637.9800
>>(f) +1.202.637.0968
>>
>>@@@ http://www.cdt.org/testimony/mulligan071399.html
>>TESTIMONY OF DEIRDRE MULLIGAN
>>STAFF COUNSEL
>>THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
>>BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE
>>SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
>>JULY 13, 1999
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>I read your testimony noted above before the U.S. House Commerce
>>Committee regarding privacy on the Internet. I share many of the same
>>concerns about privacy. I was somewhat surprised that you did not focus
>>on one of the major Internet developments, IPv6, which has the potential
>>to either end people's privacy or enhance people's privacy depending
>>on how the technology is deployed.
>>
>>In the interest of making more money and improving their PR images
>>the ICANN, ARIN, ISOC, and IETF, etc. are rushing to deploy IPv6 without
>>concern for the privacy issues of their plan. They are encouraging that
>>that people's NIC card addresses be encoded in each of the IPv6 packets.
>>In my opinion, this is a potential violation of privacy because it exposes
>>the type of equipment the person is using, as well as a unique identifier
>>tied directly to that person's desktop. The NIC card address is assigned
>>by the manufacturer. This is similar to the Pentium serial number issue.
>>
>>http://www.privacy.org/bigbrotherinside/
>>
>>Apparently the regional registries who make millions of dollars
>>selling IP addresses do not care about these issues. They appear
>>to be proceeding as shown here. They are blindly following the IETF.
>>
>>@@@@ http://www.arin.net/ipv6/ipv6-regserv.html
>>
>>"Because all interface IDs are required to be in the EUI-64 format (as
>>specified in RFC 2373 and RFC 2374) the boundary between the network and
>>host portions is "hard" and ID address space cannot be further
sub-divided.
>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>@@@@@ http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html
>>
>>"The IEEE defined 64-bit global identifier (EUI-64) is assigned by a
>>manufacturer that has been assigned a company_id value by the IEEE
>>Registration Authority. The 64-bit identifier is a concatenation of the
>>24-bit company_id value assigned by the IEEE Registration Authority
>>and a 40-bit extension identifier assigned by the organization with that
>>company_id assignment."
>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>I suggest that people become more aware of these issues.
>>
>>@@@ http://www.eff.org/public_space.html
>>
>>"Is the Internet a Vibrant Commons
>>or a Collection of Gated Communities?"
>>
>>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>>I think that "Gated Communities" can also be vibrant.
>>
>>IPv6 advocates "End-to-End" with everyone exposed.
>>IPv8 and IPv16 advocates 2 levels of firewalls...you choose...
>>ICANN has clearly chosen the IPv6 "End-to-End" approach....
>>I think that you as a consumer should have a right to choose...
>>The ICANN seeks to take away your rights...
>>
>>Jim Fleming
>>http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
>>http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
>>http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
>>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>>UNIR@http://www.activeworlds.com
>
>