Mark0 writes "In an article on MacCentral we read 'CryptoHeaven beefs up Mac OS X support'. This is great news for the Mac OS X community as there aren't many competing applications for the new platform. CryptoHeaven seems to be leading the secure email sector and also provides instant messaging and file storage!" --- You can never have too much security! Well, OK, you can, but CryptoHeaven looks kinda neat.

CryptoHeaven.

I haven't tried it but sounds interesting. If someone tests it out maybe they could put a write-up in the discussion group.

MacCentral part of MacWorld - CryptoHeaven beefs up Mac OS X support.

Thanks to the "overwhelming response from Mac OS X community," CryptoHeaven has just released version 2.1 of their online security service with improved Mac OS X support, company officials told MacCentral.

CryptoHeaven is a user-friendly cryptography system designed to enable you to hide your information from prying eyes. Previously, the service was Mac OS X compatible, but wasn't "officially supported." Now, apparently, it is. A free service, CrytoHeaven promises: secure e-mail; secure online storage, file sharing, and file distribution; security instant messaging; no third party keyholder; automatic key and contact management. All services are said to be integrated and available from a single user interface.

Boston Globe Online / Business / Editorial Op-Ed - Guarding online patrons' privacy will build trust. By Arvind Krishna, 8/18/2002

Generally, that well-practiced tango between anonymity and disclosure goes on smoothly in the real world. But in the virtual world, it can sometimes have scary consequences, including the loss of your privacy and identity.

[ ... ]

Harris Interactive says 70 percent of consumers worry their online transactions aren't secure, and 75 percent are concerned companies will share their personal information with others. Those fears reduced US online purchasing by $15 billion last year, according to the latest consumer research.

It's estimated electronic commerce would double if people had greater confidence that their privacy was protected on the Web. In fact, the lack of confidence in privacy outpaces all other concerns - including price and ease of use - in inhibiting people from buying on the Web.

That's a huge wasted opportunity and a very clear message that we have some serious work to do to turn these percentages around.

And while serious - very serious - the privacy issues we're dealing with today are trivial compared to what's ahead. What are the implications for individual privacy in a world where millions of people are driving Internet-enabled cars that have their movements monitored at all times? What happens to privacy for millions of people with Internet-enabled pacemakers? Who has access to real-time data on your heartbeat, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels? Your doctor? Your insurance company?

The answer must begin with a responsible marketplace. Through business policies and practices, the IT industry has to send an unambiguous message that tells people: ''You can trust us. You have choices. They will be respected. And you'll know in advance how any information that you give us will be used.''

[ ... ]

Privacy is, above all, a question of behavior - not technology. It's a question of finding the best set of motivators and inducements to meet a simple challenge made more complicated by the networked world. That challenge: Consumers want businesses to do more than just pay lip service to a privacy policy - they want to see it in practice.

SSRN Network - Internet Surveillance Law After the USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother That Isn't. Orin S. Kerr George Washington University - Law School / GWU Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 43 / Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 97, 2003, Forthcoming

Abstract: This article argues that the common wisdom on the "U.S.A. Patriot Act" is wrong. Far from being a significant expansion of law enforcement powers online, the Patriot Act actually changed Internet surveillance law in only minor ways and added several key privacy protections. The article focuses on three specific provisions of the Patriot Act: the provision applying the pen register law to the Internet, the provisions relating to Carnivore, and the new computer trespasser exception to the Wiretap Act. By explaining the basic framework of surveillance law and applying it to the Patriot Act, the author shows how the Internet surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act updated the law in ways that both law enforcement and civil libertarians should appreciate.

The paper itself is a 472K PDF file that has to be downloaded. Just trying to show both sides so you can make up your own minds.

Computerworld - California county opts-in for tougher privacy law.

n what may be more evidence of an emerging national backlash against "opt-out" financial privacy laws, California's San Mateo County this month approved a law requiring banks to get customer permission before sharing their data with third parties.

The federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley law allows financial services groups to share customer data unless the customer says no. But the law allowed states to set a tougher standard, by first requiring customer consent or "opt-in." And that's what's been happening in other locales. In June, voters in North Dakota overwhelmingly voted to tighten financial privacy laws (see story). Vermont officials have imposed similar restrictions.

Those separate actions for stronger privacy protections, from west to east, "show it is a movement across the country," said Ari Schwartz, a policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. He sees it as a signal to politicians "that this is something that people care about."

As part of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law, customers received privacy notices explaining their rights. But the notices were criticized for being too complicated and difficult to understand.

The federal law, however, doesn't prevent states or local communities from imposing their own standards.

San Mateo County Supervisor Mike Nevin said his decision to spearhead the measure grew out of frustration with the California state legislature, which, in the face of heavy opposition from financial trade groups, failed to pass a proposal sponsored by state Sen. Jackie Speier, a Daly City Democrat, that would have required statewide "opt-in" rules.

"I wish the whole state and the country would have the same kind of opportunity for privacy," said Nevin. "With all the pluses that have come out of the computer and information age, one of the downsides is privacy."

The law, which could face a court challenge, takes effect Jan. 1, said Nevin.

Administrative: Sigh ... It seems that the SPAMer who is using me as their return address is back. This time trying to get the info on folks with timeshares to sell.

If you get one of these(all I get are the bounces without headers needed for tracing the source) please send me the whole e-mail with headers turned on. This will allow me to track down the source and maybe get them closed down. It depends on their ISP and location. Their drop box is at hope123@firemail.de (Germany) Their two previous drop boxes were also at this site. Today's fake message is below

			Do you currently own a timeshare?
			
			Are you tired of paying high maintenence fees?
			Would you like to sell or rent your Timeshare for a profit? 
			
			If so I can help you. sell it within 90 days for as much as $30,000 
			
			Especially if your timeshare is in california, florida, 
			north and south Carolina
			colorado mexico and any place tropical
			
			Stop fooling around with companies that promise and don't deliver!
			
			Must be 18 years of age.
			
			Reply with your NAME AND AREA CODE WITH PHONE NUMBER,
			And the best time to reach you BY CLICKING HERE!
			

LA Times Editorial Op-Ed - Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties.

The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.

[ ... ]

In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the arrest stopped a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in New York or Washington, D.C. The administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was no evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear is that Padilla is an American citizen and was arrested in the United States--two facts that should trigger the full application of constitutional rights.

Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.

Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps.

Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to reestablish such camps for citizens. Of course, Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable.

[ ... ]

For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been viewed as coexistent values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal, where security must precede liberty.

Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty has become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.

Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks.

By Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.