Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 17:51:54 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <comp-privacy-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#006
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 29 Apr 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 006
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Adminstrivia
Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Re: Modem Tax (Computer Privacy Digest V1#004)
modem fees an urban myth, pls ignore... (fwd)
Free TRW Credit Report
Modem Tax (NOT!)
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the
effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy
(Moderated). Submissions should be sent to
comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to
comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.200].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 16:39:43 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears " <drears@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Adminstrivia
I have gotten a couple of messages lately about problems with the
digest. Since I am now gatewaying the digest into USENET I am using
new scripts that still have bugs in them. I hope to have them completely
debugged soon. The following are what people are complaining about:
o Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest post on "Re: Cordless phone"
appeared 4 times in three digests. I think the problem here is
that multiple copies of the message were sent to me. I will be
on the lookup for multiple submissions.
o There is a blank line in the headers between the
X-Administrivia-To: and X-Computer Privacy Digest:
lines. I hope to have that fixed tonight.
o A blank line needs to be added to separate the headers from the
body of the message. I hope to have that fixed tonight.
If there is anything else wrong please let me know. Please keep the
size of your posting to under 16K. If you have to exceed that size
please break it into multiple posts. Some mail agents choke on
messages greater than 20K.
Starting today you should get a receipt when you post to the digest. I
just set it up.
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Gary Greene <garyg@netcom.com>
From: Gary Greene <garyg@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 10:35:15 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Dennis;
I would like to emphasize that my remarks are not directed against you as
moderator, nor am I flaming anyone. These are very somber and important
issues and deserve a wide and fair discussion from all sides.
abc@brl.mil (Brinton Cooper) writes:
>X-Computer Privacy Digest: Volume 1, Issue 003, Message 6 of 10
>Lines: 55
>Glenn Tenney argues that his political candidacy should be announced in
>this newsgroup/mailing list and that he checked with the "Office of
>Special Counsel" who, HE alleges, "is in charge of administering the
>Hatch Act for the Federal Government..." He argued, "...the staff
>assured me that there would be no violation of the Hatch Act, yet the
>moderator still refused to allow my postings to go out."
>Glenn Tenney fails to take into account a few things:
> 1. The computer from which this forum originates is on a U.S.
>Army installation and is under operational control of the U.S. Army.
Valid, but shakey. The agency which controls the moderator's computer
is presumably restricted in how that hardware may be used. None the less,
that agency is itself restricted from censoring political content when
that content originates elsewhere and proceeds elsewhere, as in USENET
news postings. They may elect not to participate, but they may not censor
the pass-through traffic on their machines (nor is any military officer or
[Moderator's Note: The fact that it is moderated and someone (me) has to
take an action make any traffic non- pass through. ]
other officer of the U.S. Government permitted under the Hatch Act to impose
a political or policy test of permitted speech for their employees or sub-
ordinates which occurs unconnected to their duties). The only requirement,
otherwise, to establish full censorship on the net is to pass the traffic
through a government operated establishment. Their most viable legal option
if they find this offensive is to withdraw from participation in those par-
ticular activities on the net. I believe this was the thrust of Mr. Tenny's
question when he asked:
Should the moderator even BE a Federal employee if there
is possibility of restrictions on article submissions
imposed by the government (or his superiors)?
The Stars and Stripes is certainly restricted from imposing this sort of
blackout in their coverage of events (except in time of war or combat zones).
> 2. The moderator of this forum is a federal civil servant. He
>is not directly responsible to the "Office of Special Counsel" but to
>his supervisor and the Commander of his installation.
Who are themselves responsible to the Office of Special Counsel. This is
a military organization we are talking about, so I doubt anyone needs to
explain chain-of-command responsibilities here. ;-) This would not keep
Dennis from getting caught in the gears. We both know that. But we also
both know that an illegal order or directive does not carry force of law
and ideally should be refused, a difficult thing to do which I presume is
your point.
> 3. The Hatch Act is administered by *every* supervisor and
>commander of civilians.
>Therefore, if the moderator's supervisor finds that a posting under
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>moderator's control is in violation of the Hatch Act, the moderator can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>be given some time off from work *without pay.*
>Such a finding would also likely result in the loss of the use of the
>moderator's installation computer to operate the forum.
In practice the supervisor would issue a warning first. Any loss of pay
and time off action would be reviewed by the Civil Service. If the supervisor
was culpable *they* would be in very serious trouble. Having served 8 years
in the Air Force I am reasonably certain the supervisor would be very circum-
spect in their procedure. Also because of my service I am aware that sometimes
supervisors and their superiors do not come up to this standard.
Thus Mr. Tenny's question concerning a government employee serving as moderator
becomes reasonable. That this might cost the use of the moderator's computer
for forum business is a sad possible consequence. Please, be certain that I am
not arguing that this is how events ought to turn out. Quite the oposite.
Rather I think that you are misinterpreting the requirements and intent of the
Hatch Act.
You seem to assume that a posting originating from someone else carries the
same onus under the Hatch Act so long as it is being vetted by the moderator.
It does not. The Hatch Act was established to *prevent* officers of the
Government from abusing their office to influence political expression and
the conduct of politics generally. It is entirely restrictive on them, not on
the original writer. In fact, under the Hatch Act, it can be reasonably
argued that the Hatch Act *prevents* the moderator from censoring a posting
which is political, since the normal rules a moderator operates under are
restricted to content appropriate to a particular forum's charter, and possibly
a enforcing a certain amount of civility. In this case, the moderator made
his decision based on his interpretation of Mr. Tenny's post as an advertise-
ment, a question reasonably within most charters scope. I happen to think
he made an error, but his decision conformed to one of the common criteria
applied to USENET.
>Glenn Tenney proposes to become a member of the U.S. Congress. Perhaps
>he should find out how the typical, hardworking U.S. taxpayer feels
>about using machinery and communications funded by the U.S. taxpayer to
>advertise his candidacy for the Congress.
My my! You're just discovering that the taxpayers pay for political
campaigns? Sorry, mild flame, but your expression seemed so naive.
First, while the taxpayers have paid for a substantial part of Internet
and Bitnet they are not the sole authors of the UUCP net, of which USENET
is an original service. No more are they the sole support of FIDONET or
JANIS or many of the other nets out there. USENET is a consortium of *all*
the nets out there, including the private and commercial nets connected
solely via modems and phone lines, T1, etc. The restrictions the moderator
cited apply to NFSNET, and even there are under revision as the networks
have grown to such an extent that they are much more than a collection of
universities and government research labs connected to MILNET and others.
Here in the San Francisco bay area our connection to the NFSNET backbone,
BARRNET, already allows some commercial traffic.
Secondly, announcements for political office are *highly* protected forms
of speech, and the government has always been required in some circumstances
to disseminate them. Soldiers in combat are and have been provided with
a great deal of material at government expense so they might make an informed
vote. They generally have access to outside materials as well, but make no
mistake, it is the government which transports this material, and the govern-
ment which goes to a great deal of expense to see that they have it.
While you or I may not find Mr. Tenny's candidacy all that relevant or
interesting, he is well within his rights to announce it on the nets, on
street corners (also paid for by taxpayers I might note), or anyplace
where public commerce might be found. Dennis is within his charter to
decide if that announcement is relevant to this news group.
>Glenn Tenney asks,
> When should a moderator censor postings to this newsgroup?
> Should the moderator even BE a Federal employee if there
> is possibility of restrictions on article submissions
> imposed by the government (or his superiors)? Isn't this
> medium of a moderated newsgroup/mailing-list more analogous
> to the moderator being a letter carrier? etc. etc.
>One answer is "When no one else will do it." This is how so much gets
>done in our society: by those who, in an imperfect way, working through
>imperfect institutions, try to make things better. Shutting down the
>newsgroup solely to make a point in behalf of Glenn Tenney's candidacy
>seems hardly worth the cost.
I agree with the first set of statements. I understand the second, but
respectfully disagree if it is a matter of establishing precedent for
government control of the content of USENET.
>Perhaps, somewhere in one of these fora, we should discuss the fairness
>and equitability of the disenfranchisement of millions of people via the
>Hatch Act while President, Vice-President, and thousands of "political
>appointees" in the executive branch merrily go about spending taxpayers'
>money on efforts designed solely for partisan political ends.
Try alt.politics-elections. I'm sure you'll find many, including myself,
who agree with you on this. The politics list on Bitnet is another good
candidate.
Respects,
Gary Greene
Unisys/Convergent Technology garyg@convergent.com
San Jose, California garyg@netcom.com (at home)
------------------------------
From: Andy Sherman <andys@ulysses.att.com>
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Computer Privacy Digest V1#004)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 17:25:11 EDT
NOTE: I really think this is more appropriate for Telecom than
Comp-Privacy. I didn't see any privacy issue involved. I've copied to
both digests, so that Pat and Dennis can decide.
[Moderator's Note: You're right it doesn't really belong here. I'll
watch myself in the future. ]
Meanwhile, Tom Evert forwarded a posting that seems to have originated
with Geoff Speare (apologies if that isn't true), relating to the
FCC's current rule-making activity relating to pricing of services
provided by Local Exchange Carriers under Open Network Architecture
(ONA). The claim is that this amounts to a modem tax:
>Now, they are at it again. A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working
>on will directly affect you as the user of a computer and modem. The FCC
>proposes that users of modems should pay extra charges for use of the public
>telephone network which carry their data. In addition, computer network
>services such as CompuServ, Tymnet, & Telenet would also be charged as much
>as $6.00 per hour per user for use of the public telephone network. These
>charges would very likely be passed on to the subscribers.
Anybody who bothered to read the proposed rule-making (which was
attached) saw that there was nothing in there that would apply
additional telephone charges to end-users making modem calls.
Nothing. What this is about is access charges for Enhanced Service
providers (people like CompuServe, Genie, Prodigy, et. al.) who wish
to use any new ONA service elements in providing their service. If an
information provider only wishes to have a local modem line, then
nothing changes. If they want any new switched access services, then
they have to pay access charges, just like the long distance carriers
do. Yes, it is true that any access charges they pay will be part of
their cost structure. Nowhere in that filing did it mention any
numbers, so I don't know where, other than urban myth, the
$6.00/hour/user figure came from. I believe that was the same number
that was used the last time the providers sent out the scare letters.
(I think it's sort of like when management here doesn't want to do
something: it will always cost the company $100 Million to do that.)
What's at stake here? If the providers don't change how they do
business, their costs stay pretty much the same. If they want to use
some wizbang new trunk-side interconnect, then they have pay access
charges like any other carrier. Well, why not? Long distance
companies and PBX users pay good bucks to connect to the trunk side of
a central office switch. Why shouldn't the information providers?
Now one thing that the providers (IPs) are worried about is the entry
of the local exchange carriers (LECs) into the information business,
and are concerned that they (the IPs) will pay more in access charges
than the LECs' own information services will. That is a very real
concern. The IPs ought to confront that concern directly and
honestly. If this mis-information emanated from the IPs, then they
are showing themselves to be fully as sleazy as they claim the LECs
are, by using scare tactics and untruths. There are plenty of good
reasons to demand that the FCC and state PUCs be vigilant about the
LECs information services. There is no good reason for the IPs to lie
about what is at stake because they want trunk-side access for free.
The model letter to the FCC/Congress also contains some minor
technical mis-information in addition to the erroneous statement that
the FCC rule-making proposes a surcharge on modem use:
>Calls placed using modems require no special telephone company
>equipment, and users of modems pay the phone company for use of the
>network in the form of a monthly bill.
>
>In short, a modem call is the same as a voice call and therefore
>should not be subject to any additional regulation.
This is true, but only if you are willing to live with 2400 bps or
slower. If you demand high speed modem access, your call must be
carried on a full uncompressed voice channel (a 64 Kbps time slot* on a
digital trunk). Under certain circumstances the phone company
compresses and multiplexes multiple voice calls into a single voice
channel. Conversation is still quite intelligible, and carrying
conversation is the service for which your phone line is tariffed. If
you use a high speed modem, then you may actually need more facilities
than a voice call requires. And people at the FCC know that, so you
undercut your own credibility by ignoring the voice compression issue.
** start digression
(*) before you demand a 64kbps modem connection on a voice grade line
please go look up the term "Nyquist Limit" in a signal processing book
and recall that there are several A/D and D/A conversions between your
terminal and the IP's computer.
** end digression
Also, in general if you want to write your Congresscritter or the FCC
over a particular rule-making activity, you should always include the
affected sections of the CFR and the Docket number of the proposal.
Otherwise your comments are meaningless to them.
Please let's not believe every new urban myth just because it appears
on the net. By the way, Pat, wasn't this one discussed and debunked
in Telecom a few months ago?
--
Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928
READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking!
------------------------------
From: Ofer Inbar <cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>
Subject: modem fees an urban myth, pls ignore... (fwd)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 13:35:54 EDT
#Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 15:33:00 EST
#From: Julia T Wood <WOOD@UNC.BITNET>
#Subject: RE: **PLEASE READ THIS, IT MAY AFFECT YOU**
#Sender: Women's Studies List <WMST-L@UMDD.BITNET>
#To: Dylan Reinhardt <DYREINHARDT@vaxsar.bitnet>
#Reply-to: Women's Studies List <WMST-L@UMDD.BITNET>
The urgent message about modem user fees appears to be fraudulent.
Two other networks to which I subscribe have suggested all users
refrain from the recommended actions since there is apparently
no plan afoot to have a modem surcharge.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 16:35 EDT
From: MCULNAN@guvax.georgetown.edu
Subject: Free TRW Credit Report
Everyone knows by know how important it is to check your credit report
before applying for a loan or a job. The law also requires that the
report list who has seen your credit report during the past year.
According to USA Today, beginning April 30, you can get a free copy of
your TRW credit report once a year by writing to:
TRW Consumer Assistance
P.O. Box 2350
Chatsworth, CA 91313-2350
Include all of the following in your letter: full name including
middle initial and generation such as Jr, Sr, III etc., current
address and ZIP code, all previous addresses and ZIPs for past five
years, Social Security number, year of birth, spouse's first name.
Also include a photocopy of a billing statement, utility bill,
driver's license or other document that links your name with the
address where the report should be mailed.
Mary Culnan
School of Business Administration, Georgetown University
MCULNAN@GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU
------------------------------
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Date: Wed Apr 29 16:16:16 -0400 1992
Subject: Modem Tax (NOT!)
Wading through Federal Register text is not my favorite passtime, but
I've heard this scare story rise and fall so many times that I've gotten
to the point where I read the documents for myself to see if they
actually say what I'm being told they said.
In item 56 FR 33879-01, the last paragraph of "Summary of Report and
Order on Further Recommendation", it explicitly says:
> The Commission retained, in its current form, the enhanced
> service provider (ESP) exemption for interstate access charges.
If you know the history of these rules, that tells you once and for all
that CompuServe and GEnie are blowing smoke. The "(ESP) exemption for
interstate access charges" is the exemption that lets GEnie, and
CompuServe, and TYMNET, PC Pursuit, and so forth sell what is, in effect,
long-distance phone service without having to pay the LEC access charges
and taxes that anybody else has to if they want to sell long distance
service. And the document seems to me to explicitly say that that
exemption remains intact.
If you disagree with me, please cite the exact paragraph or paragraphs in
that document that you base your opinion on; I looked over and over again
and couldn't find it. Unless it's this:
> * * * * * 4. Section 69.106 is amended by revising paragraph (a)
> to read as follows:
>
> s 69.106 Local switching.
>
> (a) Except as provided in s 69.118, charges that are expressed
> in dollars and cents per access minute of use shall be accessed
> upon all interexchange carriers that use local exchange switching
> facilities for the provision of interstate or foreign services.
Notice, it doesn't say that the charges will be assessed on ESPs. It
explicitly says that these charges are to be applied evenly and fairly to
all IECs, no exceptions. Under the current rules, ESPs like CompuServe
aren't considered IECs. Maybe they ought to be, since they connect up to
the phone lines, take your analog signal, digitize it, and move it across
exchange (LATA) boundaries, but they're not.
Again, if you disagree, cite the actual text in the proposed rules that
leads you to conclude this.
But OK, what if I AM wrong? What if, contrary to the summary, this DOES
revoke the packet-switched data networks' exemption to access charges,
long-distance service sales taxes, and all the other revenue drains that
come with being an inter-exchange carrier?
Let me put this in blunt, Libertarian terms. Right now, everybody but
you has to pay this access charge. This means that when it comes to
dividing up the costs of the phone systems' networks, everybody but you
is paying more. If you think about this, you'll admit it's true. You
can call from anywhere in the continental US to CompuServe's mainframes
in Columbus, Ohio for TWENTY FIVE CENTS PER HOUR. Can you make any other
long-distance phone call for $0.25 per hour? And the government enforces
this inequity by law.
This means that everybody else in the United States who uses long
distance phone service is subsidizing YOUR hobby, because they're paying
their share of the costs and you're not. Is your hobby so important to
the public welfare that everybody, including the people who don't use it,
should pay for it?
Maybe you think it is. That's the sad thing about life in America in the
1980s and '90s ... everybody is against everybody else's tax breaks and
pork barrel projects, but convinced that their own are necessary to save
the economy and create jobs. Which is why American politics are so
shamelessly crooked and the American economy is going down the toilet.
And one last complaint about this: the subject line was "Modem Tax."
Now, nowhere in the document does the word modem appear. Nor, for that
matter, does the word tax. Nor does it add any tax or charge to using a
modem to call any other modem. You dial from your home to a BBS, no
change. You dial your modem to a BBS across the continent, no change.
You dial your modem to a BBS in the Netherlands, no change.
Even if this rule said what its opponents say that it said (and I don't
think it does), the only people who would pay more are the people who now
have a special exemption to the long-distance tariffs, and their direct
customers. By hyping it as a "tax on all modems", the people who are
promoting this lobbying effort are using dishonest scare tactics.
----------
J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com
X.400: c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above
does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #006
******************************