Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 17:23:29 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#007
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 30 Apr 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 007
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Followup on institutional use of SSN
Re: Cordless phones
Re: Should political speech be censored online?
"Re: Should Political Speech be Censored Online"
Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Re: Modem Tax
Scanning...Illegal? Nah...(But Look at alt.radio.scanner)...
RE: Computer Privacy Digest V1#001
Re: Should political speech be censored online?
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John M. Joy" <jmjoy@ada.cs.psu.edu>
Subject: Followup on institutional use of SSN
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 18:10:27 -0400
A kind reader of this group pointed me to news.answers, where a
Social Security Number FAQ is periodically posted (FAQ is by
CPSR's Chris Hibbert).
In short, the Privacy and Paperwork Reduction Act of 74 requires that
federal, state, or local govt. agencies requesting the number indicate:
1. Whether disclosure is required or optional;
2. What law (and it must be FEDERAL law if provision is mandatory) authorizes
them to ask for the number;
3. How it will be used if you provide it;
4. The consequences of NOT providing it.
Immediately, public institutions' use of the number are restricted.
In addition, the Buckley Amendment (Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act of 74) prohibits institutions accepting federal funds from disclosing
personal information about students (with the exception of directory
information) without permission.
Anyone interested in further information should see the FAQ.
JMJ
[Moderator's Note: Should I post the Social Security Number FAQ to this
forum every now and then? ]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 19:51:19 EDT
From: George Talbot <ugtalbot@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cordless phones
Craig DeForest writes:
>But, if you want privacy, you *don't* shout so that everyone within ten
>miles can hear it. If you want privacy, you don't broadcast your conversation.
>If people don't want me to hear their conversation, they ought not to
>be shooting photons at me!
I don't think that I agree with you. I have a cordless phone.
The major use I have it for is so that I can sit outside of my
apartment and still use the phone on a nice day. The regular phone
wire will not reach, and consequently I would have sit inside to use
the phone. You seem to be of the opinion that if my conversation is
transmitted over copper wire, then I have a right to privacy, but if
it's transmitted over the air, then I don't.
The phone companies (if it's a long distance call) sometimes
transmit phone calls using microwave towers. If this is the case,
do I lose my right to privacy when I call long distance? I should
think not. I am of the opinion that it is impolite and possibly even
immoral to listen in upon another's private conversation without being
invited. Do you stand in a crowd with a parabolic dish so you can
listen in on others who are bombarding you with sound waves? Do you do
the same when others are in a closed room having a private discussion?
I have heard the same arguements over and over again from people
defending their snooping into others private communications. Would those
same people have the same opinions if some agency such as the NSA was
snooping into conversations for its own nefarious purposes?
This is the same lame arguement I hear from crackers (I will not
use the word "hacker" for this. That refers to another kind of
person entirely.) who break into other people's computers and say,
"Well, I was just helping them fix their security, and I didn't CHANGE
anything, I just read some files." If I have a computer, or an account
on a computer, I do not expect that everything I will type there will
be for public consumption.
These sort of actions are just like breaking into your sister's
diary and saying, "Well, you should've had a better lock and you
should've hidden the diary better." When you suggest that listening in
on my phone conversations (or breaking into my computer account) is
moral and that I must be ignorant for using a cordless phone you show a
profound disrespect for the privacy of others and a definite lack of
concern for the feelings of others.
Privacy is not something that a person should have to jealously guard
in fear that another will find some way to take it away. Privacy
should be an expression for the respect that people have for one
another.
The soapbox is now clear of my muddy shoes. :^)
George T. Talbot
ugtalbot@mcs.drexel.edu
------------------------------
From: rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns)
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 02:01:11 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.3.6@pica.army.mil> abc@brl.mil (Brinton Cooper) writes:
From: abc@brl.mil (Brinton Cooper)
Date: 28 Apr 92 14:23:05 GMT
Interesting points you raise...
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.
I would argue that the forum originates with those who post
to it, and that pica.army.mil is just a step along the way.
If this were an unmoderated newsgroup, then it would not even
be that.
In fact, if you wanted to adopt a totally paranoid (and unwarrented)
point of view, you could argue that the only reason everything goes
through the U.S. Army is so that an agent of the U.S. Army can
exercise censorship over it. (After all, what does "moderate" mean,
anyway?)
That aside, my real point is that while it was a mailing list, your
interpretation seemed plausible, that as a newsgroup, it becomes
clear that "origination" rests with the "originator", and not the
U.S. Army.
[Hmm; I guess it's worth nothing that, paranoia aside, I would define
the difference between "censoring" and "moderating", as "moderating"
is done as a service *to the readers*, and not to some outside viewpoint.
Moderating at a gov. facility runs the risk of charges of censorship,
but there's no equivalent to the Hatch Act in this area.]
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.*
I certainly don't fault the moderator for being careful about his
job. I think that the circumstances that lead to that being an
issue demonstrate a distributed short-sightedness in terms of
information policy; the "No commercial stuff on the net" is a
legacy of that short-sightedness, and not something under control
of the moderator.
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.
This hardworking U.S. taxpayer feels strongly that it *has* to
be better than the current money-driven approach of using
commercial machinery and mass communications. It is certainly
in the same spirit as public campaign finance laws, but it is
also clearly better.
Not to mention, cheaper than the franking privlege that the
incumbents get to use.
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.
I don't think this is the forum for it. But for balance, let me add
that the Hatch Act exists at least in part to protect against a real
abuse: Public employees being pressured to vote/campaign/contribute
to make their superiors happy.
I'm not saying the right balance is struck.
BTW, one poster mentioned that there's no rule about selling on the
network. This is true in some parts, but in other parts, funded
with government funds, this is forbidden. (When the Internet was
the Arpanet, it was always forbidden.) Similarly, the parts of Usenet
which are linked by dialup uucp links have generally regarded advertising
as a gauche use of expensive bandwith that member sites were contributing.
This is changing, and properly so, but you can expect the issue to
keep coming up. The issue is going to be with us until we a)
address the problem of how to avoid receiving an excess of unwanted
material (and the costs of paying for it) and b) we provide some
mechanism for assessment and distribution of costs.
The fact that Mr. Tenney posted his message from a site which
is paying its share of network costs doesn't completely solve
the issue. (However, I think it certainly means we shouldn't
flame him, for trying to shoulder his share of the costs).
When you send out massive mailings, you incur direct costs on
all of the recipients.
The problem is potentially like every morning, the post office backs
up a semi-truck trailer and parks in on your lawn. They don't unload
it, they don't sort it, and they don't drive it a way. If they run
out of room on your lawn, they'll go for your garden, and then start
piling them up until they fall over on your house.
Now imagine this being done at every address in every neighborhood.
The equivalent is quite technologically feasible now, from the sender's
point of view.
We have some social issues to solve before we can really survive
unlimited commercial use of the network.
My own view is that some sort of shared arrangement, where I can
specify what kind of material I'm willing to receive at what cost.
If the sender is willing to shoulder the cost (plus overhead), he
can send to me. Otherwise, no, into the bit bucket.
Note that amount I charge to recieve can be negative on some things,
such as my subscription to the Electronic Daily News, where what
I receive from them feeds them $$, less overhead.
If the filtering functions were flexible enough, I could imagine
financing a political campaign from "contributions" received from
people filtering on "mail from candidates holding positions X and Y",
and paying $$ for mail from them. I think this would probably remain
science fiction, however, because most people would want to review
a candidate themselves before contributing.
But personally, I would set my price for receiving mail from a wide
range of candidates at zero. I wonder what the American public would
do with control over whether they hear about politics?
There are projects underway which touch on this sort of thing (without
the financial linkage), where people can manipulate predicates on
who should receive a message, and on what sorts of messages they wish
to receive. An important part of this research is to explore the
privacy issues.
Building an electronic democracy is a complex task, with a lot of
thorny issues. But I think it's an important issue. I congratulate
Mr. Tenney on his interest in the matter. I am certainly interested
in hearing his opinions on information policy and in particular, on
how we should fund research on matters of social information policy.
------------------------------
From: James Elliott <elliott@cs.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 03:09:44 GMT
In <comp-privacy1.3.6@pica.army.mil> abc@brl.mil (Brinton Cooper) writes:
>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.
Actually, I for one would prefer if this were the >only< way people
were allowed to fund candidacies; public funding would help reduce the
hold that big money has on the political process. However, I recognize
that in this context the complaint is really more that one person was
using an avenue not available (or perhaps simply not evident) to all
candidates. Then again, this person was only reaching a limited
audience as well.
>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.
I agree, the Hatch Act sounds like a travesty. It is unfortunate that
the moderator may have to bend to external pressures in selecting
articles for this group.
However, note that the original posting doesn't sound like it was
entirely related to privacy in the first place (and, after all,
privacy is what this group is about, not censorship, noxious though
the latter subject may be).
And this thread itself is wandering far from that topic.
--
Jim Elliott-------------------------------elliott@veronica.cs.wisc.edu
"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive
feeling as moral indignation, which permits envy or hate to be acted
out under the guise of virtue." -- Erich Fromm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 06:24:10 EDT
From: Dave Niebuhr <dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov>
Subject: "Re: Should Political Speech be Censored Online"
I, being a contractor employee of the Department of Energy, am under the
same (or almost the same) constraints as Dennis when it comes to political
discussion when using federally owned equipment such as the workstation
from which I'm sending this message.
I, too, am somewhat constrained by the Hatch Act and can understand the
dilemma that Dennis faces. The problem is that no one can get a clear
answer as to what is and what is not allowed to be said in the political
arena.
Dennis has mentioned that he hopes to get a non-government account which
will alleviate some of the problems that he faces; I hope it comes sooner
rather than later. Then he may be able to have a little more leeway as
to what is sent on the Digest.
Until then, I'm siding with Dennis on this issue.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
------------------------------
From: Ted Lemon <lupine!mellon@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Date: 30 Apr 92 18:11:11 GMT
>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.*
If it is true that the moderator of this newsgroup is being influenced
in this way, then that person should step down in favour of somebody
who won't be subject to such restrictions.
>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.
As a typical, hardworking taxpayer, I would appreciate it greatly if
all candidates for political office used the electronic media to
advertise their campaigns, and made themselves available to answer
questions posed by other users of that medium.
Also, BTW, a large part of the internet is privately held and funded.
For example, companies in the Bay Area that are connected to the
internet through Alternet or PSI Net are subject to no usage
restrictions. I believe that BARRnet still has usage restrictions.
I think it's safe to say that usage restrictions will become a memory
sometime in the next decade, and probably a lot sooner.
_MelloN_
------------------------------
From: Mike Johnston <kiosk!jenny!mjohnsto@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Modem Tax
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 18:45:27 GMT
Apparently-To: uunet!comp-society-privacy
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! THIS IS *OLD* *OLD* *OLD* NEWS AND ITS
MAKING THE ROUNDS AGAIN. I IMPLORE YOU FOLKS *NOT* TO PROPAGATE THIS.
MJ
[Moderator's Note: I have heard from many people that the modem tax
is not true. It really didn't belong in this forum in the first place.
Nick Haines <nickh@CS.CMU.EDU> and Tim Weaver <tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
also wrote on this topic. ]
Michael R. Johnston mjohnsto@jenny.shearson.com
Lehman Brothers (212) 464-3061
"I was a reporter, and this worried me a great deal and I could not understand
how the devil I had gotten myself into such a fix." - Hesse
------------------------------
From: rmgreen@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Ronald M. Green)
Subject: Scanning...Illegal? Nah...(But Look at alt.radio.scanner)...
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 12:51:08 GMT
Just a few comments...
First off, whoever referred to my breaking the law in an earlier
posting (re: my recreational scanning) should be aware that they
were incorrect. In your country (the United States), such activities
are indeed frowned upon depending on what state you're in and just what
frequencies you may be tuning in. In my country (Canada), however,
just about anything on the airwaves is legally considered as a standard
radio broadcast - including any and all public service transmissions
and the cellular telephone bands; the restriction here is that you
cannot divulge any information you have obtained through the scanning
you do to an outside party. Other than that, it's cool.
For those of you interested in the legality of scanning, you might
want to check out a thread just starting up in alt.radio.scanner,
concerning the attempt by Congress to establish laws that would
effectively halt (in the United States, anyway) the sale and
manufacture of units that can monitor certain frequencies - such as
cellular phone and public service bands - as well as those units which
can be modified to do so without too much trouble. Although one of you
- in an earlier post, and I know, I really should track down the
message so I can quote verbatim (I'm tired, okay?) - said that the use
of scanners to monitor messages could be handled through the use of
better encryption techniques, cynical ol' me isn't surprised to see
people trying to legislate the whole issue away. Don't these folks
realise that - even if they are successful - it's going to be pretty
darned hard, if not impossible, to enforce? Oh, well...
Just letting you know about the latest attempt to use feeble
legislation instead of better science and mathematics.
- Ronald M. Green -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 09:22:34 EDT
From: "B.J. 30-Apr-1992 0922" <herbison@erlang.enet.dec.com>
Apparently-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
Subject: RE: Computer Privacy Digest V1#001
I can understanding keeping some information private for
privacy reasons, but I think this digest goes too far.
B.J.
>Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 29 Apr 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 001
>
>Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #001
>******************************
------------------------------
From: Richard Armstrong <rarmstro@everest.den.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 19:48:26 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
In article <comp-privacy1.3.4@pica.army.mil> wdp@airwaves.chi.il.us (William Pfeiffer) writes:
[Moderator's Note: I deleted previous quoted text for space reasons. ]
>
>Dear Moderator:
>
>I am sorry, but I must side with the poster on this one, based on
>his and your comments.
>
>First of all, announcing a candidacy is hardly the same thing
>as selling a product. I don't know what this gentleman stands for,
>but if his platform did, indeed, revolve around issues of information
>access and privacy, then it would seem to me that such subject
>matter would be appropriate to this forum. We are all interested in
>positions of elected officials (or potential elected officials)
>where privacy in involved.
>
>Second, I dont believe that selling IS prohibited on the net. I see
>it all the time. There are newsgroups dedicated to it and I have
>never heard of any such prohibition.
>
I cannot keep from being reminded of the following quote (which
I saw on a poster's signature):
Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts
to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out
of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow
at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
-Abraham Lincoln.
... rest deleted.
--
All comments are hereby disclaimed.
Richard Armstrong Email:rarmstro@t4cma-gw.den.mmc.com
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #007
******************************