Date: Wed, 06 May 92 12:52:05 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#013
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 06 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 013
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#007
Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Post, please :)
Cordless phones
Re: Cordless Phones
Re: Call for a new moderator? NO!
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: Sun, 3 May 92 14:11:39 -0700
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#007
I'd like to say a few words in favor of extreme moderation. Speaking
only for myself, I'm nearly always hard pressed for time, so any
culling of digests that someone else does is a little bit of the load
off my back.
I've always been very impressed that anyone was willing to invest the
time it takes to moderate a mailing list or digest, and I don't think
many of you take that seriously enough. As far as I'm concerned, the
fact that Dennis is making that investment makes this _his digest_ and
gives him _absolute authority_ to edit it in any way he sees fit. If
he decides to proceed in a manner that I don't agree with, I'm sure
he'd let me unsubscribe. This being an informational free market,
that's everyone's right: vote with your feet, as it were.
Furthermore, if you post something, as Mr. Tenney did (which, by the
way, seems to me to have been suited more for a local distribution
medium than an international one), which is not published, you always
have the right to start your own mailing list. Remember the guy who
got sick of Patrick's culling of his postings, and started alt.telecom
or whatever it was? Its lack of popularity demonstrates the fact that
a well-edited digest is of much more value than one to which everyone
can post freely. Which is not to say that I don't think it's
absolutely necessary that there be a means of letting people post
freely; there is, and that's good. But I don't see that anyone has the
right to harass Dennis over his choice of moderation method.
-Bill Woodcock
________________________________________________________________________________
bill.woodcock.iv..woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu..2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 0:22:39 EDT
From: Brinton Cooper <abc@brl.mil>
cc: comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Reply-To: cooper@dewey.udel.edu
In the ongoing debate of proper use of federally-owned and operated
computers and nets, it is worthwhile pointing out that "management" at
many of our installations has decreed that talk.*, alt.* and most rec.*
newsgroups may not be offered to the machine's users because they are
deemed generally to carry very little, if any, traffic that is "relevant
to the mission of the organization."
I'm quite sure that, put to a referendum, UseNet would come off all
government-owned and government-funded machines and nets. (Remember,
this includes NSFNET from which a large number of users access UseNet.)
The big issue today is taxes: No one wants to pay them; no one wants
public employees getting something for nothing. (Many folks don't
want public employees getting full measure for something, but that's
for another forum.)
_BCooper
------------------------------
From: Andy Sherman <andys@ulysses.att.com>
cc: John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Date: Tue, 05 May 92 07:01:20 EDT
Dagnabbit, I am really tired of all this whining about whether or not
we need a new moderator. We have a lot of short memories here. I
seem to remember a time last year when Dennis was looking for somebody
to take over the job. Well, where were all our guardians of free
speech then, when it was time to *volunteer* to do some *work*?
While I disagree with Dennis' interpretation of the Hatch Act, I also
think one does not *need* to invoke the Hatch Act to kill the posting
in question. This is not alt.politics. I do not want to have this
forum cluttered up with campaign material. If a campaign is involved
in privacy-related issues, a "news item" type of posting would be
interesting. But not advertising. If Mr. Whomever wishes to engage
us in a discussion of the issues, that's fine. But that doesn't
appear to be what happened in this case. He wanted to post an
advertisement, or a press release. I think it is a reasonable
decision to not run it.
The Moderator's job is to keep the signal to noise ratio up. We could
all help by going back to privacy discussions rather than meta
discussions of moderation.
--
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: Steve Barber <cmcl2!panix.com!sbarber@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 12:38:38 GMT
>[Moderator's Note: This is a technical forum not a polical forum. ]
Well, you can call it whatever you want, I suppose. Seems to me
that about 90% of the messages here deal with questions of legality
and policy, which is why I read it. And besides, choices of technology
are quite frequently made for "political" reasons, especially in the
telecommunications area.
--
Steve Barber sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.
------------------------------
Subject: Post, please :)
From: Brian Hendrix <bhendrix@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 09:24:02 +0100
> I tend to agree that a new moderator or perhaps no moderator would
>be a solution that could satisfy all parties. People who believe in
>principles of privacy should also have strong beliefs in freedom of
>expression, as both are fundamental elements of a working democracy. A
>new moderator would certainly allow for an opening of debate on many
>related issues, and leave no room for reprecussions against those
>who's postings could jeopardize their employment. Are there any other
>opinions on this?
> - Bill Currie
> duxbury@sfu.ca
Recognizing appropriate topics of discussion is also important.
While I also believe in freedom of expression, I have no interest
in reading the election platform of an American congressional
hopeful. I would like to see this forum restrict itself to topics
that aren't better coverered in other forums.
I don't believe that the restrictions, or possible restrictions,
on the moderator that may be due to his employment will in any
way prevent the discussion in this forum. Political campaigning
is, IMHO, best left to talk.politics or another more appropriate
forum.
I support the moderator in his actions so far. It is necessary to
discriminate to some degree or else we'll be wandering all over the
map, so to speak.
Brian Hendrix bhendrix@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Edmonton Remote Systems: Celebrating 10 years of service to Northern Alberta
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 13:26:01 -0700
From: "Robert L. McMillin" <rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com>
Subject: Cordless phones
Skipper Smith <skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com> writes on Fri, 1 May 1992
21:51:30 GMT:
> For those people who are paranoid about people snooping in on their cordless
> phone calls but don't want to be tied down to a corded phone, Motorola started
> producing (about three months ago or so) a cordless phone with a simple
> coding of the signal. I don't know what type of coding it is, but it will
> definately stop the casual snooper (kind of like a lock on the door). Since
> the coding scheme is public knowledge, it won't stop anyone who is really
> serious. For those people who are REALLY paranoid, you will have to wait for
> the next version :-).
The phones in question, according to the folk who write in TELECOM
Digest (Usenet: comp.dcom.telecom), are not really encoded at all, but
are digital, thus preventing reception by people listening in on
scanners or other brands of cordless phones.
> Since the phones are produced by a different segment, I am afraid that I don't
> know where they are sold or who they are sold by.
They are available from Sears, or so I've been told. Motorola employees
can purchase them directly from Motorola.
---
Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574
Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 23:00 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
Anthony Rzepela <garzepel@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU> writes:
> How many hours of potential wage-earning time did he spend trying to
> keep his life to himself?
>
> How much privacy can we afford? That is the new, evil question.
Mine is rather "how much privacy do we care about"? This whole exercise
reminds me somewhat of the endless debate over CNID: awfully long on
scenerios and "what ifs"; terribly short on actual situations where
there has been or even appears to have been a problem.
I am a fairly average person with an ATM card, some credit cards,
utilities, vehicles, etc. I am registered to vote,
post heavily on the net, and am actively
involved in the matter of technical consultations for criminal matters.
Many, many people have my SSN. Can someone find out things about me?
You bet. And so what? You would think by now, at least SOME of this
much discussed evil would have befallen me, no?
This is beginning to smell like the old computer witch hunt, where
people who have a half-assed knowledge of the technology start getting
all freaked out about what the computer CAN do, what conversations
MIGHT be listened to, and what dossiers MIGHT be compiled. I thought
the old saw about making sure NO ONE got your social security number
went out of vogue years ago.
Granted, it is different to live in 1992 rather than 1892. Some things
are easier; some things are harder. Can you imagine what some traveler
from that day who was beginning a transcontinental journey might say if
you told him that in one hundred years people would be more concerned
about "privacy" than that trip he was about to endure?
As I have asked repeatedly (and never had anyone provide significant
response) about CNID, so I ask about this "privacy in general" issue:
please cite some case histories of genuine and undeserved harm that an
innocent citizen has experienced as a result of computerized
information gathering. But realize this: you COULD in the next hour
take your automobile and kill five or ten people with it. Now that is
SERIOUS harm. Why do we still let you drive? "What if" is a tricky
game.
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
------------------------------
From: William Pfeiffer <wdp@airwaves.chi.il.us>
Subject: Re: Call for a new moderator? NO!
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 12:51:18 CDT
In article <comp-privacy1.5.2@pica.army.mil>
> >scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stuart M Castergine) writes:
> Bill Currie duxbury@sfu.ca writes:
>
> >On this group in particular, I feel uncomfortable thinking that our
> >posts are going through some sort of government censor before being
> >approved.
>
> I tend to agree that a new moderator or perhaps no moderator would
> be a solution that could satisfy all parties. People who believe in
> principles of privacy should also have strong beliefs in freedom of
> expression, as both are fundamental elements of a working democracy. A
> new moderator would certainly allow for an opening of debate on many
> related issues, and leave no room for reprecussions against those
> who's postings could jeopardize their employment. Are there any other
> opinions on this?
YES, THERE IS.
I, too am leary about Dennis's employment by, and use of equipment
run by, the US army, hence the Federal Government. Yes, the
government is, indeed, a prime subject here on Privacy Digest. My more
paranoid side is very concerned. BUT..
That concern is NOT enough to get me to go freak-out-wild and start
shooting at any target in sight, least of all Dennis. Like the
hippies of the sixties (a culture I actually was PART of) who hated
the cop on the street, the government worker, the common foot
soldier etc. You are condemning Dennis for the rules and
restrictions of his employer. I have faith in Dennis, so I would
vote NO on any call for a new moderator, without much more proof
that he is culpable in some major censorship.
I reacted, originally, to the allegations of censorship, but after
careful consideration of the facts (as I read them) I think Dennis
is doing a pretty good job. I would like to ask him to make _EVERY_
effort to secure a non-army non-government-controlled/influenced
internet account with which to edit this newsgroup, though.
Perhaps someoe in Dennis's area could assist in finding him such an
account.
But, let's not spit on the footsoldier as the cause of the war.
Dennis did not write the damned Hatch(et) act, give him a break.
William
> [Moderator's Note: You make the assumption that any debate has been
> stifled. As I said in a previous post I will not censor anything that
> belongs in this forum. Dennis ]
I make no such assumption, Dennis. Keep up the great work, but try
to find a more condusive computer connection. Even if YOU are 100% honest
(as I believe you to be) who's to say what commander has 'root'
access to your army system and is keeping nice little diaries about all
that we discuss here. After all, Privacy and our rights there-to
would be very interesting reading for some in the Government
Intelligence community.
What say?
W
--
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #013
******************************