Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 16:46:35 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#062
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 16 Jul 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 062
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Administrivia
Urgently needed information on e-mail privacy
Re: Caller ID decision
On Privacy, Utility Regulation & RBOC Info Gateways
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, 15 Jul 92 18:09:33 EDT
From: Computer Privacy List Moderator <comp-privacy@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Administrivia
Good evening. I thought I would give a status of the digest/newsgroup.
The computer privacy digest is currently available in three ways:
(1) Electronic Mail Digests - currently there are 301 direct
subscribers and 25 exploders lists.
(2) USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy
(3) USENET electronic mail - This is a combination of 1 & 2.
These people get the digest via electronic mail but get fed
individual articles instead of the whole digest. These people
get the exact same thing people from USENET see.
I think I have all my scripts working. At first I had some problems
with bursting the digests into individual articles. This has been
resolved. A policy statement has been drafted and posted. This will go
out every 45 days or so.
I had experimented with sending out automatic ACKs to submissions but
since some mailers can't handle the "Errors-to:" field I was getting into
a daemon auto-send loop. I will look into this again.
Submissions have really gone down in the last two weeks. This is my
first digest this week. Without submissions this forum can't exist.
There are lots of topics that haven`t been mentioned here that probably
should.
Dennis
------------------------------
From: STG colleague <mariou@astro.ufl.edu>
Subject: Urgently needed information on e-mail privacy
Date: 15 Jul 92 21:17:25 GMT
Followup-To: comp.society.privacy
>Does anyone know if there is any legislation protecting Email users
from surveillance techniques and nosey managers?
Please reply to:
BARR@VAX.LSE.AC.UK
MY HEARTFELT THANKS TO ANYONE WHO CARES TO RESPOND
Erika Barr
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 01:03:28 -0700
From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@presto.ig.com>
Subject: Re: Caller ID decision
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, California, USA
Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.com> writes:
> I think you are overlooking a big difference here. In the case of a "large
> company" getting a direct T1 with 800 ANI, they are paying for the call.
> Certainly those who wish to remain anonymous have no business expecting
> someone else to pay for their calls. And that's just what you're doing
> anytime you call an 800 number - asking the recipient to pay for it. Also,
> there is a long-standing tradition in US telecom that the person paying for
> the call gets to know who both parties are. [...]
This tradition has already been broken -- by cellular phone service.
Cellular customers pay air time for incoming calls (which are generally
free to callers in the area), but incoming calls are listed on the bill
with the customer's own cellular number (in most cases, mine included),
or simply as "INCOMING" on other systems' bills.
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@presto.ig.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 11:51:54 -0700
From: ole!rwing!peterm@nwnexus.wa.com (Peter Marshall)
Subject: On Privacy, Utility Regulation & RBOC Info Gateways
[From 7/1/92 joint reply comments of US West Comm. and Community Link
Minitel Assocs. to the responses of other parties to the...Report on
privacy issues re: Community Link]:
...Community Link may not be subject to regulation by the Minnesota
Public Utilities Commission. USWC and CLMA believe...observations are
well founded.... the Company may believe the service is not subject to
regulation because it is not a telephone service.... The...most
conservative alternative, is to begin offering the service as if it
was regulated and sort through the regulatory issues at a later date.
In the original filings, USWC and CLMA took the conservative approach
by filing Community Link as an emerging competitive service.... The
FCChas concluded that Community Link is an enhanced deregulated
service....
problem...concerning the issues being addressed by the...report. USWC
and CLMA strongly agree that the problems addressed are
speculative....
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #062
******************************