Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 16:18:20 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 V3#003
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 26 Jul 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 003
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Slowdown
Re: PGP
Not Guilty Plea in 'Fake ATM' case.
First Person broadcast on privacy at work
British Columbia INFORMATION POLICIES IN THE 90'S
Legislation computer activity
America Online censorship
Re: America Online censor
Credit Reports and National
Call for papers: Computer Network Use and Abuse Conference
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
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 16:11:22 EDT
From: Computer Privacy List Moderator <comp-privacy@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: Slowdown
Thanks to all who responded (50+). Not a single person responded who
hadn't seen my message :-). It seems as if I have not lost any network
connectivity.
dennis
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 18:12:30 PDT
From: Mark Healey <mhealey@sdcc13.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: PGP
Does anybody know where to get a copy of PGP
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 13:04:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Not Guilty Plea in 'Fake ATM' case.
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
{Washington Post} Digest, Page C2, 7/20:
"A 28-year old college student pleaded not guilty to federal
charges he helped set up a fake automated teller machine in a
shopping mall to bilk unwitting bank customers. Charles R. Lyons,
a student at Hunter College in New York City, was charged with
conspiracy to commit bank fraud and to produce counterfeit ATM
cards. Two other men were arrested earlier."
------------------------------
From: tmis1692@altair.selu.edu
Subject: First Person broadcast on privacy at work
Date: 22 Jul 93 23:55:44 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
What did you think of last nights Maria Schriver story about privacy in the
workplace? I thought the thing about private e-mail was a bit of a stretch.
After all it is the employers computer and it is the employers right to know
what is there. Simply, don't put your private information in the company's
computer.
Kevin Calmes - TMIS1692@selu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 93 17:18:02 PDT
From: Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
Subject: British Columbia INFORMATION POLICIES IN THE 90'S
I would be interested in getting any feedback that people have about the
background of Thomas B. Riley. A remark of his describing BC's FOI/P act
as "the best in the world", has been widely published here in BC.
This description seems a bit strong to me, based on my own reading of
it and the responses I've had to my personal privacy concerns about
property tax rolls, voter lists, and motor vehicle and drivers licence
databases.
I haven't been able to find any publications indexed under his name in
either the Public Library, or the University of Victoria Library.
If you think that this might make a suitable post please contact Riley
Info. Serv. Inc. at the address given at the bottom to obtain permission.
The Major Conference & Training Session of 1993 on Government
Information Policy
INFORMATION POLICIES IN THE 90'S:
THE DAWN OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY PROTECTION IN
BRITISH COLUMBIA
A two-day conference and training session
November 15 and 16, 1993
Robson Square Conference Center
Vancouver, British Columbia
Produced by Riley Information Services Inc. in partnership with:
. Information and Privacy Branch, Ministry of Government Services
. BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA)
. Information Management Practices Policy Division, Treasury Board
Secretariat of Canada
. Canadian Access and Privacy Association
By the time of this conference and training session, BC's Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will be newly proclaimed
and in operation. This two-day conference and training session will
explore the ins and outs of BC's landmark statute, offer the insights
of experts with hands-on experience in other jurisdictions, and deliver
practical training specific to British Columbia.
EVENT HIGHLIGHTS
This is the event of the year for getting briefed, trained, and educated
in BC's Minister of Government Services will be followed by two
informative days of practical hands-on sessions with information experts
from government and the private sector.
TOPICS TO BE ADDRESSED
Sessions will deal directly with all the issues and skills vital to
anyone who will be administering, managing or using the new law,
including:
. expert instruction on obtaining information through the Act and
protecting legitimate confidentiality,
. understanding the balance between freedom of information and privacy,
. administrative practices; processing requests; fees and time limits;
practical tips on administering the statute,
. applying the Act's expectations,
. privacy practices under the Act: audits and implementation of fair
information practices,
. understanding the third party process under the law,
. the appeal system: how it works, and experiences in other jurisdictions
. the impact of new technologies on FOI and privacy,
. how information laws have paved the way for electronic delivery of
government services and more open government
GUEST SPEAKERS AND PANELISTS
OPENING SPEAKER: The Honourable Lois Boone, Minister of Government
Services
. BARRY JONES, MLA, member, Cabinet-Caucus Committee on Information
and Privacy
. TOM WRIGHT, Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario
. ROBERT BOTTERELL, Director, Information and Privacy, Ministry of
Government Services
. PETER GILLIS, Director, Information Management Practices, Policy
Division, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada
. THOMAS B. RILEY, International Freedom of Information and Privacy
expert
. MURRAY RANKIN, Barrister; former BC Government Special Advisor on
Information and Privacy Legislation
. PROF. COLIN BENNETT, University of Victoria, author of "Regulating
Privacy"
. DARRELL EVANS, Executive Director, BC Freedom of Information and
Privacy Association
...and many more from the public and private sectors who will offer
unique insights and practical information on what the new legislation
means to you.
REGISTER NOW
Cost: Early bird registration, paid by August 15, 1993: $400.00
or regular price after August 15: $450.00.
To register contact Riley Information Services Inc. at(416) 593-7352.
Suite 2207, 633 Bay St., Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2G4.
--
Kelly Bert Manning, Victoria, BC, Canada
------------------------------
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 13:30:12 EDT
From: Wanlapa Sriwancharoen <WS9650A@american.edu>
Subject: Legislation computer activity
***** Should there be any legistration for monitering anyone computer activity
on network by any law enforcement agency?*****
------------------------------
From: Richard Roda <roda@clyde.cs.unca.edu>
Subject: America Online censorship
Date: 23 Jul 1993 20:30:16 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Thus utters Ryan Miller <ryan@apple.com>
>You haven't seen anything until you've seen censorship on America Online.
>Here's a couple examples:
> A guy posts an article in the "Howard Stern" (radio personality) forum
>about his upcoming movie which is titled "Fartman". His message was
>removed without notice. He posted the same message with "F-Man" and the
>message remained.
> My account just got DEACTIVATED (I can't log on) because of two
>incidences in the chat rooms (like IRC). In one instance, I was in a
>"Women 4 women" forum (I'm a guy) and said "So, any lesbian nazi hookers
>from hell here?". I promptly was disconnected and received a warning
>mail. Just recently I said the word "Piss" in a sentence in one of the
>chat rooms. Now my account is deactivated. Folks, the word piss is in
>Second Kings in the Bible (if you don't believe me I'll look it up in my
>King James Version for you and quote you the exact verse).
>What are your feelings or experiences with this?
I would find a new online service in short order, and encourage those that
did not like censorship to do likewise (Using PGP encrypted mail, so they
won't censor it :-). Then those who like censorship can stay on America
Online, and if they aren't enough of them around, they will go out of
business.
--
Richard E. Roda, Computer Science at UNCA. | Snail Mail:
The opinions expressed above are mine alone. | Richard Roda
PGP v2.2 public key available by E-Mail or | P.O. Box 8172
finger roda@ivy.cs.unca.edu | Asheville, NC 28814
------------------------------
From: Richard Roda <roda@clyde.cs.unca.edu>
Subject: Re: America Online censor
Date: 23 Jul 1993 20:30:19 GMT
Thus utters mnelson@eis.calstate.edu (Mark S. Nelson)
>To be fair however, I must say that some people deserve to be taken
>off-line. There are too many people who feel that just because they're
>much more anonymous on a computer, that they should have complete freedom
>to harass and annoy. To cite one example mentioned, if someone walks into
>a 'real' women's discussion group and asks, "are there any lesbian, Nazi
>hookers from hell here", they would probably receive a quick boot in the
>ass, but most certainly would not be tolerated. The same should apply in
>virtual discussions. It seems to me that a chat area titled, Women for
>Women is pretty clear. If I was sysop, I'd kick you off-line as well.
Why not have these electronic discussion bases have a killfile? Then the
people can decide what they will and will not hear, and a sysadmin or sysop
will not have to "Boot" people offline. In the case of the sysop, however,
I can understand booting people off because the phone lines are a limited
resource and the sysop is footing the bill for the service.
--
Richard E. Roda, Computer Science at UNCA. | Snail Mail:
The opinions expressed above are mine alone. | Richard Roda
PGP v2.2 public key available by E-Mail or | P.O. Box 8172
finger roda@ivy.cs.unca.edu | Asheville, NC 28814
------------------------------
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 14:13:08 EST
Subject: Credit Reports and National
Credit Reports and National Security
Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved a provision that
allows for FBI access to credit reports using only a letter instead of
a judical warrant in cases that they say involved national security.
There is concern that this will be subject to abuse and that the
necessity has not been proven. Several privacy and consumer groups
sent this letter opposing the provision.
I was unable to easily find the actual text but will get it after I
come back from vacation.
Dave Banisar CPSR Washington Office
July 12, 1993
The Honorable Dennis Deconcini Chairman Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence United States Senate SH-211 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6475
Dear Chairman DeConcini;
We are writing to voice our strong opposition to the
Administration's legislative proposal to amend the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to obtain consumer credit reports in foreign
counterintelligence cases.
The FBI seeks a national security letter exemption to the FCRA
to obtain personal information from consumer reporting agencies
without a subpoena or court order. A national security letter
gives the FBI the authority to obtain records without judicial
approval and without providing notice to the individual that his or
her records have been obtained by the Bureau. Similar FBI proposals
were rejected in previous years after Congressional leaders
expressed concern over the civil liberties issues raised.
Although the current draft proposal is more comprehensive than
those circulated in previous years, the changes and additions do not
alter significantly the central character of the proposal. The
Administration's 1993 proposal includes explicit limits
to'dissemination of obtained information within the goverrment,
penalties for violations including punitive damages, and reporting
requirements. These provisions are positive changes from the
legislation put forward in previous years, but they do not save the
proposal from its intrinsic flaws.
Therefore, the reasons for our fundamental opposition to the
current proposal remain the same: 1) the FBI has not demonstrated a
compelling need for access to consumer credit reports; and 2)
legislation that implicates civil liberties should be addressed
separately and not as part of the authorization process.
There are only two instances in which Congress has authorized
the FBI, in counterintelligence investigations, to obtain
information about individuals pursuant to a national security
letter but without a subpoena, search warrant or court order.
First, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986
included a provision requiring common carriers to disclose
subscriber information and long distance toll records to the FBI in
response to a national security letter. Second, congress included
in the 1987 Intelligence Authorization Act an
amendment to the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) that
requires banks to provide customer records to the FBI in response
to a similar letter. In that case, the FBI presented to Congress
its case for obtaining financial records in foreign counter-
intelligence cases and the difficulty of obtaining those records
without a court order.
in both instances when congress has previously authorized the
national security letter, Congress recognized that the procedure
departs dramatically from the procedure necessary to obtain a
court order.
The FBI's current proposal seeks similar access to
individuals' credit records held by consumer reporting companies.
The FBI has yet to adequately justify its need to add such highly
personal, sensitive information to the narrow category of records
subject to the national security letter exemption.
The Bureau claims obtaining credit reports will allow it to
more easily determine where a subject of an investigation banks --
information the FBI claims will help them effectuate their ability
to access bank records under the RFPA. We opposed the national
security letter exemption in the RFPA and do not endorse the FBI's
slippery slope approach to ensuring that they can more easily
obtain financial information in foreign counterintelligence cases.
This information can be and is routinely gained without credit
reports. We do not believe convenience is a sufficient
justification for this significant exception to the law.
The FBI further argues that obtaining banking information
through a credit report is preferred because it is actually leas
intrusive than those investigative methods that would otherwise be
used. While we too are frustrated that other information-
gathering techniques are frequently too intrusive, our objections
to the other techniques do not lead us to endorse yet another
technique that is also intrusive and that weakens existing privacy
law.
Finally, we object to using the authorization process as the
vehicle for pursuing this change. The national security latter
exemption, because it diminishes the due process and privacy
protections for individuals, must be given the most careful
consideration. The FBI's proposal should be introduced as
separate legislation on which public hearings can be held. only
in this way can the Committee test thoroughly the FBI's case for
the exemption and hear from witnesses who object to the change.
We urge you to reject the FBI's proposal in its current form.
We are available to work with you on this issue.
Sincerely,
Janiori Goldman Michelle Meier
Privacy and Technology Project Consumers Union American
civil Liberties Union
Marc Rotenberg Evan Hendricks
Computer Professionals for U.S. Privacy Council Social
Responsibility
cc: Members, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The Honorable George J. Mitchell Senate Majority Leader
The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr., Chairman Senate Committee
on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman Subcommittee on
Technology and the Law
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 11:21:21 EDT
From: Paul Higgins <VALUES@gwuvm.gwu.edu>
Subject: Call for papers: Computer Network Use and Abuse Conference
CALL FOR PAPERS
The National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (NCLS) invites
proposals for original papers to be presented at a two-and-a- half-day
invitational conference on "Legal, Ethical, and Technological Aspects
of Computer and Network Use and Abuse." The conference, which will
include 40 participants representing a diverse set of perspectives and
areas of expertise, will be held in southern California in mid-December
1993. Up to three successful applicants will receive travel expenses
and room and board at the conference. Papers will be included in the
conference proceedings and may be published subsequently in a book or
journal symposium.
The conference will focus on the ways in which the law, ethics, and
technology can contribute to influencing and enforcing the bounds of
acceptable behavior and fostering the development of positive human
values in a shared computer environment. Primary attention will be on
unwanted intrusions into computer software or networks, including
unauthorized entry and dissemination of viruses through networks or
shared disks. Discussions will deal with such issues as access to
information, privacy, security, and equity; the role of computer users,
academic institutions, industry, professional societies, government,
and the law in defining and maintaining legal and ethical standards for
the use of computer networks; and a policy agenda for implementing
these standards.
Papers are invited on any aspect of the conference theme. Especially
welcome would be papers reporting on empirical research, surveys of
computer users, and case studies (other than those that are already
well-known). Interested persons should submit a summary or outline of
no more than 500 words, together with a brief (one-page) resum and a
statement (also brief) of how one's expertise or perspective might
contribute to the meeting. Proposals will be reviewed by an advisory
committee convened by NCLS and successful applicants will be asked to
prepare papers for the meeting. Papers must be the original work of
the author, not previously published, in good academic form, and
between about 5,000 and 8,000 words (25-30 double-spaced pages) in
length.
Deadline for receipt of proposals is 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
September 15, 1993. Applicants who are selected to prepare
papers will be informed by October 1, 1993. Draft papers will be
due December 3, 1993. Final versions of the papers, revised in
light of conference discussions, will be due approximately two
months after the conference.
NCLS is an organization sponsored jointly by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Bar
Association, dedicated to improving communication between members
of the legal and scientific/technical professions and exploring
issues at the intersection of law, science, and technology.
Funding for this meeting has been provided by the Program on
Ethics and Values Studies of the National Science Foundation.
For further information please contact Deborah Runkle,
Directorate for Science & Policy Programs, American Association
for the Advancement of Science, 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC
20005. Phone: 202-326-6600. Fax: 202-289-4950. E-mail:
values@gwuvm.gwu.edu.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #003
******************************