Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 16:04:41 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#004
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 28 Jul 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 004
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: America Online censor
Re: America Online censor
Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work
Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work
re: First Person broadcast on privacy...
Call for Articles, EJVC: Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Martin <gnat@panix.com>
Subject: Re: America Online censor
Date: 26 Jul 1993 21:20:49 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
In <comp-privacy3.3.8@pica.army.mil> Richard Roda <roda@clyde.cs.unca.edu> writes:
>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,
You agree that minimal coercion is preferable, correct?
If a group of people wish to have a particular type of discussion, and
there is general agreement as to what sort of discussion they wish to
pursue, boorish behavior "forces" the group to use the killfile in order
to meet their goal. This amounts to (possibly) hundreds of people forced
into an action that -most- people would rather not do. We've all been
taught that it's impolite to ignore people.
The coercion of forcing one boor to be polite or get out is relatively
little coercion, and therefore the better way to handle things - less
coercion and, in the long run, less repeats of this sort of thing, and
therefore likely to be less polarizing.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 03:22 GMT
From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: America Online censor
I've seen this issue about PRODIGY and AMERICA ONLINE come up over
and over- censorship, reading mail, forcing users to adopt double-speak for
words the system (big brother?) finds offensive. My question is this, _WHY_
does PRODIGY and AMERICA ONLINE management find it necessary to go to all
the trouble and expense of scrubbing their system to keep it "clean" to
their specs (are they employing humans to bounce "offenders" off, or simple
keyword-checking by computer- either way there must be people being paid to
do this nonsense)?
I am on CompuServe and many Internet mailing lists and I don't
remember ever seeing these sorts measures being necessary. CompuServe has
rules of etiquette that are more or less - I believe - based on courtesy and
common sense.
Have these other services put in all this added work just for their
own amusement (maybe PRODIGY has some pathological fear of becoming
profitable and must take steps to encourage bad press)? I've never read
_WHY_ PRODIGY and AMERICA ONLINE do all the monitoring, maybe it's because
they have had to react to the pressure of "infants" who can't seem to
control themselves and feel it's necessary to blurt (write- "wrurt"?) out
messages designed to offend? Personally, I can't see paying a monthly fee to
giggle like a schoolboy who's found "penis" is written in the dictionary!
What's the gag?
Basically, did PRODIGY and AMERICA ONLINE start out with the
screening (I don't want to say censorship because that is very ugly) of
email traffic or did the behavior of their subscribers make it necessary? I
know if someone abused the broadcast capability of LISTSERVers he would be
flamed into oblivion, and maybe have his access revoked? Why do _hopefully_
normal, functional adults feel it is necessary to turn into children on
PRODIGY or AMERICA ONLINE?
Christopher Zguris
CZGURIS@MCIMail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 23:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
Kevin Calmes <tmis1692@altair.selu.edu>, writes to
comp-privacy@pica.army.mil:
> 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.
1. NBC has created, 18 news analysius programs like 60 minutes or 20/20.
17 of these have failed, and the head of the news division
resigned in disgrace after it was discovered that NBC had
fabricated an explosion to make a GM truck look worse than
it was. It takes a lot of effort to make a company like
GM look like a victim, considering how many screw ups it
has made, but NBC did it.
First Person is the 18th news analysis program produced by NBC.
I figure *anything* NBC is putting into a news analysis program
is done from despiration, so take anything they do with a grain
of salt.
2. I did not see the show in question.
3. In the United States, *Federal Law* sets certain standards for any
computer system that handles mail that is transferred intersystem,
and it's called the Electronic Communications Protection Act, the
same law that makes it illegal to monitor cellular phones.
If your system is on the Internet or is otherwise connected to an
outside network, certain rules are automatic and mandatory unless
the system manager explicitly denies them. Failure to deny makes
them automatic and mandatory. These provisions are:
I. Private Mail may not be intercepted, monitored or read by third
parties.
II. In the absence of a subpoena, warrant or other process, the
information in private E-Mail cannot be used in a court
proceding.
III. Violating these provisions is a federal crime punishable by
fines and imprisonment, and the victim(s) can also sue civilly
for up to $10,000 or provable damages.
Let me ask you: your employer owns the telephone on your desk; should he
have the right to record your telephone calls? He's paying for the call,
shouldn't he be able to monitor anything transmitted?
---
Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
------------------------------
From: David Hoffman <hoffman@xenon.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work
Date: 27 Jul 93 07:02:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
In article <comp-privacy3.3.4@pica.army.mil> tmis1692@altair.selu.edu writes:
>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.
I would probably agree with that in principle, but I think there are
laws or things that sound like laws that talk about a "reasonable
expectation of privacy". I know first hand that a LOT of non-techie
people who use corporate e-mail have no idea that someone other than
the intended recipient can read their mail, and they are understandably
rattled when they find out otherwise.
I thought Schriver's piece was a little alarmist and sensational -
she made every attempt to convey the message that "big brother is
watching and you can't trust anyone - especially your employer".
Not once did she mention anything about encryption, which I think
would have given the stories a very different slant. It's quite a
trip from "your boss can and will scrutinize every word you type
and there's nothing you can do about it" to "the wires aren't
bug-proof, but you can still make the message private". I guess
it's more dramatic television if you just ignore the fact that
there are solutions.
------------------------------
From: rogerj@otago.ac.nz
Subject: re: First Person broadcast on privacy...
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 01:47:18 GMT
In reply to Kevin Calmes article:
>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.
Don't you expect that your personal mail to be treated as private when it
is sent using a post office. I know that I would not accept anyone, other
than the person who I have sent the letter to read it. And doesn't the post
office own all the equipment that is used to send my letter from me to
the person I am sending it to.
While I realise that you are paying the post office for the service of
handling your mail, you do not expect either the post office, you boss or
anyone else (other than the person who it is addressed to) to read it.
Why then do people treat the private information on computers with different
values than standard methods of storing information?
>Simply, don't put your private information in the company's computer.
It is unfortunate that this is true.
Roger
Roger@otago.ac.nz
C/o Otago University
New Zealand
The Otago University may or may not agree with the views expressed in this
article, I haven't asked them.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 20:52:25 EST
From: Diane Kovacs <DKOVACS@kentvm.kent.edu>
Subject: Call for Articles, EJVC: Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture
The _Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture_ a refereed scholarly journal
is now accepting submissions for Fall 1993 and Spring 1994 issues.
The _Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture_ (EJVC) is a
refereed scholarly journal that fosters, encourages,
advances and communicates scholarly thought on virtual
culture. Virtual culture is computer-mediated experience,
behavior, action, interaction and thought, including
electronic conferences, electronic journals, networked
information systems, the construction and visualization
of models of reality, and global connectivity.
EDITORIAL GUIDLINES FOR AUTHORS
FORM AND STYLE
1. Use a recognized standard form and style, preferably
the APA Publication Manual published by the American
Psychological Association, as modified by the
following requirements.
2. Do not have any line that exceeds 60 characters in
length.
3. Do not use any figure or diagram.
4. Do not have more than 1000 lines in any article.
5. Do not submit any draft in any format other than ASCII.
SUBMISSION
An article may be submitted at any time to the EJVC
for peer-review with the understanding that the
peer-review requires time. Acknowledgements of the
arrival of any article shall be made within 24 hours
of arrival. Notification of acceptance or rejection shall
be sent to authors within 30 days of the arrival of the
submission. Submissions are acceptable only by electronic
mail or send/file. Submissions may be made to either
the Editor-in-Chief or the Co-Editor.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF CO-EDITOR
Ermel Stepp Diane Kovacs
Marshall University Kent State University
BITNET: BITNET:
M034050@Marshall DKOVACS@Kentvm
Internet: Internet:
M034050@Marshall.WVNET.edu DKOVACS@Kentvm.Kent.edu
SUBSCRIPTION
To subscribe to the EJVC send electronic mail to
LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU, including a
blank subject line and the sole line of text:
subscribe EJVC-L Yourfirstname Yourlastname
VAX/VMS may require that the sole line be within quotes
to register names in other than uppercase.
EJVC ANONYMOUS FTP
Information about the EJVC and issues of the EJVC may
be retreived by anonymous FTP to byrd.mu.wvnet.edu in
subdirectory /pub/ejvc.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #004
******************************