Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 15:51:45 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#005
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 30 Jul 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 005
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: PGP
Re: America Online censor
Re: America Online censor
Re: America Online censor
Re: America Online censor
Re: America Online censor
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: Chris Claborne <claborne@npg-sd.sandiegoca.ncr.com>
Subject: Re: PGP
Date: 28 Jul 93 21:46:48 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp., Network Products - San Diego
In <comp-privacy3.3.2@pica.army.mil> mhealey@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Mark Healey) writes:
> Does anybody know where to get a copy of PGP
Yes...
Host reseq.regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de
Location: /informatik.public_new/comp/os/os2/crypt
FILE -rw-rw-r-- 331200 Jul 9 23:45 pgp23os2A.zip
FILE -rw-rw-r-- 547178 Jul 9 01:39 pgp23srcA.zip
Host athene.uni-paderborn.de
Location: /unix/network/security
FILE -rw-r--r-- 675598 Jun 18 11:16 pgp23.tar.Z
FILE -rw-r--r-- 219951 Jun 18 11:17 pgp23.zip
FILE -rw-r--r-- 541760 Jun 18 11:17 pgp23src.zip
Location: /unix/security
FILE -rw-r--r-- 449445 Jun 18 08:35 pgp23.tar.gz
Host ftp.cs.uni-sb.de
Location: /pub/others
FILE -rw-r--r-- 675598 Jun 19 18:58 pgp23.tar.Z
Host pc.usl.edu
Location: /pub/msdos/crypto
FILE -rw-r--r-- 675598 Jun 23 10:29 pgp23.tar.Z
FILE -rw-r--r-- 219951 Jun 23 10:28 pgp23.zip
Host cs.huji.ac.il
Location: /pub/security/pgp
FILE -rw-r--r-- 449455 Jun 23 15:57 pgp23.tar.gz
FILE -rw-r--r-- 219951 Jun 23 16:01 pgp23.zip
FILE -rw-r--r-- 541760 Jun 23 16:10 pgp23src.zip
Host ghost.dsi.unimi.it
Location: /pub/security
FILE -rw-r--r-- 451114 Jun 21 14:00 pgp23.tar.z
FILE -rw-r--r-- 219951 Jun 27 15:51 pgp23.zip
FILE -rw-r--r-- 541760 Jun 27 15:51 pgp23src.zip
Host sol.cs.ruu.nl
Location: /UNIX
FILE -rw-r--r-- 451114 Jun 28 17:53 pgp23.tar.gz
Host alf.uib.no
Location: /pub/unix/next/source/crypt
FILE -rw-r--r-- 675598 Jun 23 13:02 pgp23.tar.Z
FILE -rw-r--r-- 219951 Jun 23 13:07 pgp23.zip
FILE -rw-r--r-- 541760 Jun 23 13:20 pgp23src.zip
Host isy.liu.se
Location: /pub/misc/pgp/2.3
FILE -rw-r--r-- 675598 Jun 17 20:35 pgp23.tar.Z
FILE -rw-r--r-- 219951 Jun 17 20:35 pgp23.zip
FILE -rw-r--r-- 541760 Jun 17 20:35 pgp23src.zip
Host leif.thep.lu.se
Location: /pub/Misc
FILE -rw-r--r-- 219951 Jun 21 10:19 pgp23.zip
FILE -rw-r--r-- 541760 Jun 21 10:21 pgp23src.zip
MAC PGP is now available via anonymous FTP from:
netcom.com
/pub/grady/macpgp2.3src.sea.hqx.pgp
... __o
.. _`\<,_
chris.claborne@sandiegoca.ncr.com ...(*)/ (*). CI$: 76340.2422
PGP Pub Key fingerprint = A8 FA 55 92 23 20 72 69 52 AB 64 CC C7 D9 4F CA
<Insert standard disclaimer regarding my opinion an not my company's here>
<Insert some philosophical comment here>
------------------------------
From: Matthew Lyle <matt@ra.oc.com>
Subject: Re: America Online censor
Organization: OpenConnect Systems, Dallas, TX
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 22:36:58 GMT
Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> writes:
> 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'm a charter subscriber of AOL and I have never seen AOL take any
actions that are inconsistant with their Terms of Service. Admittidly
some of the terminology is the TOS is a little broad but I haven't
seen them abuse it.
Here are a couple of excerpts, cut and pasted, from AOL's Terms of Service.
ONLINE CONDUCT
Any action by a Member that, in AOL, Inc.'s sole opinion, restricts or
inhibits other Members from using and enjoying America Online (such as
but not limited to, the use of vulgar language; inappropriate screen
names; committing, or discussing with the intention to commit, illegal
activities), is strictly prohibited. Member specifically agrees not to
submit, publish, or display on America Online any defamatory, inaccurate,
abusive, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, racially
offensive, or illegal material; nor shall Member encourage the use of
controlled substances. Transmission of material, information or software in
violation of any local, state or federal law is prohibited and is a breach
of the Terms of Service. Member specifically agrees not to upload, post or
reproduce in any way any materials protected by copyright without the
permission of the copyright owner.
Member specifically agrees to indemnify AOL, Inc. for any losses, costs, or
damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by AOL, Inc. and
relating to, or arising out of any breach of this section (Online Conduct) by Member.
America Online is to be used by Member for his/her personal use only.
Commercial uses of America Online, other than the use of message boards for
legal and appropriate messages, are strictly prohibited unless prior written
consent from AOL, Inc. has been granted.
SOFTWARE LIBRARIES: Only public domain files, and files in which the author has
given expressed consent for online distribution, may be uploaded to the software
libraries by Member. Any other software may not be uploaded to the America Online
software libraries. AOL, Inc., at its sole discretion, reserves the right to
refuse posting of files, and to remove files. AOL, Inc., at its sole discretion,
further reserves the right to immediately terminate, without Notice, a Member who
misuses the software libraries.
PUBLIC POSTING AREAS (MESSAGE BOARDS): AOL, Inc., at its sole discretion, may
remove messages it deems to be unacceptable or in violation of the Terms of
Service. AOL, Inc., at its sole discretion, further reserves the right to
immediately terminate, without Notice, a Member who misuses the message boards.
REAL-TIME/INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS AREAS: AOL, Inc., at its sole discretion,
reserves the right to immediately terminate, without Notice, a Member who misuses
the real-time conference areas or violates the Terms of Service.
ELECTRONIC MAIL
Electronic mail ("Mail") is a private electronic message sent by a Member or
by AOL, Inc. to another Member or user of America Online. Once it has been
read, it is retained on America Online for one (1) week. If you delete a
screen name, any unread Mail sent prior to that deletion will also be
removed, as a deleted screen name cannot be reinstated. UNREAD MAIL IS
AUTOMATICALLY DELETED FIVE (5) WEEKS AFTER THE DATE SENT. A canceled
America Online account will retain its unread Mail until the account is
re-opened and the Mail is read or until five (5) weeks after the
Mail was sent, whichever occurs first.
From time to time AOL, Inc. may send Members Mail with an expiration date.
This means that Mail sent by AOL, Inc. may be deleted from your mailbox, by
our system, if not read within a certain time frame, (e.g., mail
relating to promotions no longer valid after a certain date.)
AOL, Inc. will not intentionally inspect the contents of Mail sent by one
Member to an identified addressee, or disclose such contents to other than
the sender, or an intended recipient, without the consent of the sender or
an intended recipient, unless required to do so by law. AOL, Inc. reserves
the right to cooperate fully with local, state, or federal officials in
any investigation concerning or relating to any Mail transmitted on
America Online.
--
Matthew Lyle matt@oc.com
matt@utdallas.bitnet
OpenConnect System, Dallas, Texas (214) 888-0474
------------------------------
From: John Grimes x6325 <jeg@ddsdx2.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Re: America Online censor
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 15:38:08 GMT
In <comp-privacy3.4.1@pica.army.mil> Robert Martin <gnat@panix.com> writes:
>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.
Yes, but who's the boor?
John, jeg@ddsdx2.jhuapl.edu
All opinions expressed are my own.
------------------------------
From: Ed Ravin <elr@dev.prodigy.com>
Subject: Re: America Online censor
Date: 30 Jul 1993 04:41:00 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.4.2@pica.army.mil> Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> writes:
>
> 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.
For starters, nobody censors or reads e-mail -- it's illegal.
> 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 don't speak for Prodigy, but as an employee I've heard lots about this
stuff and seen managment explain their reasons over and over again. So
here's a few words about why Prodigy censors bulletin boards:
*) They're a family oriented service. Every Prodigy paying subscriber can
add up to five more accounts as part of their "household". Many children
use the service. Prodigy doesn't want naughty words to be visible to
children -- parents will (and have) complained to Prodigy management when
their kids see things on the bulletin boards that the parents don't like.
As a response to this concern, Prodigy now lets the paying member control
bulletin board access for the sub-accounts. Sort of like delegating the
censorship down a level, but at least it puts the action into the member's
hands rather than being imposed by a "Big Brother"-like entity.
*) They're afraid of being sued. Big time afraid. As a parternship between
IBM and Sears, the parent companies have unlimited liability should some
court decide in a lawsuit that Prodigy was negligent. So they feel that it
is important that Prodigy should monitor the bulletin boards as well as
possible to avoid libelous or illegal messages from being posted.
*) They have a family image. They want to maintain it. A bulletin board
like alt.sex.beastiality or alt.tasteless.penis just doesn't have them
"family values". So they monitor stuff posted on the bulletin boards so
that people won't think that Prodigy is supporting awful or nasty things.
> 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?
Again, there's no monitoring, censoring, interference, or anything unkosher
with email on Prodigy (or any other online service that I know of). Prodigy
started censoring their bulletin boards from day 1 -- however, after seeing
how much it would cost to maintain such close control, and after receiving
zillions of complaints about posts refused for the wrong reasons, they've
backed down quite a bit -- on most of their BB's, if the notes make it
through the dirty word scanner they get posted automatically. The dog
breeders SIG complain that they can't use the word "bitch", and everyone
who wants to curse says "$hit" instead of "shit", but it seems to have
settled down quite a bit. Prodigy no longer tries to kill posts that are
not relevant to the discussion, or in the wrong topic. Guess what? Some
people have started complaing that we're not censoring enough, that the
bulletin boards are getting too noisy, that people are talking about the
wrong things...
>Why do _hopefully_
>normal, functional adults feel it is necessary to turn into children on
>PRODIGY or AMERICA ONLINE?
Damned good question. But it's not just on Prodigy or AOL -- people do this
more and more these days. School boards have been burning books in America
since the beginning -- books I got in my high school like "Of Mice and Men"
by John Steinbeck or "The Good Earth" by Pearl Buck, considered classics in
most places, are banned in some rural areas from the schools (and the school
libraries!). Every day some media advocacy group writes to television broad-
casters and advertisers asking them not to put this on or to take that off
the air. Feminist activists on 9th Avenue in Manhattan table constantly
asking that pornography of certain types be banned. The Bush administration
issued a directive saying certain doctors couldn't talk about abortions.
The need to control what other people say or think seems to be endemic to
American society, and what's happening on the online services is just a
microcosm of the problem in society at large.
PS: I work as a telcommunications programmer for Prodigy, and whatever I
say here is my own blathering and should noway nohow be considered an
official statement from my employer.
--
Ed Ravin | "A mind is a terrible thing to waste -- boycott TV!"
Prodigy Services Company |
White Plains, NY 10601 | (the usual disclaimers)
+1 914 993 4737 | elr@dev.prodigy.com, eravin@panix.com
------------------------------
From: Richard Roda <roda@etowah.cs.unca.edu>
Subject: Re: America Online censor
Date: 30 Jul 1993 16:23:13 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Thus utters Robert Martin <gnat@panix.com>
[...]
GN3You agree that minimal coercion is preferable, correct?
Yes.
GN3If a group of people wish to have a particular type of discussion, and
3there is general agreement as to what sort of discussion they wish to
3pursue, boorish behavior "forces" the group to use the killfile in order
3to meet their goal. This amounts to (possibly) hundreds of people forced
3into an action that -most- people would rather not do. We've all been
3taught that it's impolite to ignore people.
- --?-- We ignore bums on the subway all of the time. We are taught as
children not to talk to strangers. Perhaps you think that my killfile would
send a message to the boorish person. It would not. It would be just like
the usenet version. I put someone in my kill file, and they never know that
they are there (unless I tell them).
GN3The coercion of forcing one boor to be polite or get out is relatively
3little coercion, and therefore the better way to handle things - less
3coercion and, in the long run, less repeats of this sort of thing, and
3therefore likely to be less polarizing.
- --?-- When I was running a BBS, I took lowering access levels or deleting
accounts, or other such measures as a big deal, and so did the affected
user. Unfortunately, the software had no feature like a killfile and I was
not aware of the concept then. Once the boorish person is in the killfile,
they stay there. They can then talk to whoever will listen and no force
will be necessary against them.
BTW: I never killed an account due to what the person said. The worst
thing I had to do is in one case restrict posting to an over 18 base
because North Carolina has those silly "local standard" laws for offensive
material and I did not want to risk getting in trouble.
- ---
PGP Public key by request. Don't know what PGP is? Ask me.
Internet Mail: rroda@unca.edu
* OLX 2.1 TD * Hag, Beautiful young woman in a league beyond the Devil.
--
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 rroda@unca.edu | Asheville, NC 28814
------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: America Online censor
Date: 29 Jul 1993 07:07:06 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
In article <comp-privacy3.4.2@pica.army.mil> Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> writes:
> 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)?
Prodigy and AOL are trying to market their services to the general consumer
market. They (and their advertisers) believe (rightly or wrongly) that
they will attract this market by keeping the system inoffensive. It's
pretty much the same reasoning that TV networks use to justify their
censoring.
If you wrote a letter to the editor of any major newspaper, and included a
four-letter word, how likely do you think that word is to remain intact
when the letter is published (assuming it's published at all)? Prodigy has
long maintained that they consider their forums to be analogous to such
media.
> 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.
Internet revenues are largely removed from the number of end users, since
most large Internet sites pay fees based on bandwidth, not use; if a site
with thousands of users loses a few because they're offended, it will still
continue to download the same amount of Usenet news, so it will need the
same size connection. Some sites (public access systems) may receive
per-user revenues, but most Internet sites are currently educational
institutions, private companies, and the government. So there's no
incentive for the Internet as a whole to police its content, and the public
systems don't have the clout necessary to change that.
The revenues of consumer-oriented systems are completely dependent on the
number of users. Since they're mostly self-contained systems, attracting
and keeping the most users of the proper demographics is the overriding
concern. They therefore prefer to prevent problems rather than react to
them. By the time a kid has read the profanity it's too late, as the
offended parent is likely to have terminated the subscription.
Furthermore, these practices serve as a form of product differentiation.
If someone is trying to decide between Compuserve and GEnie, there's not
much to distinguish them beside pricing. Prodigy, on the other hand,
provides a noticeably different style of service, which some consumers may
find preferable.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #005
******************************