Date: Thu, 05 Aug 93 15:37:11 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#010
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 05 Aug 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 010
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: First Person broadcast on privacy
[comp.security.misc, et al.] Computers Freedom and Privacy 1994
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#009
Re: First Person broadcast on privacy
PGP Faq?
Correction-I've been misquoted!
Re: Beepers restrict or give freedom
Re: Mail, E-Mail and Telephone Privacy
Disparate policies (was "Re: First Person broadcast on privacy")
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: Pete Hardie <pete@slammer.atl.ga.us>
Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy
Organization: Just me & my computers
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1993 19:04:22 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.7.3@pica.army.mil> John De Armond <gatech!dixie.com!jgd@uunet.uu.net> writes:
>Yes, In my opinion, the company DOES have the moral right to examine any
>mail placed in its outgoing mail facility. How do I (as management)
>know that the envelope actually contains a payment and not proprietary
>information?
This seems a bit specious, to me. By that same token, such a company needs
to search every container leaving the facility for proprietary info.
For paper mail, IMHO, the limit is that the company can refuse to process
anything that is not company business, but it must do so by returning it
unopened to the sender, along with any reprimand.
Email is harder, since it is usually completely open once the determination
of sender and addressee is done, and someone is likely to at least scan the
contents, but I think that the company can only refuse to deliver such
email, and should _not_ have access to the contents unless there is other
evidence of wrongdoing. If it's against policy to send private email,
the header alone is sufficient evidence to present the offender, and
the contents are irrelevant. If there is suspicion of other foul play,
such as industrial spying, then the monitoring of email is perhaps
justified, but should be controlled by clear policy limits.
>
--
Pete Hardie
pete@slammer.atl.ga.us
------------------------------
From: Christopher J Burian <cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy,alt.privacy
Subject: [comp.security.misc, et al.] Computers Freedom and Privacy 1994
Date: 4 Aug 1993 20:45:05 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
===== Repost =====
From: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.org.acm
Subject: Computers Freedom and Privacy 1994
Date: 4 Aug 93 11:31:10
Message-ID: <FAIGIN.93Aug4113110@soldan.aero.org>
Conference Announcement
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy 1994
23-26 March 1994
The fourth annual conference, "Computers, Freedom, and
Privacy," (CFP'94) will be held in Chicago, Il., March 23-26, 1994.
The conference is hosted by The John Marshall Law School; George B.
Trubow, professor of law and director of the Center for Informatics
Law at John Marshall, is general chair of the conference. (E-Mail:
7trubow@jmls.edu). The program is sponsored jointly by these
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Special Interest Groups:
Communications (SIGCOMM); Computers and Society (SIGCAS); Security,
Audit and Control (SIGSAC).
The advance of computer and communications technologies holds
great promise for individuals and society. From conveniences for
consumers and efficiencies in commerce to improved public health
and safety and increased participation in government and community,
these technologies are fundamentally transforming our environment
and our lives.
At the same time, these technologies present challenges to the
idea of a free and open society. Personal privacy is at risk from
invasions by high-tech surveillance and monitoring; a myriad of
personal information data bases expose private life to constant
scrutiny; new forms of illegal activity may threaten the
traditional barriers between citizen and state and present new
tests of Constitutional protection; geographic boundaries of state
and nation may be recast by information exchange that knows no
boundaries in global data networks.
CFP'94 will present an assemblage of experts, advocates and
interest groups from diverse perspectives and disciplines to
consider freedom and privacy in today's "information society." A
series of pre-conference tutorials will be offered on March 23,
1994, with the conference program beginning on Thursday, March 24,
and running through Saturday, March 26, 1994.
The Palmer House, a Hilton hotel located in Chicago's "loop,"
and only about a block from The John Marshall Law School, is the
conference headquarters. Room reservations should be made directly
with the hotel after September 1, 1993, mentioning John Marshall or
"CFP'94" to get the special conference rate of $99.00, plus tax.
The Palmer House Hilton
17 E. Monroe., Chicago, Il., 60603
Tel: 312-726-7500; 1-800-HILTONS; Fax 312-263-2556
Communications regarding the conference should be sent to:
CFP'94
The John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Ct.
Chicago, IL 60604-3907
(Voice: 312-987-1419; Fax: 312-427-8307; E-mail: CFP94@jmls.edu)
CALL FOR CFP'94 PARTICIPATION AND PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS
It is intended that CFP'94 programs will examine the potential
benefits and burdens of new information and communications
technologies and consider ways in which society can enjoy the
benefits while minimizing negative implications.
Proposals are requested from those who desire to present an
original paper in a relevant area of technology, policy analysis or
law, or to suggest a program presentation. Any proposal (1) should
not exceed three typewritten double-spaced pages; (2) must state
the title of the paper or program; (3) briefly describe its theme
and content; and (4) set out the name, address, credentials and
experience of the author or suggested speakers. If a proposed paper
has already been completed a copy should be attached to the
proposal.
STUDENT PAPER COMPETITION
Full time college or graduate students are invited to enter the
student paper competition. Papers must not exceed 2500 words and
should address the impact of computer and telecommunications
technologies on freedom and privacy in society. Winners will
receive a scholarship to attend the conference and present their
papers. All papers should be submitted by November 1, 1993 (either
as straight text via e-mail or 6 printed copies) to:
Prof. Eugene Spafford
Department of Computer Science
Purdue University
West Lafeyette, IN 47907-2004
E-Mail: spaf@cs.purdue.edu; Voice: 317-494-7825
REGISTRATION
Registration information and fee schedules will be announced by
September 1, 1993. Inquiries regarding registration should be
directed to RoseMarie Knight, Registration Chair, at the JMLS
address above; her voice number is 312-987-1420.
--
[W]: The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
[Email]:faigin@aero.org, faigin@acm.org [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#68228
"I have a spelling checker/It came with my PC/It plainly marks four my revue/
Mistakes I cannot sea/I've run this poem threw it/I'm sure your pleased too no/
Its letter perfect in it's weigh/My checker tolled me sew." Pennye Harper
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 13:52:38 PDT
From: Mark Bell <idela!bell@ide.com>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#009
In reply to:
>[Moderator's Note: It depends on the person. I depend on email and
>telephone. I know people who it wouldn't bother if they had no
>phone. At work I need the fax. I've been resisting attempts of people
>trying to get me a pager. A pager would limit my freedom. ._dennis ]
I've found the pager to be liberating. The reason is that I no longer
have to make a strong effort to check with the various places I could
receive messages (office, voice mail, home, etc.). That's because
everyone who might want to reach me has been told that my primary mode
is the pager. When I receive a page we have codes that can even tell
me how urgent the call is. This means, for example, that if my wife
has an emergency that would require me to leave a meeting with my boss,
there's a code for that. So now I don't have to worry at all about
having to be out of touch or whether everybody's alright. Works
great with babysitters too -- I never bother to call to check up.
Don't have to worry anymore.
The other thing is that I have the pager account myself and have kept it
over the last two jobs. I do submit the expense for reimbursement
since my employer appreciates the convenience. But if something should
happen here, I still have the pager. I'd pay for it myself if my
employer didn't.
So, for me, the pager means I can be that much *more* footloose and
fancy-free. Your mileage may vary...
Mark Bell
IDE bell@ide.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 15:33 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy
"Wm. L. Ranck" <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu> writes:
> Anybody who feels seriously cut off because they don't have e-mail and
> a pager is way too hooked on tech gadgets. I'll admit, I like having
> e-mail and network access but if they disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't
> be *that* big a deal. I don't think I have received more than 3 or 4
> faxes in the last year (all business related) and I have *never* seen a
> need for a pager. I can understand the need for those things in business,
> but I still get flak from family and friends for having an answering machine.
Try not to be too provincial in your attitude concerning
communications. I do not criticize people for not indulging in
answering machines, pagers and the like. By the same token, I do not
expect to receive flak maximizing their use. Just because you see no
need for a pager does not invalidate its need for existence.
For me, a pager is freedom. The alternative would be to be constantly
forwarding my phone to locations all over town or to my cellular phone.
I could forget social activities that would take me out of the reach of
telephones such as concerts and picnics. You see, I am on twenty-four
hour call. If any one of number of radio stations were to go off the
air, or certain people were to lose phone service, I am the first point of
contact. Yes, I could hire people to sit by the phone, but at ten
dollars a month for the pager, adding employees seems just a bit of a
waste of money. Your comment, "and I have *never* seen a need for a
pager", speaks more about the nature of your responsibilities than it
does about the necessity of pagers. I am curious: if you were on
twenty-four hour call, how would you handle it without a pager?
That having been said, some people (myself included) tend to utilize
in-place facilities. Ease of communications can facilitate social
activities as well as business matters. If you have to wear the pager
twenty-four hours a day anyway...
> I can't think of anybody that would ever try to contact me via fax or a pager
> for personal reasons.
Again, this is a personal preference. Do people use the telephone to
contact you for personal reasons? Where in stone is it written that
pagers and faxes are for business purposes only? I have no problem with
your personal preferences, but the fact that you post about it
indicates that you attach some universal significance to it.
MY point in all of this is that is it perfectly understandable that
employees of a firm might tend to use the company's facilities for
private use. To expect otherwise is unrealistic. But it is also
reasonable to expect that if a person finds these alternate forms of
communication useful, he ought to look into establishing his own
implementation of these tools--independently of those of his employer.
Then he is free to use them at will--for business or pleasure--and
expect to be free from casual snooping at the same time.
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
------------------------------
From: John Grimes x6325 <jeg@ddsdx2.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: PGP Faq?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 23:33:20 GMT
Greetings:
Can someone tell me if there is a PGP Faq? If there is one is it
available? Could you point me to it.
Thanks, John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 01:34 GMT
From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com>
Subject: Correction-I've been misquoted!
In Computer Privacy Digest V3#009 "Roy M. Silvernail"
<roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>writes:
>In comp.society.privacy, 0004854540@mcimail.com writes:
>> Would that this were true. In fact what is happening is that the cellular
>> providers are putting pressure on Governmental agencies to ban receivers
>> capable of picking up cellular phone calls, or to make their use illegal.
>I'm not sure that was the cellular providers' idea. More of a now
>typical legislative knee-jerk.
>> What's worse is that the introduction of digital cellular is being
>>delayed
>> because the encryption provided was *too* good for the Government's
>>liking.
Um, I'm 0004854540@mcimail.com, and what's quoted above as me is not me,
it's a response to what I said, I just wanted that to be clear.
We are, however in agreement, what I said in the same issue in another
message is basically the same thing.
Christopher Zguris
CZGURIS@MCIMail.com or 0004854540@MCIMail.com
(please use the name, the number makes me feel like a convict!)
------------------------------
From: "J. Philip Miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Beepers restrict or give freedom
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 21:57:07 -0500 (CDT)
Forwarded message:
> [Moderator's Note: It depends on the person. I depend on email and
> telephone. I know people who it wouldn't bother if they had no
> phone. At work I need the fax. I've been resisting attempts of people
> trying to get me a pager. A pager would limit my freedom. ._dennis ]
>
Whether pagers limit or restrict freedom depends on the individual as well!
I find that by having a pager, it allows those who have a legimate claim on my
time to reach me, yet I do not need to let anyone know where I am. In the
days before a pager, everytime I left my office, I would need to tell someone
where I could be reached. In off hours, I might even stay at home to make
certain that I could be reached, rather than wandering off where my dreams led
me. Thus to me, a pager means considerable freedom.
-phil
--
J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - (314) 362-3617 [362-2693(FAX)]
------------------------------
From: Bernie Cosell <cosell@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Mail, E-Mail and Telephone Privacy
Organization: Fanntasy Farm Fibers
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 04:57:47 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.9.7@pica.army.mil>, "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" writes:
} In Computer Privacy Digest V3 #007
} "Patrick A. Townson" <ptownson@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> writes:
}
} >> Todd Jonz <Todd.Jonz@corp.sun.com> wrote:
} [... text about who can read mail deleted ...]
} >
} >Yes, In my opinion, the company DOES have the moral right to examine any
} >mail placed in its outgoing mail facility. How do I (as management)
} >know that the envelope actually contains a payment and not proprietary
} >information?
}
} I don't know about a moral right to examine any mail. If I decide to
} place my stamped envelope with my name and home address on it in the
} outgoing mail drop at work, I certainly don't expect my employer to
} open it to find out what the contents are.
}
} The on-site mail room is providing me with the convenience of not
} having to walk about two blocks (if I don't decide to do that) to
} give the envelope to the USPS myself (note the sig. for an official
} zip code, not a branch office).
This is a common 'perq' many companies offer, and I think you're right:
if they agree to pick up *stamped*, first-class outgoing mail, then
they have to handle it as private outgoing mail and do pretty much
nothing with it except put it in a mailbox for you --- or they
could refuse to mail it and just drop it back on your desk.
} When it comes to personal mail, however, I do take a strong stand
} and the USPS regs state that the only person who is legally entitled
} to open that envelope is to whom it is addressed.
I asked about that before [perhaps not on this newsgroup] and I wonder
what the rules for mail addressed to businesses really is. Few people
are scrupulous to have their at-work mail addressed with *no* name but
just to "Manager of whoknowswhat computer operations
somecompany
yourcity, ST 98765"
Although that's what mail addressed to you at work _ought_
to carry as its logical address. What if you are fired, leave, on
vacation, injured and in the hospital. And all of this mail keeps
coming in addressed to " YOU
somecompany
yourcity, ST 98765"
Is it _really_ the USPS regulations that work on your project must
stop, because no one is legally permitted to open your [presumed]
business correspondence and continue the work?
/bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell cosell@world.std.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358
------------------------------
From: Bruce.Baugh@f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Baugh)
Subject: Disparate policies (was "Re: First Person broadcast on privacy")
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 06:35:14 GMT
MSGID: 1:105/40.23 2c608093
REPLY: <comp-privacy3.9.2@pica.army.mil>
TJsc> From: Todd Jonz <Todd.Jonz@corp.sun.com>
TJsc> that they exercise this right judiciously.) Actually, I had
TJsc> expected to see at least a few slightly more libertarian views
TJsc> expressed on the topic, as is the case more often than not on some
TJsc> of the newsgroups I frequent.
The idea that employers have a right to find out how their facilities are being
used _is_ a libertarian one. It respects property rights. It preserves the
liberty of employees to go elsewhere, or to organize a business of their own
which include contractual protection from such intrusion, or to do anything
else except coerce their current employers at the point of the government's
guns.
Personally, I wouldn't want to work for a business that snooped into
everything. But then I'm half self-employed anyway, and am uppity all around.
Bruce
* Origin: Kiksht Cyberspace (1:105/40.23)
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #010
******************************