Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 14:44:32 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <owner-comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#017
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 13 Jan 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 017
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
ISO corporate privacy policy guidelines
Online comments to U.S. Social Security Administration
TAP Appeal On Juris FOIA
RE: What happened to VA driver's license changes?
Re: Driver Protection Act
Re: Driver Protection Act
Re: Maryland to introduce high-tech drivers' license
Re: Phone company selling forwarding addresses
Re: Ask Rat Dog
Re: Privacy with Credit Card Transactions
Re: Autoland Credit Scam
Re: Autoland Credit Scam
Re: SSN reqd by public schools; DL reqd with credit card
Re: SSN reqd by public schools; DL reqd with credit card
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@uwm.edu and administrative requests
to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via
anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp"
with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory
"pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: salomon@seas.gwu.edu (A. Lee Salomon)
Subject: ISO corporate privacy policy guidelines
Date: 11 Jan 1994 15:25:42 GMT
Organization: George Washington University
in Infoworld, Nov29, 1993, the article "IS Managers Balance Privacy
Rights and Risks," the Electronic Messaging Association (EMA) publishes
an e-mail privacy toolkit with guidelines and sample policies for
corporations. i would like to get a hold of these (i don't know
whether it's free or not), as well as any info on recently proposed fed
legislation on such issues. i understand that there is a group
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility: i would also like to
get in touch with them.
any pointers would be greatly appreciated. thank you.
------------------------------
From: ao944@yfn.ysu.edu (Jack Decker)
Subject: Online comments to U.S. Social Security Administration
Date: 12 Jan 1994 05:03:29 GMT
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
When I logged on to Youngstown Freenet tonight, I was greeted by the
login message (I guess this is called the "Message Of The Day" in Unix
circles) which contained the following blurb:
> UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU: The Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment is con- ducting a multi-city "Teleforum" in which they are
seeking your thoughts on the Social Security Administration for a study
they are doing. Senior citizens (and those who someday expect to BE
senior citizens) are invited to participate.
> Access the OTA TELEFORUM off the NPTN Special Projects on the main
menu and join in this rather interesting application of teledemocracy
at work
I entered the forum and was able to pull the following "about"
paragraphs. Two things to note: Apparently the "teleforums" are
available on five popular Freenet systems (the ones in Buffalo, NY;
Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO; Tallahassee, FL; and Youngstown, OH) and I
would assume you need to have an account on one of those systems in
order to participate (Internet users can telnet to all these systems,
and they are accessible from many Gopher systems as well). Also, it
appears that the Social Security Administration is considering making
some or all of their services available via the Internet. This could
be good or bad depending on whether proper attention is paid to
privacy. However, one thing that personally disturbs me is that they
are apparently at least considering elimination of mailing of checks to
individuals, in favor of disbursements via "Electronic Fund Transfers
or Electronic Benefit Transfers." My initial gut reaction to that is
that this could have some real negative effects on privacy and
individual liberty, because it would in effect force people to have an
account at some financial institution in order to receive benefits. I
won't comment further on that now because I haven't really thought
about all the implications of this yet.
Anyway, here's what I was able to pull off of Youngstown Freenet:
ABOUT THE OTA TELEFORUMS
Over the next five years the Social Security Administration
(SSA) intends to spend about $1.1 billion on information systems
procurement and modernization. Critics of SSA--most notably
the General Accounting Office--say that SSA does not have a
solid justification for this huge investment. That they have not
shown that it will result in improved service delivery, or an
improved work environment.
To help settle this dispute both agencies turned to the
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to do a
study of the issue. The OTA, in turn, has asked the National
Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN) to set-up an electronic
forum which would allow YOU to express your opinions on the
matter.
Here's how it works...
When you enter the TeleForums you will be able to select any
(or all) of four issues to comment upon. The issues have to do
with:
1) SOCIAL SECURITY AND CUSTOMER INTERACTION
2) NETWORK ACCESS TO BENEFIT FILING SERVICES
3) DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS
4) YOUR GENERAL SATISFACTION WITH THE SSA
You then choose the issue you want to examine and READ THE FILE
CALLED "README." This file will contain a summary of the issue
and the kind of things we would like the discussions to focus on.
Each of these forums will be running simultaneously on NPTN
affiliates in five cities: Buffalo, NY; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO;
Tallahassee, FL; and Youngstown, OH. Thus, a comment from someone
in Cleveland might be intermixed with something from a user in
Tallahassee, followed by someone in Youngstown, or Denver, or
Buffalo.
PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU POST A COMMENT TO ANY OF THESE BOARDS
IT WILL NOT APPEAR IMMEDIATELY. Your posting will first be
routed to the NPTN machine in Cleveland for distribution to
all five systems--including back to the system of origin. Thus,
it might be several hours before it is cleared for the network.
In summary...
You are looking at one of the first attempts BY CONGRESS to
use this medium on a national scale to hold discussions on the
policy issues that are before it. Use it well.
If you have any questions about this project, please feel free
to contact Tom Grundner at: tmg@nptn.org or William Beasley at:
wab@nptn.org
<<< ISSUE #1: SOCIAL SECURITY AND CUSTOMER INTERACTION >>>
The general question in this area is:
How can the Social Security Administration improve customer
interactions by utilizing telecomputing technology?
You are free, of course, to comment on anything you'd like,
but some specific questions or issues might include:
* Should routine requests for such things as replacement
Social Security cards be made available via the telecom-
puting networks in addition to the present methods.
* Should informational materials such as explanations of
benefits be made available via the telecomputing networks.
* Should earnings record be available utilizing the tele-
computing networks.
* If any of the above were done, specifically how do you think
your life would be improved (or not-improved) by it?
* Are there issues of confidentiality, data security, and
privacy that bother you?
<<< ISSUE #2: NETWORK ACCESS TO BENEFIT FILING SERVICES >>>
The general question in this area is:
Could this new technology help the Social Security Administration
improve the process of filing for benefits?
You are free, of course, to comment on anything you'd like,
but some specific questions or issues might include:
* Should the Social Security Administration allow for the
filing of benefits via the telecomputing networks?
* Should the Social Security Administration utilize the
electronic networks to file for appeals and transfer records
and supporting documents in regard to the substantiation
of claims.
* If any of the above were done, specifically how do you think
your life would be improved (or not-improved) by it?
* Are there issues of confidentiality, data security, and
privacy that bother you?
<<< ISSUE #3: DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS >>>
The general question in this area is:
What do you think is the best way for the SSA to distribute
monthly benefits?
You are free, of course, to comment on anything you'd like,
but some specific questions or issues might include:
* Should the Social Security Administration continue to
mail checks to individuals or should all disbursements
be made via Electronic Fund Transfers or Electronic
Benefit Transfers?
* In order to spread the workload of the Social Security
Administration there is talk of changing the disbursement
of benefits from the first of the month to a staggered
payment date, i.e. 1st, 10th, 20th of the month. How would
this effect you? Would you find it acceptable?
* Should the Social Security Administration expand the use
of the EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) in co-operation
with other agencies.
* Should the Social Security Administration work toward
combining use of the EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer)
with various State government benefit programs?
* If any of the above were done, specifically how do you think
your life would be improved (or not-improved) by it?
* Are there issues of confidentiality, data security, and
privacy that bother you?
<<< ISSUE #4: GENERAL SATISFACTION WITH THE SSA >>>
The general question in this area is:
To what extent have you been satisfied with your interactions
with the Social Security Administration?
You are free, of course, to comment on anything you'd like,
but some specific questions or issues might include:
* In the past year did you have occasion to contact the Social
Security Administration? If so, tell us about that experience.
* How did you contact them
- In person visit to Social Security Administration Office
- Telephone Call to local Social Security Administration
- Telephone Call to 800 number of Social Security Admin.
- Postal Mail
- Community meeting with Field Representative of the
- Social Security Administration
- Other
* On a scale of 0 to 5 with 5 being the highest rating, how
would you rate your experience.
* How long did it take for you to receive a satisfactory answer
from the Social Security Administration?
* If you visited the local office in person how long did you
have to wait before you were seen?
* If you telephoned, did you have any problems getting to talk
to someone.
* If you mailed a letter, how long did you wait before you
received an answer?
* Was the information provided to you understandable?
* Would you be willing to utilize a telecomputing network to
contact the Social Security Administration?
* From your experience, how would you suggest the Social
Security Administration improve their service to you?
[End of information from Youngstown Freenet]
As of tonight (January 10, 1993) there were no messages yet in any of
the four forums, so I assume this is brand new. Remember, if you want
to send comments on any of these issues, you need to log onto one of
the five Freenet systems listed above. If you cannot do that for some
reason, I suggest contacting one of the two NPTN people mentioned (Tom
Grundner at: tmg@nptn.org or William Beasley at: wab@nptn.org) and
asking for advice. Whatever you do, don't send your comments to me,
because they will go nowhere from here!
------------------------------
From: James Love <love@essential.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 00:16:12 EST
Subject: TAP Appeal On Juris FOIA
Taxapayer Assets Project
Crown Jeweles Campaign - JURIS
January 11, 1993
The following is the text of the TAP administrative appeal on
our FOIA request for elements of the JURIS database. On a related front,
West Publishing has told DOJ (in a letter dated January 7) that West is
willing to have DOJ retain a copy of the data it provided for JURIS until
the Tax Analysts FOIA case is resolved.
----------------
December 28, 1993
Mr. Richard L. Huff
Mr. Daniel J. Metcalfe
Office of Information and Privacy
United States Department of Justice
10th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Room 7238
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Freedom of Information Act Appeal
Dear Mr. Huff and Mr. Metcalfe:
This letter is an appeal of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
denial of my October 12, 1993 FOIA request for certain materials
stored in the JURIS database, dated December 2, 1993, in a letter
signed by Stephen Colgate.
The denial of my FOIA request was based upon three factors.
First, Mr. Colgate asserted that the records that I requested
were not agency records because they were not under the legal
control of the Department. Second, Mr. Colgate asserted that the
records were not agency records because they were "library
materials." Third, Mr.Colgate asserted that the records were
exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption 4. I will respond to
each of these points.
1. The records are under the legal control of DOJ.
According to the DOJ/WEST contract that was provided to us under
an earlier FOIA request, DOJ has the rights to provide JURIS
records under FOIA, so long as DOJ includes a statement which
indicates that West may claim a copyright of the data. More
generally, however, we argue that DOJ cannot "contract away" the
public's rights under FOIA. We have requested copies of the text
of judicial opinions. Judicial opinions have been collected and
stored in JURIS since 1971, years before West ever became a
subcontractor on JURIS. The information is used by DOJ to carry
out its official duties, and is not subject to copyright, - not
by West, not by DOJ, not by anyone. Regardless of promises that
DOJ asserts that it has made West, it cannot abrogate the
public's rights under FOIA. The consequences of DOJ's assertion
that it can contract away the public's rights under FOIA is
startlingly broad. Suppose, for example, that Oliver North had
given General Secord the "commercial rights" to the Iran/Contra
computer records. Would these records have then been off limits
to FOIA? As federal agencies increasingly use private
contractors to gather and store data, it is extremely important
to establish that FOIA gives the public unconditional rights to
receive agency records, regardless of how the data is obtained.
This is particularly true here, where the records themselves are
clearly public documents -- the text of federal judicial
opinions.
For most of these records, there is no other government source of
the data in electronic formats. The federal courts that do
disseminate judicial opinions electronically due not provide
access to historical records. Most courts only provide access to
records for one year or less, and electronic dissemination
programs are relatively new, given the body of historical
records. Moreover, in jurisdictions where West Publishing is the
"official" reporter of published opinions, it is often impossible
to obtain versions of the corrected versions of the opinions
directly from the Courts themselves. Thus, JURIS represents the
only government source of the corrected copies of many federal
judicial opinions, and to deny access to JURIS is to deny the
public access to public documents which are fundamental to a
democracy.
2. The Records are not library materials.
It is ludicrous for DOJ to assert that the JURIS records are
"library materials." I have requested the JURIS records which
are the text of federal judicial opinions. There are no
libraries which we have access to which have this database
available to the general public in electronic formats. While it
is true that West Publishing and Mead Data Central sell access to
these materials, and often have vendor relationships with
libraries, the commercial sales of these public records does not
satisfy the public's right and need to obtain access to this
important government information which is the law of the land.
3. The JURIS judicial opinions do not qualify for exemption 4.
DOJ asserts that if it provided public access to JURIS under FOIA
it could not obtain the records from contractors. In fact, DOJ
obtained the same records itself before it entered into a
relationship with West Publishing. Moreover, DOJ was recently
provided at least one unsolicited proposal by a contractor who
offered to provide DOJ with free and clear title to the
electronic versions of federal judicial opinions. The source of
these records isn't West, but the federal judiciary, a public
agency that is funded by the taxpayers. DOJ cannot argue that
public access to judicial opinions will deprive the government
access to these public records. DOJ is only arguing that it
should be allowed to "barter" the public's right to know against
the price it pays for data processing services. We do not
believe the agency has the legal right to trade our rights under
FOIA for lower cost data processing services, any more than DOJ
would have the right to sell the public's civil or criminal
rights to the highest bidders.
DOJ says that release of the records would cause West competitive
harm, but that alone does not justify withholding the records.
Exemption 4 is designed to limit the release of proprietary
company data. The records in JURIS are available to 15,000
federal employees, published widely by West and LEXIS, and are
public records in federal court houses. West may indeed benefit
from a lack of ready public access to these public records, but
that does not justify a denial of public access under FOIA. West
does not "own" the words written by federal judges in deciding
the public's business in the federal courthouses. West has no
legal monopoly on the law of the land, and West has no right to
be shielded from competition from companies who seek to broaden
public access to the these most public of public documents.
Thank you very much for considering this appeal of the DOJ denial
of our FOIA request.
Sincerely,
James Love
Taxpayer Assets Project
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer
Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the
management of government property, including information systems and
data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government
assets. TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal
information policy. tap-info is archived at ftp.cpsr.org;
gopher.cpsr.org and wais.cpsr.org
Subscription requests to tap-info to listserver@essential.org with
the message: subscribe tap-info your name
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: tap@essential.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Bayardo Alvarez" <balvarez@mason1.gmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 19:28:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: What happened to VA driver's license changes?
Michael T. Palmer <palmer@chmsr.isye.gatech.edu> writes:
> Whatever happened to the effort to change VA driver's licenses to
remove the SSN as the DL number? I believe it was almost two years ago
that initial hearings were held.
> What is going on? What committees are involved? Who should I send
letters to? Are any *bills* out there to make this change into law?
> Thanks for any info you can provide.
> From: Christian ALT
> SOME information can be legally obtained on most people, thru the
"Freedom of Information Act" - like address, phone number. Alot of
other more personal information can be obtained semi-legally or
illegally, through snooping or by hiring a private investigator.
I live in Virginia and recently had my license renewed. Not only is
the SSN still the DL number, but know it has a magnetic strip. I
didn't have a chance to ask the attendant what is stored in that
strip. Does someone have any information?
|| Bayardo Alvarez George Mason University ||
|| balvarez@gmu.edu Telecommunications Program ||
------------------------------
From: sulak@blkbox.COM (John M. Sulak)
Date: 12 Jan 1994 03:56:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Driver Protection Act
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969
"Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> writes:
> "(a) IN GENERAL.-It shall be unlawful for any person or other entity
to disclose personal information derived from an individu- al's motor
vehicle records to any other person or entity, other than to the
individual, except as permitted under this chapter.
> "(b) EXCEPTIONS.-Personal information referred to in subsection (a)
of this section may be disclosed for any of the following uses:
> "(1) For use by any Federal or State court in carrying out its
functions.
> "(2) For use by any Federal or State agency in carrying out its
functions.
Basically, anyone with a government badge (30-40% of employed people in
the USA) can get the information by simply requesting it, and the
people who the government required to provide the data for the
'privledge' of being a functioning member of society will not have an
opportunity to consent, or even be informed that the request took
place. Good law! :-(
------------------------------
From: sulak@blkbox.COM (John M. Sulak)
Subject: Re: Driver Protection Act
Date: 12 Jan 1994 03:59:05 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969
Sean Donelan <SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM> writes:
>Why does a state sell copies of driver records?
> - The information is given voluntarily with no reasonable
expectation of confidentiality.
Really? Voluntary? How do you get a job otherwise?
------------------------------
From: sulak@blkbox.COM (John M. Sulak)
Subject: Re: Maryland to introduce high-tech drivers' license
Date: 12 Jan 1994 04:03:14 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969
tale@ten.uu.net (David C Lawrence) writes:
>I hope they do it a little better than Virginia. VDOT still succeeded
in wasting an hour of my day for taking another picture and getting
another signature when I went for a replacement license after my wallet
had been stolen. I thought it quite odd that they didn't simply print
a new license since they had everything they needed digitized and
supposedly floating around in their system. I still had to have a new
photograph and give a new signature sample.
Can't wait till the governemt prohibits private health care: I really love
the way they run the post office lines at lunch hour and the driver's license
people work longer hours than my 24 hour local supermarket! :-)
------------------------------
From: sulak@blkbox.COM (John M. Sulak)
Subject: Re: Phone company selling forwarding addresses
Date: 12 Jan 1994 04:17:13 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969
rmg3@access.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>Ditto for the Bell company in central Pennsylvania. I didn't have an
identifiable name error/combination, though, to tip me off. The mail
came to Mr. Phone Hooked Up.
What a sexist phone company!!! :-)
------------------------------
From: Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG@UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 23:26:52 PST
Subject: Re: Ask Rat Dog
Prof. L. P. Levine <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> writes:
>My local newspaper, The Milwaukee Journal, carries a syndicated
.... much deleted ...
>if your local paper carries the feature, you read it. Its level
>is good, she discusses her technique, and lets me see the holes
>in the system.
On top of everything else, Rat Dog is also extremely good looking.
I would find it hard to keep a secret from her if she were intent
on wheedling it out of me. Dave
Dave Gomberg, role model for those who don't ask much in their fantasy lives.
Ask me about WestCoast LIVE! <<<--------
GOMBERG@UCSFVM Internet node UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU fax-> (415)731-7797
------------------------------
From: VSLARRY@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Larry Israel)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 20:55:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Privacy with Credit Card Transactions
Organization: Weizmann Institute of Science
I have also noticed that merchants often ask for a phone number on a
credit card transaction (in my case, a local card) in Israel. Depending
on my mood I give my number, refuse, give a fake number, or give an
obviously fake number. The transaction has never been held up because of
choices 2 or 4.
I once asked a cashier why it is done. She said that it is not really a
requirement, but that if there is some problem such as the slip not being
properly signed, or, as once happened, a customer forgetting the card at
the cashier, it is much easier to clear up than going through the company.
I don't know if she was telling the truth or maybe she did not know why
either. Maybe it's because they think that someone working with a stolen
card would be dumb enough to give his real phone number.
------------------------------
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:28 EST
Subject: Re: Autoland Credit Scam
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring MD USA
In a message from "Jeremy Epstein -C2 PROJECT"
<jepstein@cordant.com>, he writes:
> I discovered something was wrong when I received a letter from
Fifth Third Bank (that's the real name) informing me that they had
rejected my credit card application. After checking with MasterCard
that that is a real bank (I thought it was a prank),
I once received an application for a credit card from "The Bank of New
York". Their application is sent to their headquarters, which, as you
would expect, is in Newark, Delaware. In fine print, it says "The Bank
of New York (Delaware), Inc."
------------------------------
From: news@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 04:18:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Autoland Credit Scam
Organization: NCR, an AT&T Company, Pleasanton CA
In article <comp-privacy4.15.3@cs.uwm.edu>
jepstein@cordant.com (Jeremy Epstein -C2 PROJECT) writes:
> Amusing note: the bad guy isn't too smarrt. Instead of a PO box, he
listed a street address including an apartment number. Of course I
have no idea if that building actually exists.
More to the point, are you sure it isn't the street address of the
local mail-box company? Most of them are perfectly happy to take mail
with addresses like
123 Main St. #432
and the post office will deliver them.
# Bill Stewart NCR Corp, 6870 Koll Center Pkwy, Pleasanton CA 94566
# Email: bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com billstewart@attmail.com
# Phone: 1-510-484-6204 Beeper: 1-510-224-7043
# If people were required to *know* all the laws, and not just to obey them,
# the government would be overthrown tomorrow! (From a button by Nancy Lebovitz)
------------------------------
From: sulak@blkbox.COM (John M. Sulak)
Subject: Re: SSN reqd by public schools; DL reqd with credit card
Date: 12 Jan 1994 04:24:19 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969
wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) writes:
>Note: A "badge of criminality" is an act, that is legal in itself, but
that is considered by the legal system so illogical that only a
criminal would do it, and if you do, you've demonstrated criminal
intent, and are guilty until proven innocent. An example is opening a
safe-deposit box under another name.
Another is carrying a lot of cash. Local police will confiscate it from
you because you could only be doing it in order to buy [or because you
have just sold] illegal drugs. You must hire a lawyer, initiate a lawsuit,
and pay 10% of what was confiscated as court costs in order to g=have your
chance to prove that your money was not guilty of a drug transaction. Any
mathmatecian knows how easy it is to prove a negative. If you lived in
central Europe half a century ago, could you prove that you were not
part Jewish?
------------------------------
From: news@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 04:23:09 GMT
Subject: Re: SSN reqd by public schools; DL reqd with credit card
Organization: NCR, an AT&T Company, Pleasanton CA
wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) writes:
>The local Service Merchandise requires the driver's licence for some
people paying by credit card, like those who refuse to give an address.
Apparently, Visa allows them to ask for other id when the credit card
isn't signed on the back.
# Bill Stewart NCR Corp, 6870 Koll Center Pkwy, Pleasanton CA 94566
# Email: bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com billstewart@attmail.com
# Phone: 1-510-484-6204 Beeper: 1-510-224-7043
# If people were required to *know* all the laws, and not just to obey them,
# the government would be overthrown tomorrow! (From a button by Nancy Lebovitz)
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #017
******************************
.