Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 13:42:22 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#076
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 08 Jun 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 076
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: California Cordless Phone Penal Code
Re: Crackdown on Italian BBSes Continues
Re: Privacy Through Foreign Investing
Terminology & Foreign Investing
license plates
The Law & Hate Talk
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: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian)
Date: 7 Jun 1994 04:32:14 GMT
Subject: Re: California Cordless Phone Penal Code
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
glr@ripco.com (Glen Roberts) writes: California Penal Code: Section
623.6 Eavesdropping on confidential communication transmitted
between cordless phones; Punishment. (a) Every person who,
maliciously and without the consent of all
^^^^^^^^^^^
So, eavesdropping without evil intent must be OK.
Chris Burian
------------------------------
From: rochus@lebesgue.de (Rochus Wessels)
Date: 7 Jun 1994 08:09:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Crackdown on Italian BBSes Continues
Organization: Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster, Germany
"Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> writes: Giovanni
Pugliese and his wife were charged for the possession of
"illegally copied software and electronic equipment suitable to
falsification."
What is "electronic equipment suitable to falsification" or the
lawyer's definition of this? Any electronic equipment suitable to
alter data?
--
Rochus Wessels |``Whenever you are looking for a helping hand -
rochus@math.uni-muenster.de | you will find it at the end of your right arm.''
------------------------------
From: cntrspy@netcom.com (Executive Protection Assoc)
Date: 7 Jun 1994 20:29:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Privacy Through Foreign Investing
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Vincent.Cate@FURMINT.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU wrote: Privacy and security
are particularly important in banking. Many countries are very
interested in protecting privacy and have laws to do so. For
example, many countries will put a banker in jail if he gives out
information about a client or an account. The United States is not
so interested in privacy, and does not have such laws. In the US,
random people can easily get a copy of your credit history. People
really interested in privacy must use banks in other countries.
Sorry, but in my experience Switzerland is not that great on Banking
Privacy, Especially with the United States. There are much better
options off-shore in other areas. I notice from the book list (and
caution the reader) that some of the information in the listed books is
out of date (and sometimes seriously out of date).
Check with a professional before you move anything around, especially if
you live in the "good old USA" as the rules are a real pain in the rear.
--
Chris Hall
Operations Director
Executive Protection Associates, Inc.
Executive Protection, Privacy Protection Strategies for Fortune 500
Executives and Other Interested parties. Off-shore investment and
Second Passport agents.
------------------------------
From: "Willis H. Ware" <Willis_Ware@rand.org>
Date: 7 Jun 94 14:56:52 PDT
Subject: Terminology & Foreign Investing
I want to point out a semantic problem that arises frequently, and did
in the excellent foreign investment article.
In the so-called "privacy law" of the U.S. and other countries, the
intent of the laws and various administrative bodies that go with the
laws is to control how information about people is used. Such
information need not be confidential [e.g., mailing lists, customer
lists, video rental lists] but may be; privacy law attempts to bound
its use whether the personal information is sensitive or not.
Thus, the term "confidentiality" -- which can connote "secrecy" -- is
not a synonym for "privacy" in precise use, and "security" is yet a 3rd
term different from both. In a sentence:
If the security controls in an information system fail,
confidentiality could be breached and a privacy infraction, occur.
Thus, the author of your excellent discussion really should say that:
Many countries are very interested in protecting confidentiality
(or secrecy) [of bank information] and have laws to do so.
The same problem comes up in well known software products for the
protection of electronic mail. For instance, PGP is commonly called
"Pretty Good Privacy" and PEM, "Privacy Enhanced Mail". Each is a
product to assure confidentiality or secrecy of e-mail and perhaps the
names should be changed to "Pretty Good Protection" and "Protection
Enhanced Mail." The security mechanism to provide the secrecy is
encryption.
While this may seem to be nit picking, the distinction becomes very
important in discussing public policy, especially with legislators who
well understand what privacy law is all about. It is also important in
international discussions because Europe [for instance] is well covered
by privacy law, privacy protection boards, privacy commissioners, etc.
The OECD and the EC have published privacy policy positions. Thus, in
many circumstances, the terminology will have to be carefully
controlled to assure that the dialogue is clear in intent and without
ambiguity.
The distinction will similarly be important in discussions of
healthcare reform in which confidentiality, privacy, and security are
three quite separate issues. For example:
Healthcare information may well be declared confidential by law.
This will mean that it is regarded as sensitive and access to it
and dissemination of it must be controlled.
Healthcare information will be used for many purposes. What the
country will allow usage to be, or will accept usage to be, or law
will establish usage to be, is the privacy aspect of the public
policy issue.
Security -- or security safeguards collectively -- is the technical
and other means to assure that confidentiality is assured, that
access and dissemination is controlled, and hence, that privacy
restrictions on use guaranteed.
Willis H. Ware
RAND Santa Monica, CA
------------------------------
From: Elephants are for hugging <STU_JFSHICKE@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU>
Date: 8 Jun 1994 10:33:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: license plates
dhughes@robins.af.mil (Dolly Hughes) said: I was under the
impression that you couldn't just go to DMV and ask to find a name
and address. It's illegal in several states and it began with
California after the dead of actress Rebecca Schaffer. Her killer
used DMV to locate her home and shot her at her front door.
This is an interesting point. Here in Virginia, you can take any
license plate number to the DMV and obtain the owners's identity,
address, and possibly other info for ~3-5 dollars. This issue came to
the news recently with anti-choice activist using license plates to
identify the patients and staff of abortion clinics. Barbara Boxer
(CA) and John Warner (VA) were considering legislation to prohibit
this, but it is not clear to me that results in this matter were
obtained.
______________________________________________________________________
Jon Shickel |
stu_jfshicke@vax(1).acs.jmu.edu (internet) | "Better Living through
@jmuvax (bitnet) | Chemistry"
__________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: kadie@EFF.ORG(Carl M. Kadie)
Date: 5 Jun 1994 18:51:04 -0400
Subject: The Law & Hate Talk
Joel M Snyder <Joel_M_Snyder@OPUS1.COM> wrote: In any case, the
larger problem with this post is a dive into "amateur lawyer" which
seems to happen so often in USENET news. This paragraph begins with
"TCOE [Tulare County Office of Education] is bound by the First
Amendment" (which we know not to be true),
Of course, it is bound by the First Amendment. In the U.S., *all*
government agents are bound by the First Amendment. It is part of their
charter. The only question is what does this bound entail in this
case?
stomps through a whole series of very complex issues involving use
of public facilities, with a variety of incorrect statements,
ending with "The courts have found that publicly funded
universities could not remove Internet listservs based on objection
the content of those listservs..." (which we know not to be true)
You are correct that (to the best of my knowledge) no such case has
come up yet, but there has been some legal action:
In _UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin_, 774 F.
Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991)], the University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire
disciplined a student under the UW Hate Speech Rule for sending a
message that stated, "Death to all Arabs ! Die Islamic scumbagsl" on a
university computer system to an Iranian faculty member. The federal
district judge said the university acted illegally because the UW Hate
Speech Rule was unconstitutionally vague and broad.
Also, the November 24, 1993 _Chronicle of Higher Education_ reports
that: "A graduate student at the University of Texas at Dallas has
filed a $2-million lawsuit against the university, charging that its
officials violated his First Amendment rights by barring him from the
Internet and the campus computer network."
And then, of course, in noncomputer media, there are many cases on what
is called the Public Forum Doctrine.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information
follows.)
=================<a
href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin">
law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
=================</a>
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- UWM Post v. U Of Wisconsin
The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district
court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected
offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email.
=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/news/dec_19_1993">
news/dec_19_1993
=================</a>
Includes the text of the _Chroncle_ article.
=================<a
href="http://www.eff.org/CAF/faq/media.control.html">
faq/media.control
=================</a>
* University Control of Media
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university (or other government agency) can do anything it wants
with the media that it owns, right?
a: No. Like any organization, the U.S. government must work within its
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and then:
cd /pub/CAF/law
get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
cd /pub/CAF/news
get dec_19_1993
cd /pub/CAF/faq
get media.control
To get the file(s) by email, send 3 email message to
ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com
Include the line(s):
connect ftp.eff.org
cd /pub/CAF/law
get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin
connect ftp.eff.org
cd /pub/CAF/news
get dec_19_1993
connect ftp.eff.org
cd /pub/CAF/faq
get media.control
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=Email: kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
=URL: <http://www.eff.org/CAF/>, <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> =
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #076
******************************
.