Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 21 Sep 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 036
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Source for E-mail Policy Tool Kit
Reason 19: Abuse
RC4 posted in Cypherpunks
Patient Privacy at Risk
Reason 21: Data Surveillance
US Govt Email Addresses
Reaching Congress
Re: FBI Wiretap Bill
Re: Internet Spies
Re: West Publishing - Permanent Injunction Regarding Legal Text
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Housekeeping information is located at the end of this Digest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: CLAY@mail.sdsu.edu (Robert D. Clay)
Date: 19 Sep 1994 11:54:49
Subject: Source for E-mail Policy Tool Kit
Organization: San Diego State University, Network Services
Does anyone have a source for the following:
Johnson, David R., and John Podesta. Access to and Use and Disclosure
of Electronic Mail on Company Computer Systems: A Tool Kit for
Formulating Your Company's Policy. Arlington, Va.: Electronic Mail
Association, 1991.
Please let me know.
--
Bob Clay CLAY@mail.sdsu.edu
------------------------------
From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@washofc.epic.org>
Date: 19 Sep 1994 17:06:23 EST
Subject: Reason 19: Abuse
Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center
100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill
Reason 19: Even with strong statutory safeguards in place, flagrant
abuse of wiretap authority still occurs.
In a case earlier this year a federal judge threw out all evidence
obtained from FBI wiretaps in what was described as the most expensive
white-collar investigation in Kansas City history. The 96-page report
of the reviewing magistrate concluded that the FBI's affidavit
"presented a disturbing pattern of material misstatements,
overstatements and ommissions designed to mislead the issuing district
court." The Kansas City Start described the outcome as a "stunning
repudiation of FBI tactics." (2/9/94)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What To Do: Fax Rep. Jack Brooks (202-225-1584).
Express your concerns about the FBI Wiretap proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 Reasons is a project of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) in Washington, DC. For more information: 100.Reasons@epic.org.
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: olcay@libtech.com (olcay cirit)
Date: 19 Sep 94 15:31:38 PDT
Subject: RC4 posted in Cypherpunks
Is it true that the RC4 formula was posted in the Cypherpunks list?
--
(| Olcay Cirit |) "Note that I have taken special measures to
|) ----------------- (| restrain the computer to the desk in the
(| olcay@libtech.com |) case that it may explode" - Olo
------------------------------
From: David Banisar <cpsr@access.digex.net>
Date: 20 Sep 1994 09:30:07 -0500
Subject: Patient Privacy at Risk
Fwd from the Coalition for Patient Rights (CPRMA@aol.com)
Alert
Patient Privacy at Risk
Contact the ACLU
The ACLU appears on a list of endorsers of the Wofford/Dodd amendment
which amends one of the Senate health care reform bills. Major
portions of W/D would have a severely adverse impact on the
confidentiality of medical records. Although W/D has been rendered
partly obsolete as newer health care reform bills are advanced under
new names and new coalitions, many of its principal features remain
intact in the new bills. It has become a reference point. It is for
this reason that the signature of the ACLU on a list of endorsers of
W/D (on a document entitled "Wofford/Dodd Fact Sheet") is so troubling
and so damaging.
The amendment creates federal standards for the disclosure of
personally identifiable health care information and establishes a
framework for a national health care data network. On the surface, the
goals seem good. Who wouldn't be for establishing strict federal
guidelines to ensure privacy where none existed before? For that
matter, why not support a data network that would allow a treating
physician to have immediate access to all pertinent medical
information?
Clearly we have to look beyond the advertisement and into the details
of the bills for the answers to these questions. For example, in Sec.
508(a) of Mitchell 3 (the bill offered by the Senate majority leader),
the "health information network service" is made the agent of the
provider. This means that once a third party bureaucratic agency
receives the information electronically, it is deemed the same as the
health care provider in making decisions about the release of the
information. Sensitive medical information, including intimate
psychological information, would be available electronically to an
increasing number of people legally--not to mention the well-documented
risks of illegal access. Among those with enhanced access would be law
enforcement officials and government agencies. Even researchers could
access personally identifiable health information, if an institutional
review board holds that the project is "of sufficient importance to
outweigh the intrusion into the privacy of the person who is the
subject of the information." The patient has no right to refuse such
disclosure even though it includes his or her name.
There are many examples of person-identified medical information,
including sensitive personal information, that have been shared with
health care providers with the expectation of privacy that would now be
legally accessible to many third parties. The argument is made that
this kind of access already exists, so why not codify it. The logic is
faulty. It is true we already have serious problems protecting the
privacy of medical records in this country. Legally sanctioning
medical access to an ever enlarging list of third parties is not the
solution. It will only compound an already serious problem.
A compelling argument has been made that the establishment of a
national health care data network that requires all providers to
disclose information about every patient contact would violate the
Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and
seizures" of the person. Many organizations have raised serious
concerns about Wofford/Dodd, including the American Psychiatric
Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, Coalition for
Patient Rights, National Organization of Women, and the AIDS Action
Council.
We hope that the ACLU joins us in support of genuine privacy
legislation. We hope that there was an error when it appeared on a
short list of supporters of Wofford/Dodd (June 10, 1994)
Call your state chapter of the ACLU. It is listed as Civil Liberties
Union of (your state) in the white pages. Let them know of your
concern.If possible, also fax Laura Murphy Lee at the ACLU in
Washington (202-546-0738) and let her know your concern regarding the
position of the ACLU in supporting W/D.
This alert is provided by the Coalition for Patient Rights,
Massachusetts (617, 433-0114).
------------------------------
From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@washofc.epic.org>
Date: 19 Sep 1994 17:06:23 EST
Subject: Reason 21: Data Surveillance
Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center
100 Reasons to Oppose the FBI Wiretap Bill
Reason 21: The wiretap bill mandates new technologies for data
surveillance
The wiretap bill says that "a telecommunications carrier shall ensure
that it can enable government access to call-identifying
information." This is the first time the U.S. government has required
by law that communications networks be designed to facilitate
electronic data surveillance. Telecommunications firms, equipment
manufacturers, and those who work in the hi-tech industry face a legal
obligation to design networks for electronic monitoring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What To Do: Fax Rep. Jack Brooks (202-225-1584).
Express your concerns about the FBI Wiretap proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 Reasons is a project of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) in Washington, DC. For more information: 100.Reasons@epic.org.
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 20 Sep 1994 12:26:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: US Govt Email Addresses
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
This information has been taken from the Computer Underground Digest
Sun Sep 17, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 82 ISSN 1004-042X
From: Grace.York@UM.CC.UMICH.EDU
Date: 15 Sep 94 14:56 CDT
Subject: Congressional E-Mail Addresses
CONGRESSIONAL E-MAIL ADDRESSES
United States Senate
+------------------------------------------------------------
ST Name E-Mail Address
+------------------------------------------------------------
ID Craig, Larry larry_craig@craig.senate.gov.
MA Kennedy, Ted senate@kennedy.senate.gov
NM Bingaman, Jeff Senator_Bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
VA Robb, Charles senator_robb@robb.senate.gov
VT Leahy, Patrick senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
VT Jeffords, Jim vermont@jeffords.senate.gov
+-------------------------------------------------------------
United States House of Representatives
+--------------------------------------------------------------
ST DS Name E-Mail Address
+--------------------------------------------------------------
AR 4 Dickey, Jay JDICKEY@HR.HOUSE.GOV
AZ 1 Coppersmith, Sam SAMAZ01@HR.HOUSE.GOV
AZ 2 Pastor, Ed EDPASTOR@HR.HOUSE.GOV
CA 1 Hamburg, Don HAMBURG@HR.HOUSE.GOV
CA 7 Miller, George FGEORGEM@HR.HOUSE.GOV
CA 12 Lantos, Tom TALK2TOM@HR.HOUSE.GOV
CA 13 Stark, Pete PETEMAIL@HR.HOUSE.GOV
CA 14 Eshoo, Anna ANNAGRAM@HR.HOUSE.GOV
CO 2 Skaggs, David SKAGGS@HR.HOUSE.GOV
CT 2 Gejdenson, Sam BOZRAH@HR.HOUSE.GOV
CT 4 Shays, Christopher CSHAYS@HRA.HOUSE.GOV
FL 6 Stearns, Cliff CSTEARNS@HR.HOUSE.GOV
FL 20 Deutsch, Peter PDEUTSCH@HR.HOUSE.GOV
GA 6 Gingrich, Newton GEORGIA6@HR.HOUSE.GOV
IL 14 Hastert, Dennis DHASTERT@HR.HOUSE.GOV
KA 1 Roberts, Pat EMAILPAST@HR.HOUSE.GOV
ME 1 Andrews, Thomas TANDREWS@HR.HOUSE.GOV
MI 3 Ehlers, Vernon CONGEHLR@HR.HOUSE.GOV
MI 4 Camp, Dave DAVECAMP@HR.HOUSE.GOV
MI 14 Conyers, John JCONYERS@HR.HOUSE.GOV
MN 3 Ramstad, Jim MN03@HR.HOUSE.GOV
MN 6 Grams, Rod RODGRAMS@HR.HOUSE.GOV
NC 7 Rose, Charlie CROSE@HR.HOUSE.GOV
NC 11 Taylor, Charles CHTAYLOR@HR.HOUSE.GOV
NC 12 Watt, Mel MELMAIL@HR.HOUSE.GOV
ND Pomeroy, Earl EPOMEROY@HR.HOUSE.GOV
NJ 12 Zimmer, Dick DZIMMER@ZHR.HOUSE.GOV
NY 7 Manton, Thomas TMANTON@HR.HOUSE.GOV
NY 23 Boehlert, Sherwood BOEHLERT@HR.HOUSE.GOV
NY 27 Paxon, Bill BPAXON@HR.HOUSE.GOV
OH 2 Hoke, Martin HOKEMAIL@HR.HOUSE.GOV
OK 5 Istook, Jr. Ernest ISTOOK@HR.HOUSE.GOV
OR 1 Furse, Elizabeth FURSEOR1@HR.HOUSE.GOV
OR 4 DeFazio, Pete PDEFAZIO@HR.HOUSE.GOV
PA 16 Walker, Robert PA16@HR.HOUSE.GOV
TX 3 Johnson, Sam SAMTX03@HR.HOUSE.GOV
TX 6 Barton, Joe BARTON06@HR.HOUSE.GOV
UT 2 Shepherd, Karen SHEPHERD@HR.HOUSE.GOV
VA 6 Goodlatte, Bob TALK2BOB@HR.HOUSE.GOV
VT Sanders, Bernie BSANDERS@IGC,APC.ORG
WA 1 Cantwell, Maria CANTWELL@HR.HOUSE.GOV
WA 9 Kreidler, Mike KREIDLER@HR.HOUSE.GOV
U.S. House of Representatives Committees
Education and Labor
Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations
SLABMGNT@HR.HOUSE.GOV
Natural Resources
NATRES@HR.HOUSE.GOV
Science, Space, and Technology
HOUSESST@HR.HOUSE.GOV
The above information was compiled from the Senate and House Gophers.
Corrections/additions to grace.york@um.cc.umich.edu
------------------------------
From: "L. Jean Camp" <lc2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 19 Sep 1994 15:16:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Reaching Congress
To call any member of Congress, call 1-800-768-2221. This will connect
you to the switchboard.
------------------------------
From: shabbir@panix.com (Shabbir J. Safdar)
Date: 20 Sep 1994 00:24:59 -0400
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill
Organization: Panix Public Access (the best!) email info@panix.com
Mark E Anderson writes: My take on this situation is pretty
onerous. If there aren't any dissenting opinions on the
sub-committee, can there be many votes against in the general House
on a subject as complicated as this? Can public support be
enmassed to block these bills when it's extremely difficult to
explain to the average Joe as to their implications?
I disagree strongly here. I work with a wide range of people, from
very technical Unix heads to people who are scared when the screen
changes colors, or their fonts are noticably altered. When you say to
them that the contentious part about the FBI's Wiretap bill is, in a
nutshell, a law that orders every major communications device to have a
wiretap built into it, I tend to get more disbelief than lack of
understanding.
Most people seem to find it harder to believe than have trouble
grasping the concept.
I think the reason we don't see a lot of opposition on the committee is
because of the lack of non-net folks informed about this issue.
You can help change that. Educate your friends; use your fax machine.
You can get materials for "spreading the word" from VTW's gopher at
gopher.panix.com (look under VTW and Digital Telephony for the FAQ).
I believe this really is an effort we must undertake. As technical
professionals, we have a duty to alert and inform the rest of the
nation and de-mystify this issue.
--
Shabbir
------------------------------
From: josephl@clark.net (Joseph A. Liu)
Date: 20 Sep 1994 05:48:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Internet Spies
Organization: Die! Laura Kissel Die!
Laura Kissel (Kissell@gacsrv.gactr.uga.edu) wrote:
: Have you noticed the people on the NET from SEARCHNET? I would be very
: careful about what I said with these people around.
Very funny....
------------------------------
From: junger@pdj2-slip.dialin.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger)
Date: 20 Sep 1994 13:46:34 GMT
Subject: Re: West Publishing - Permanent Injunction Regarding Legal Text
Organization: The residence of Peter D. Junger
Robert Cray (robert@unlv.edu) wrote: Prof. L. P. Levine
(levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu) wrote: According to the atty, OPS had
obtained copies of West publications then tore the pages from the
spine then scanned in the printed matter. OPS, apparently, deleted
any material copyrighted by West then made the CD-ROM's from what
was probably public domain material.
Can anyone tell me the name of the case, case number, court it is
in, name of defense lawyers or any other information? I am
currently involved in trying to get the Nevada Revised Statutes
released so they can be made available to the Internet.
At my request our law library asked West for a copy of the opinion.
And we recieved a Xerox copy of ``Joint Motion for Entry of Permanent
Injunction and Final Judgment" from West's attorneys: Schatz Paquin
Lockridge Grindal & Holstein in Minneapolis. It appears that this
motion was entered as a judgment. It is never going to be reported
anywhere; it is not an opinion.
I am having my secretary prepare a LaTeX version of this motion. Which
should be available by tomorrow. (My secretary is out today.) At that
point I will explain how to get it by anonymous FTP--but I assure you
that it is not very interesting and not a precedent for anything.
My situation is a little different than that of OPS since I am
doing this in cooperation with the state attorney generals office
and with the state agency who publishes the statutes, and I am not
at all interested in violating anyone's copyright including
West's. None the less the attorneys involved would like to take a
look at this case before we proceed with any action. Thanks in
advance.
--
Peter D. Junger -- Case Western Reserve Univ. Law School
Home: junger@pdj2-slip.dialin.cwru.edu (preferred)
Office: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
------------------------------
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of
technology on privacy or vice versa. 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".
People with gopher capability can access the library at
gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133].
End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #036
******************************