Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 15:47:49 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 V6#007
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 20 Jan 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 007
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Opening Mail
Re: Opening Mail
Re: Opening Mail
Privacy... What Privacy?
Re: CallerID Opinion
Re: Signature Digitizers
Re: Corporate e-Mail Privacy Policies
Phone Numbers as IDs <Was: Signature Digitizers>
Clipper Chip Debate - Transcript Status
Re: Inns Law ? (INSLAW)
The Cyber Police Are Coming
Supreme Court Decision on Anonymity
Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: AriadneM@scruznet.com (A. Marina Fournier)
Date: 17 Jan 1995 11:36:45 -0800
Subject: Re: Opening Mail
Organization: The (Re)Sourceress
keywest54@aol.com (KEYWEST54) wrote: The US Post Office is the
worst offender as a junk mail source. The Postal Service sells the
change of address cards submitted to a "clearinghouse". This is
why the junk (et al) seems to follow you everywhere.
According to a letter I received from the Consumer Affairs Dept. of the
USPS, they don't have any control over their change of address
listings. I'd like to know why they gave up that perogative. I spend
an hour most weeks deleting myself from mailings to me and former
tenants of my box & residence.
I got myself off the supermarket & other ciruclars by mailing a
do-not-send notice to the address on the card that mandatorily
accompanies the wad. My mail carrier knows that I don't get the stuff,
also.
--
"Islay...and it's good-bye to care"
------------------------------
From: AriadneM@scruznet.com (A. Marina Fournier)
Date: 17 Jan 1995 11:41:29 -0800
Subject: Re: Opening Mail
Organization: The (Re)Sourceress
travis@netrix.com (Travis Low) wrote: Go to the post office which
handles your mail and inform them that you are being harassed by a
XXX at xxxxx address and you wish this to stop immediately. If I
remember correctly, postal inspectors then notify the company that
the mailings to you must stop or they will face stiff fines and
federal prosecution. However, you must first have followed steps
such as printing "REFUSED" clearly on the front of the mailings and
having it returned to sender at least once
I have had more problems with AT&T ignoring the "do not send/refused"
bit than any other ten firms combined. On the second "don-not-send"
letter, I cc my PO and the offender's PO.
Marina the easily irritated by AT&T commercials.
--
"Islay...and it's good-bye to care"
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com>
Date: 19 Jan 1995 20:30:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Opening Mail
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
"David C. Frier" <duvie@digex.com>, writes: The post office gets a
government-granted monopoly on mail service, which may be even
better than a $$ subsidy, eh? They can make you put 32 cents
postage on that FedEx letter, too. Also, the analyses I've seen
indicate that first-class mail costs MUCH less than 32 cents a
piece to process, and it subsidizes your 6" a day of junk mail.
It's strictly a matter of who has the better lobbyists, eh?
Every local public utility has a monopoly on the delivery of their
service, e.g. for telephone, gas, electric, water, sewer and (until
recent changes) cable television. They don't get federal subsidies and
I'm certain their costs are less than they charge us.
Mail service had better cost much less than 32 cents a piece or we're
in a lot of trouble. Typically, the post office raises rates every
three years, in which it makes money the first year, breaks even the
second and loses money the third.
The post office has had the unfortunate habit of not taking into
account the effect of a raise on common customers and listening to the
volume users who complain the loudest. The old postage stamp should
have been set at 30c, not 29; it made it too much trouble. Likewise
the rate for new stamps should have been 35c instead of 32c.
It would have caused a lot less trouble for the vast majority people if
they knew that every three years or every 5 the rate would go up by
5c. The high volume bulk mailers can ask for - and receive - a
discount for doing a lot of the work for the post office such as CART
SORT, sorting to 3, 5 and 9 digits and pre-traying the mail. But let's
not make things difficult for average users just to shave three cents
off the cost of a letter and then come back and raise the rates again
in two years.
To tie this into privacy, perhaps if the USPS got more money for
mailing letters, maybe it could forego the revenue of selling address
information. :)
------------------------------
From: bmallard@leif.ucs.mun.ca (BRIAN J. MALLARD)
Date: 17 Jan 95 16:15:06 -0230
Subject: Privacy... What Privacy?
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
What privacy? Ever since I've been surfing the Net, I've been
receiving solicitations from book publishers to enrol in book clubs
geared toward the Internet. Coincidence or what?
"The fantastic advances in the field of electronic communication
constitute a greater danger to the privacy of the individual"
Earl Warren
------------------------------
From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning)
Date: 18 Jan 1995 06:28:18 GMT
Subject: Re: CallerID Opinion
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Doug Sewell (doug@cc.ysu.edu) writes: The next best thing,
currently available, is a CNID box from Sears (I don't remember who
actually makes it). It has a button on the front, that when
activated, answers all blocked calls with a voice message like
"We're sorry, this phone line does not accept calls that block
Caller ID". The phone still rings once, but it dies after that.
So what does this wonder device do for someone who gets defacto per
line blocking by virue of the fact that their line is on an old
technology switch where the telco can't let any subscribers turn "smart
phone" features on and off, eg. you have Call Waiting and ask the telco
how to turn it off during modem sessions, only to be told that you
can't.
A co-worker tells me that her mother bought a caller ID box for call
screening and finds it useless because her daughter always shows as
"unknown number" rather than "private". With the way that BC Tel is
whining about loosing long distance revenue and not making money on
local service it will be a while before these switches get replaced.
BC Tel provides other ways of getting around "private" blockers, such
as "alternate number display". From the directory "When a caller
attempts to return a call to your alternate number they will reach a
recorded message stating 'The party you are attempting to reach does
not accept calls on this number.'"
The directory also states that "Per Call Blocking may not suppress
number delivery to some U.S. and overseas destinations."
I think that individuals and businesses who have paid good money for
caller ID without knowing these little bits of information probably
have as much reason to feel ripped off at Telcos as non-published
subscribers do. This technology was introduced to make money for Telcos
by (sometimes) revealing the callers number.
It is so unreliable in doing so that I really wonder why they don't run
afoul of marketing practices laws.
------------------------------
From: Dean Ridgway <ridgwad@CSOS.ORST.EDU>
Date: 19 Jan 1995 02:28:25 -0800
Subject: Re: Signature Digitizers
"Vinod Narayanan" <vinod@watson.ibm.com> writes: Service
Merchandise seems to have adopted a similar policy, when I last
shopped there couple of months back. When I refused to sign on the
digitizer, the clerk called the manager, who tried to tell me that
the "signature does not go to the computer". After a few minutes of
#satire mode on
Yeah, right, tell me a story guys. >:-P
#satire mode off
I remember a few months ago when this discussion was about the UPS
digi-pads.
I recently read a full page ad on the inside back cover of "January 9
Newsweek" where you can now call UPS about a package and they will FAX
you back a receipt document "signed" by the digitized signature off the
pad.
I wonder how long it will be before a black market in digitized
signatures starts up by some disgruntled or dishonest employee that has
access to the database. The next time someone wants my signature on a
digitizer pad I think I'll just sign with "X".
--
Dean Ridgway | Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
InterNet ridgwad@csos.orst.edu | I took the one less traveled by,
FidoNet 1:357/1.103 | And that has made all the difference.
CIS 73225,512 | "The Road Not Taken" - Robert Frost.
PGP mail encouraged, finger for key: 28C577F3 2A5655AFD792B0FB 9BA31E6AB4683126
------------------------------
From: paul.hedges@mail.admin.wisc.edu (Paul E. Hedges)
Date: 20 Jan 1995 03:11:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Corporate e-Mail Privacy Policies
Organization: State Historical Society of Wisconsin
bthayer@cs.ida.org says... I would like to see if there is a
consensus on e-mail being treated as phone conversations are, ie,
private unless specific legal reasons exist for tapping them.
Several years ago the Wisconsin Attorney General presented an opinion
that the current wiretapping laws in Wisconsin DID NOT apply to
e-mail. This prompted some legislation that attempted to better define
e-mail and require state agencies (not private sector) to develop
internal policies on access. The legislation was vetoed by the
Governor and not overturned.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Paul Hedges
Electronic Records Archivist
Pilot Electronic Records Project
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
paul.hedges@mail.admin.wisc.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: mr@world.std.com (Michael J Rollins)
Date: 20 Jan 1995 11:17:54 GMT
Subject: Phone Numbers as IDs <Was: Signature Digitizers>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Paul Robinson (paul@tdr.com) wrote: Or, more likely, which is
becoming common for automated ordering of Pay Per View, is to
assign an event a telephone number (an 800 number is used where
Caller-ID isn't available) and when you call that number, your
phone number is cross referenced against your account to know who
is to be enabled for the service.
Has any one else noticed the new trend of businesses answering their
phones with an immediate request for a phone number. This first
happened to me when I called several months ago to inquire about maybe
getting an account at AOL. Since then, it has also happened when I
called a few other companies. Most recently, it happened last week
when I called the customer service number at AT&T. It appears that
this is in fact being done as a sort of password situation, since all
of the numbers where this has so far happened are of the eight hundred
variety.
Using phone numbers is simple enough and should be non-intrusive,
since if there is a problem they can't handle right away, they
would need to call you back anyway.
With all due respects, I am a name not a number! Beyond that, maybe
there are a few situations where I honestly do not want to end up on
what I see as being the wrong mailing list, or even the wrong
telemarketer's calling list. What happens if I do not want anyone to
call me back?
--
Mike Rollins
mjr@ids.net
mr@world.std.com
Speaking only for myself.
------------------------------
From: dilute@panix.com (Ron Abramson)
Date: 20 Jan 1995 18:21:40 GMT
Subject: Clipper Chip Debate - Transcript Status
Organization: Panix Public Access UNIX and Internet
Since last evening's program on the Clipper Chip, we have received
numerous requests for transcripts.
Here is the status:
The program was taped. The Association needs to check the quality of
the tapes and to make copies. This will not be completed until early
next week. If all is well, we will then begin working on preparing
transcripts. This will be a lot of work, and we will try to do it as
quickly as possible. I would hope to have the job done by the end of
next week.
Thanks again to everyone who participated and attended.
Ron Abramson
Chair, Committee on Computer Law
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York
e-mail: dilute@panix.com
------------------------------
From: rwmcn@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rosemary W McNaughton)
Date: 17 Jan 1995 22:26:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Inns Law ? (INSLAW)
Organization: Masochists Institute of Technology
SDBM18A@prodigy.com (Charlie Allen) writes: I cought the end of an
NPR story on Inns Law. (sp?) I thought this would be the place to
find out about it. The story was a little shocking to say the
least.Had Big-Bro stamped on it.
Charlie--
I don't know what you can access from Prodigy, but EFF, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation is generally a good place to start looking for
information about computer crime and other civil rights and legal
issues in cyberspace. The URL I have for INSLAW material is
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legal/cases/INSLAW I believe the same
documents are available by ftp at ftp.eff.org.
--
Rose
@}>-^->-->---
------------------------------
From: Kajae@aol.com
Date: 18 Jan 1995 14:57:12 -0500
Subject: The Cyber Police Are Coming
The Birth of an Activist...
I must admit that I enjoy using the Internet as a means to stay
informed and up to date on subjects as much as anyone who uses (or just
plain surfs) the Net. However, I personally believe that there's a
time to discuss pertinent issues and theres a time to *do* something
about them (or at the very least *discuss* doing something about
them). And for *me*, the time to do something is *now*.
In the January 23, 1995 issue of "U.S. News & World Report", the cover
story is "Is Anything Safe in Cyberspace?: The Growing Treats To Your
Privacy and Property In the Information Age" by Vic Sussman.
Interestingly enough, the article covers some of the very same topics
that have been discussed in this forum (availability of personal
information to commercial organizations, police abuse of priviliged
info., etc.) The writer goes on to explain various law enforcement's
need for more advanced technology, laws to effectively deal with
cybercriminals, and the ability to defeat private encryption schemes
(Clipper chips). But the rather peculiar wrinkle to this story that
seemed to set it apart from all of the other "Policing The Net" stories
I've read was the actual training of law enforcement officers for the
sole purpose of policing the Net:
"If ever a buzzword buzzed too much for traditionbound law enforcement,
it's *cybercop*... Agents snickered when senior instructor Kevin
Manson first used the word a few years ago at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center... Nobody [at the FLETC] laughs much
anymore. They are too busy training cybercops... The day is comming
very fast when every cop will be issued a badge, a gun, and a laptop."
Now I know this sort of thing may not faze a lot of you, because many
have been in here in cyberspace a lot longer than I have (this newbie's
only been at this for the past five months) and you've probably heard
stuff like this before, but anytime I see something in *print* that
will no doubt be read by a great many people with little to no
understanding or comprehension of Net Society will go into a greater
state of panic than the one I'm in, and push for arbitrary endorsement
of what will undoubtedly (and ultamately) become an online police
state.
But rather than just have this be another "Gee... This is really
disturbing - anyone else disturbed?" posting, how about a discussion
and a few ideas about what we can *do* to educate the other (at least)
two-thirds of the american population who don't use the Internet (or
have a computer in their home for that matter) on what goes on here,
how things are handled here, and how any one agency having the ability
to violate us all, for no matter the purpose, will impact us, and them
as well. A few notions about what we can do to brace for the comming
storm wouldn't be a bad idea either. I'll even start the ball
rolling...
The government's obsession with Clipper: I enjoy beating a dead dog
just as much as anyone, but I don't think it's necessary to reiterate
the average net dinizen's dislike for the Clipper chip. Only the
United States Government could be so dense as to not realize that if
it's possible for dozens of computer companies to take an IBM PC apart,
figure out how it works, and then build another computer that works
pretty much the same as IBM's machine, then eventually some eager
beaver with the right skill and equipment can reverse-engineer the
Clipper, then make an encryption scheme that it couldn't break (and
possibly even sell copies of the chip and scheme - what a concept).
What were they thinking? Did they believe that if they made defeating
the Clipper illegal that no one would do it? The very concept of the
Clipper was obsolete when it was devised... Sigh... Anyway, the
alternative I suggest to the Clipper is for law enforcement agencies to
become more a part of the Net. Let them have their own domain where
they too will have the means to *interact* with the world around them.
Let them develop their own network security, and if they really must
decrypt or hack into other systems, let *us* have a federal mandate
requiring that the softwar e they use for such activities only be
accessed with the number on the warrant they *surely* have acquired
before proceeding. The procedure would be somewhat similar to
performing a wiretap. It would be a start...
Sussman also writes:
"Law enforcers are also deeply worried about... anonymous re-mailers...
can convert return addresses to pseudonyms and render e-mail
untraceable..."
Are you kidding? Wouldn't law enforcement agencies around the world
would be loosing out on a potential treasure trove of tips on so-called
"net crimes" that could come from net surfers who want to help the law
but remain anonymous? If I was in that position, I wouldn't want some
criminal (or his lawyer) privy to anything about me - especially when
I'm just trying to do the right thing morally and legally. Anyone
involved in criminal activity is obviously dangerous to some degree -
and so's his lawyer. I don't know which one I should be more scared
of...
"Cryptography will become even more popular once cybersurfers discover
digital cash, which is the electronic equivalent or real money...
DigiCash can prevent consumers' names and personal habits from
funneling into databases... Criminals will love [digicash]... Anybody
can use it to transfer money for legal or illegal purposes... Many
people believe the widespread use of E-Cash will be one more aspect of
the Internet that erodes the power of central government control..."
I truly hope that the only reason Ralph Nader and the Consumer
Protection Agency aren't in the middle of this already is because
they're so busy fighting for our rights on other fronts - but I
personally don't mind adding this particular crusade to their
itenerary. Anyone who knows how to reach them online (* I will* resort
to snail mail if necessary) pass the word.
They (and other organizations like them) are out there fighting for our
rights as consumers just so personal information of that nature doesn't
fall into the wrong hands - or the right ones prematurely. I'll admit
that I haven't been politically or socially active before - but I
didn't have a cause before - and I'm more than willing to back these
organizations with my time (on and offline) and (choke) money. Any
other takers?
As an afterthought I'll mention the usual standby's of writing to your
congressman or the President (I did by the way) but I think that there
are presidents out there that will be more sympatetic to our cause:
the beloved presidents of our Internet providers. Government plans for
the Internet will definitely have reprocussions on how they do business
- and how we do (and don't do) business with them. If the FBI, the
FLETC, the NRA, cable companies and anyone else with a cause and some
economic clout can lobby Congress, then by God (and a decent net
provider) we should too. Everyone at Compuserve, America Online,
Prodigy, Delphi, Fidonet, GEnie, and everywhere else should make your
concerns known to your CEO's (for the rest of you AOL subscribers ours
is Steve Case at SteveCase@aol.com). We've got a bunch of people here
who make thier living at listening to people's money talk - let's have
'em make other people listen with *our* money...
For those who don't feel the urge to get involved, I leave this quote
from a friend of mine: "When they came for the first man, I did
nothing. When they came for the second man, I did nothing. When they
came for the third man, I did nothing. Finally, when they came for me,
there was no one to help me..."
Info and additional feedback via e-mail is welcome.
------------------------------
From: vin@shore.net (Vin McLellan)
Date: 18 Jan 1995 16:36:18 -0500
Subject: Supreme Court Decision on Anonymity
(This was plucked from the Cyberia-L mailing list, courtesy of Frank
Swift, via Phil Agre, from Dave Banisar -- the latter, associated with
the Electronic Privacy Information Center.)
This decision, denying the constitutionality of (at least) broadly
worded laws banning anonymous leaflets, has obvious relevance to
on-going discussions here, (and on and off the net) about regulating or
outlawing anonymous messages on the Internet. Perhaps more importantly,
the text helps make the case for the value of this political tradition
in a democracy (something not done very well, IMHO, at the raw edge of
the cyberpunk/public frontier.) Even here, however, the Court makes
clear that this is still an evolving debate... and implies that there
is a potential association between anonymity and some information or
presentation-based crime (eg. libel or fraud) that carefully drawn
legislation could address. Still, this is a triumph for the good guys;
a privacy decision that could echo through the years!!!
suerte,
_Vin McLellan
The Privacy Guild
Date: 17 Jan 1995 16:17:44 EST
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.epic.org>
Subject: anonymity
[...]
TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
362 U.S. 60
January 13-14, 1960, Argued
March 7, 1960, Decided
Certiorari to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.
172 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 797, 332 P. 2d 447, reversed.
A. L. Wirin and Hugh R. Manes argued the cause for petitioner. With
them on the brief was Fred Okrand.
Philip E. Grey argued the cause for respondent. With him on the
brief was Roger Arnebergh.
Shad Polier, Will Maslow, Leo Pfeffer and Joseph B. Robison filed
a brief for the American Jewish Congress, as amicus curiae, urging
reversal.
Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan,
Whittaker, Stewart
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented here is whether the provisions of a Los
Angeles City ordinance restricting the distribution of handbills
"abridge the freedom of speech and of the press secured against state
invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution." n1 The
ordinance, @ 28.06 of the Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles,
provides:
"No person shall distribute any hand-bill in any place under any
circumstances, which does not have printed on the cover, or the face
thereof, the name and address of the following:
"(a) The person who printed, wrote, compiled or manufactured the
same.
"(b) The person who caused the same to be distributed; provided,
however, that in the case of a fictitious person or club, in addition
to such fictitious name, the true names and addresses of the owners,
managers or agents of the person sponsoring said hand-bill shall also
appear thereon."
The petitioner was arrested and tried in a Los Angeles Municipal
Court for violating this ordinance. It was stipulated that the
petitioner had distributed handbills in Los Angeles, and two of them
were presented in evidence. Each had printed on it the following:
National Consumers Mobilization,
Box 6533,
Los Angeles 55, Calif.
PLeasant 9-1576.
The handbills urged readers to help the organization carry on a
boycott against certain merchants and businessmen, whose names were
given, on the ground that, as one set of handbills said, they carried
products of "manufacturers who will not offer equal employment
opportunities to Negroes, Mexicans, and Orientals." There also
appeared a blank, which, if signed, would request enrollment of the
signer as a "member of National Consumers Mobilization," and which
was preceded by a statement that "I believe that every man should
have an equal opportunity for employment no matter what his race,
religion, or place of birth."
The Municipal Court held that the information printed on the
handbills did not meet the requirements of the ordinance, found the
petitioner guilty as charged, and fined him $ 10. The Appellate
Department of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles
affirmed the conviction, rejecting petitioner's contention, timely
made in both state courts, that the ordinance invaded his freedom of
speech and press in violation of the Fourteenth and First Amendments
to the Federal Constitution. n2 172 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 797, 332 P. 2d
447. Since this was the highest state court available to petitioner,
we granted certiorari to consider this constitutional contention.
360 U.S. 928.
In Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, we held void on its face an
ordinance that comprehensively forbade any distribution of literature
at any time or place in Griffin, Georgia, without a license.
Pamphlets and leaflets, it was pointed out, "have been historic
weapons in the defense of liberty" n3 and enforcement of the Griffin
ordinance "would restore the system of license and censorship in its
baldest form." Id., at 452. A year later we had before us four
ordinances each forbidding distribution of leaflets -- one in
Irvington, New Jersey, one in Los Angeles, California, one in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and one in Worcester, Massachusetts. Schneider
v. State, 308 U.S. 147. Efforts were made to distinguish these four
ordinances from the one held void in the Griffin case. The chief
grounds urged for distinction were that the four ordinances had been
passed to prevent either frauds, disorder, or littering, according to
the records in these cases, and another ground urged was that two of
the ordinances applied only to certain city areas. This Court
refused to uphold the four ordinances on those grounds pointing out
that there were other ways to accomplish these legitimate aims
without abridging freedom of speech and press. Frauds, street
littering and disorderly conduct could be denounced and punished as
offenses, the Court said. Several years later we followed the
Griffin and Schneider cases in striking down a Dallas, Texas,
ordinance which was applied to prohibit the dissemination of
information by the distribution of handbills. We said that although
a city could punish any person for conduct on the streets if he
violates a valid law, "one who is rightfully on a street . . .
carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to
express his views in an orderly fashion . . . by handbills and
literature as well as by the spoken word." Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S.
413, 416.
The broad ordinance now before us, barring distribution of "any
hand-bill in any place under any circumstances," n4 falls precisely
under the ban of our prior cases unless this ordinance is saved by
the qualification that handbills can be distributed if they have
printed on them the names and addresses of the persons who prepared,
distributed or sponsored them. For, as in Griffin, the ordinance
here is not limited to handbills whose content is "obscene or
offensive to public morals or that advocates unlawful conduct." n5
Counsel has urged that this ordinance is aimed at providing a way to
identify those responsible for fraud, false advertising and libel.
Yet the ordinance is in no manner so limited, nor have we been
referred to any legislative history indicating such a purpose.
Therefore we do not pass on the validity of an ordinance limited to
prevent these or any other supposed evils. This ordinance simply
bars all handbills under all circumstances anywhere that do not have
the names and addresses printed on them in the place the ordinance
requires.
There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement
would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby
freedom of expression. "Liberty of circulating is as essential to
that freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the
circulation, the publication would be of little value." Lovell v.
Griffin, 303 U.S., at 452.
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have
played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted
groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able
to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not
at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also
enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that
exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would
lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The
old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which
government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that
were obnoxious to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried
and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence
to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books
in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were
sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing,
printing or publishing books. n6 Before the Revolutionary War
colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or
distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on
them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that
time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their
author is unknown to this day. n7 Even the Federalist Papers, written
in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under
fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been
assumed for the most constructive purposes.
We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are
times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups
engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified.
Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357
U.S. 449, 462. The reason for those holdings was that identification
and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of
public matters of importance. This broad Los Angeles ordinance is
subject to the same infirmity. We hold that it, like the Griffin,
Georgia, ordinance, is void on its face.
The judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of
the State of California is reversed and the cause is remanded to it
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Footnotes
n1 Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 154. Cf. Lovell v. Griffin,
303 U.S. 444, 450.
n2 Petitioner also argues here that the ordinance both on its face
and as construed and applied "arbitrarily denies petitioner equal
protection of the laws in violation of the Due Process and Equal
Protection" Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument is
based on the fact that the ordinance applies to handbills only, and
does not include within its proscription books, magazines and
newspapers. Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to
consider this contention.
n3 The Court's entire sentence was: "These [pamphlets and
leaflets] indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of
liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own
history abundantly attest." It has been noted that some of Thomas
Paine's pamphlets were signed with pseudonyms. See Bleyer, Main
Currents in the History of American Journalism (1927), 90-93.
Illustrations of other anonymous and pseudonymous pamphlets and other
writings used to discuss important public questions can be found in
this same volume.
n4 Section 28.00 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code defines
"handbill" as follows: "'HAND-BILL' shall mean any hand-bill, dodger,
commercial advertising circular, folder, booklet, letter, card,
pamphlet, sheet, poster, sticker, banner, notice or other written,
printed or painted matter calculated to attract attention of the
public."
n5 Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S., at 451.
n6 Penry was executed and Udal died as a result of his
confinement. 1 Hallam, The Constitutional History of England (1855),
205-206, 232.
n7 In one of the letters written May 28, 1770, the author asked
the following question about the tea tax imposed on this country, a
question which he could hardly have asked but for his anonymity:
"What is it then, but an odious, unprofitable exertion of a
speculative right, and fixing a badge of slavery upon the Americans,
without service to their masters?" 2 Letters of Junius (1821) 39.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring.
In judging the validity of municipal action affecting rights of
speech or association protected against invasion by the Fourteenth
Amendment, I do not believe that we can escape, as Mr. Justice
Roberts said in Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161, "the delicate
and difficult task" of weighing "the circumstances" and appraising
Frank Swift L-321 (Sent from Home)
Unclassified Computer Security Coordinator
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
7000 East Avenue L-321 Livermore CA 94550-9516
Voice: (510) 422-1463 FAX: (510) 423-0913
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 1994 10:50:22 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
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.
This digest is a forum with information contributed via Internet
eMail. Those who understand the technology also understand the ease of
forgery in this very free medium. Statements, therefore, should be
taken with a grain of salt and it should be clear that the actual
contributor might not be the person whose email address is posted at
the top. Any user who openly wishes to post anonymously should inform
the moderator at the beginning of the posting. He will comply.
If you read this from the comp.society.privacy newsgroup and wish to
contribute a message, you should simply post your contribution. As a
moderated newsgroup, attempts to post to the group are normally turned
into eMail to the submission address below.
On the other hand, if you read the digest eMailed to you, you generally
need only use the Reply feature of your mailer to contribute. If you
do so, it is best to modify the "Subject:" line of your mailing.
Contributions to CPD should be submitted, with appropriate, substantive
SUBJECT: line, otherwise they may be ignored. They must be relevant,
sound, in good taste, objective, cogent, coherent, concise, and
nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome, but not personal attacks. Do
not include entire previous messages in responses to them. Include
your name & legitimate Internet FROM: address, especially from
.UUCP and .BITNET folks. Anonymized mail is not accepted. All
contributions considered as personal comments; usual disclaimers
apply. All reuses of CPD material should respect stated copyright
notices, and should cite the sources explicitly; as a courtesy;
publications using CPD material should obtain permission from the
contributors.
Contributions generally are acknowledged within 24 hours
of submission. If selected, they are printed within two or three days.
The moderator reserves the right to delete extraneous quoted material.
He may change the SUBJECT: line of an article in order to make it easier
for the reader to follow a discussion. He will not, however, alter or
edit or append to the text except for purely technical reasons.
A library of back issues is available on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18].
Login as "ftp" with password identifying yourid@yoursite. The archives
are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy".
People with gopher capability can most easily access the library at
gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Older archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133].
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest
Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu
| Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu
levine@cs.uwm.edu | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V6 #007
******************************
.