Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 09:05:38 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#017
Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 11 Feb 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 017
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: The Cybercop Impetus
Re: The Cybercop Impetus
Re: Requests for Home Phone Numbers
How Can I Change This?
Re: Tracking of News and WWW Routes
Re: Who is Looking at Your Files?
Re: Who is Looking at Your Files?
Re: Who is Looking at Your Files?
Re: Radio Shack and Privacy
Autodialing Ban
Store Returns
Re: Requests for Home Phone Numbers
Post Office Partially Limits Address Access
Conferences that May Be of Interest
Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jckruger@jckruger.aztec.co.za (Johan Kruger)
Date: 09 Feb 1995 02:07:28 GMT
Subject: Re: The Cybercop Impetus
Organization: Aztec Information Management
Kajae@aol.com (Kajae@aol.com) wrote: The year is 2005. At least
75% of all homes in America have computers, tied in via modem (or
whatever really cool tech we'll be using by then) to every
information exchange and service we require or desire, and the
U.S.'s population of couch potatoes has been all but converted into
netsurfers. But the Net isn't what it was back in the roaring
'90's. Oh, no. All (yes all) newsgroups and online services are
monitored for content by expert systems deployed by various
"politically correct" agencies of the Federal government to
"regulate content for the purpose of insuring domestic
tranquillity".
Far be it from me to propose to know something about your country, but
isn't it supposed to be a free one?
If the law enforcement agencies of the US and the world want to
stake a better claim to the Net, let them have Usenet groups and
online services where the average person can *interact* with them,
like a police station on-line. Let them develop their own
services, applications, and encryption breakers, but do it in such
a way that it wouldn't be cost effective to have every individual
either world- or nationwide under some form of constant
surveillance.
I don't like the idea of a government monitoring everything I do, and I
simply HATE the idea that the government doing the monitoring could be
one that DOESN'T EVEN REPRESENT ME. I didn't vote for these guys, I'm a
citizen of an entirely different sovreign (sp?) country. What right do
they have to snoop around in my private business? For that matter, what
right do they have to snoop around in ayone's private business?
--
Johan Kruger - FlagShip consultant
Johannesburg Voice: +27 (11) 816 2359
South Africa Internet: jckruger@aztec.co.za
Personal URL: http://aztec.co.za/jckruger/jckruger.html
Maintainer: FlagShip URL: http://aztec.co.za/jckruger/FlagShip.html
Finger for PGP public key
------------------------------
From: metaman@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Eugene Kachmarsky)
Date: 09 Feb 1995 07:58:55 GMT
Subject: Re: The Cybercop Impetus
Organization: Vancouver Regional FreeNet
Regarding the idea of _lawlessness_ on the Net and not advocating it as
a method of counteracting government permeation.
It isn't _lawless_ to oppose an unjust system. Sometimes, to gain
justice, some _laws_ may have to be broken.
However, short of some sort of mass Interrevolution, any action to
counteract the digitalitarian state and it's electronic oppression of
whole societies will inevitably end in failure and the elimination of
individual _viruses_ from The Body. As long as an opinion being
expressed is expressed solely by random and disconnected individuals,
the Reich can succeed in quietly eliminating these voices under the
guise of dealing with _lawbreakers_ and threats to society, enemies of
the poeple and so on, and so on, and so on, and
blahblahblahblahblah...
Conversely, any mass action undertaken to circumvent the establishment
of a complete permeable habitat society that lies within the boundaries
of _the LAW_ and constitutional guidelines is also doomed to fail
because the system is designed to perpetuate the power of the
designers. (Just like allowing the corporate and the state to regulate
the NET will inevitably lead to this becoming a tool for their own
domination over us).
So, anything you may want to do to protect yourself and your rights
along these lines is doomed to failure unless it is a collective,
unified, directed, and _illegal_ effort. Otherwise, it will be useless.
Fight the government? Where? In the Supreme Court? Who appoints the
members of the Supreme Court?
I agree that the future envisioned in the Cybercop Impetus is most
likely probable, where the state and the corporation (with eventually
the state becoming irrelevant and therefore the corporation itself)
will be running this planet like a giant, digital Auschwitz. But
really, what the hell are you going to do? Revolt? How. How are you
going to motivate millions of people to oppose the system that stuffs
them full of bovine growth hormone, gives them Monday Night Football
and the OJ Simpson trial, and two weeks paid vacation per year? Sadly,
for many, this is heaven on Earth and they can't see past their
stomachs to realize that their brains are being robbed.
And it just occurred to me that the author of Cybercop Impetus could
very well be an agent sent here to run the flag up the pole to see who
salutes. If so, so what? As far as i still know, they can't kill you
for having an opinion (said John Lennon, Jesus Christ, and various
others with opinions, i guess).
------------------------------
From: Kelly Bert Manning <bo774@freenet.carleton.ca>
Date: 09 Feb 1995 03:33:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Requests for Home Phone Numbers
Kelly Bert Manning writes: I have no problem with an alias. I am
refering to when a person is asked for a SSN or credit card number
and that person gives a number that is false. [snip] They should
be able to decide who and who not they want as customers. [snip
and] In most cases market pressure will bear on the store to
develop reasonable policies.
I'm not up on US law, but I have a vague recollection about a lot of
small businesses/partnerhsips/sole proprieterships using laws or
precedents covering something called "restraint of trade" to obtain
damage judgements against civil rights organizations that publicized
details of their treatment of members of minorities, even if the
accounts were factual and didn't explicitly suggest a boycott.
Where does this stand currently?
As to individuals deciding who they will sell to, didn't middle class
and professional blacks use a strategy called "block busting" earlier
in this century? This involved a group of them pooling their resources
to pay a white agent to purchase houses, often at inflated prices. When
the identity of the concealed purchasers was revealed the white
neighbours would typically either sell quickly at distress prices or
form a mob to burn the house down and injure or kill anyone inside it
at the time.
The point I am attempting to make is that it is not terribly difficult
to purchase through an agent, and that this "right to choose" is so
ineffective that it only serves to promote prejudice, leading to more
serious types of incident. In any case it ends at the first purchaser.
------------------------------
From: lauras@holly.ColoState.EDU (Laura Sizemore)
Date: 09 Feb 1995 17:48:02 -0700
Subject: How Can I Change This?
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Is there anyone out there who knows how to change your name on the
system when someone types, "finger (your login name)" I know I can't do
anything about the login name itself, unless I go directly to the Uni's
administration, but I would like to keep my full "in Real Life" name
that is revealed under the finger command private. I'm becoming a bit
weary of guys trying to pick me up on line ...
Thanks,
LS
------------------------------
From: alamar@ctp.org (Nathaniel Irons)
Date: 09 Feb 1995 16:01:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Tracking of News and WWW Routes
Organization: secret society inside Phil K. Dick's head
Kajae@aol.com wrote: kirby6@psu.edu wrote: Is it possible for my
school admins. to keep track of the sites I visit or the news
servers I connect to, or even the groups I read?
Specifically with the WWW, most current browsers transmit a variable
called HTTP_From that contains your email address and name. It's the
same information that gets plunked into the relevant fields when you
click on a Mailto URL. If you don't want to be logged, don't fill out
that info. Then all they'll get is an IP address, which may be bad
enough
However, this is only on the server end. Whether your school admins
are tracking outgoing HTTP requests well, that's a level of technical
sophistication that most bureaucrats just don't have. Make friends
with a unix administrator and get him drunk - there's the person to
ask.
--
.sigless in the meantime
------------------------------
From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills)
Date: 09 Feb 1995 18:41:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Who is Looking at Your Files?
[BSD Now! <attila@PrimeNet.Com>] writes: OK, I'll bite on your
question as to why no enthusiasm...
Then he cites a number of examples of shady types who would be
determined enough to ignore any law. Finally, he wrote:
I am sure we can all agree that we would like to believe everyone
would obey a set of legislative ethic limitations --but I dont. do
you?
No I don't either; not everyone. Of course he's right. No law can
protect us from determined and resourceful people determined to
penetrate our privacy. Just think of the O.J. Simpson trial. If
O.J.'s lawyers want to get dirt on some witness, nothing on earth will
stop them.
That wasn't the intent of the suggested legal protection. It is more
the case of the TRW's, and Sears, and Radio Shacks, and IRSs of the
world who gradually erode the sanctity of the privacy of millions of
individuals by lots of minor incursions. The idea of the mandatory
notification suggestion is to cut down on this type of chronic
wholesale assaults on privacy.
I'm a political conservative so suggesting any new law grates. This
one though, seems to offer the promise of eventually replacing dozens
of complicated laws with one simple one.
It would be bitterly opposed by the abusers, as [otto@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
(M. Otto)] pointed out. Regulators like the FCC, SEC, FDA,..., would
also oppose it because it could undermine some of the reason for their
existence. Activists might also oppose it because they prefer to do
things at the grassroot level like demonstrations and personal
confrontations with store managers. It might spoil their fun.
These groups would only oppose it if they felt it could be effective.
Opposition is not a reason to stop trying to improve things. On the
contrary, I would see it as an indication that a reform is worth the
while.
Not worth the while are ideas which are flawed, unworkable, or have
been thorougly worked over before. I'm still not sure how this one
measures.
--
Dick Mills rj.mills@pti-us.com
Power Technologies, Inc. phone +1(518)395-5154
P.O. Box 1058 fax +1(518)346-2777
Schenectady, NY 12301-1058
------------------------------
From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning)
Date: 10 Feb 1995 05:40:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Who is Looking at Your Files?
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Dick Mills (rj.mills@pti-us.com) writes: I guess Jesse and I are
the only ones who like this idea. There have been no other posts
I've seen yet. Too bad. It could be the answer to a number of
issues discussed recently in comp.society.privacy. For example:
Why isn't there more enthusiasm from comp.society.privacy readers?
Is it not explained well?
I have a recollection of seeing a news story on one of the Seattle
stations a few years back that said that anyone wanting to trace a
licence for a car had to produce ID, and that the details of the ID
were automatically sent to the registered owner, along with the details
that were released.
Quebec's private sector privacy law requires that a record of all
accesses to a file be kept, and states that the record of who accessed
it and when is part of the file, with the same right of access by the
subject as the rest of the file.
I've interpreted sections of BC FOI/POP law as requireing that a record
of access be kept and have a complaint in to the PRivacy Commissioner
about being denied access. The response I got sounded remarkably
similar to the one abortion clinice workers got from another public
body.
------------------------------
From: flinchba@kns.com (Scott Flinchbaugh)
Date: 10 Feb 1995 22:43:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Who is Looking at Your Files?
Organization: Kulicke & Soffa, Inc.
Why isn't there more enthusiasm from comp.society.privacy readers?
Is it not explained well?
I think that it is a good compromise, if we have to compromise....
Personally I dont think we should have to compromise, after all the
data about us should belong to us.. Perhaps we should all patent or
copyright our phone numbers, SSNs, etc.
--
Scott Flinchbaugh Software Engineer
E-Mail: flinchba@kns.com Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc.
Phone (W): 215-784-6250
------------------------------
From: AriadneM@scruznet.com (A. Marina Fournier)
Date: 09 Feb 1995 22:02:08 -0800
Subject: Re: Radio Shack and Privacy
Organization: The (Re)Sourceress
privacy@interramp.com wrote: Do you have suggestions for a "Privacy
Bill of Rights?" Please forward them to me, as I am compiling one
for future applications.
I want the right to know what mailing-list firms have my info and to be
asked *each and every time in advance* before it can be distributed. I
want the right to review and restrict such information and its
distribution.
I want the post office to have a box to check that says your COA will
not be released to any firms for advertising. Thanks for asking.
Marina
--
"Islay...and it's good-bye to care"
------------------------------
From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com>
Date: 10 Feb 95 07:42:31 EST
Subject: Autodialing Ban
>From the Associated Press news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service:
APn 02/06 2020 Autodialing Ban
By BOB EGELKO
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal ban on automated, tape-recorded
telephone sales pitches was upheld Monday by a federal appeals
court, which said Congress accurately identified commercial
autodialing as a threat to privacy.
Key points made by the author:
* The original ban was suspended in December 1992.
* The new ruling validates the law "prohibiting use of automatic
dialing machines to reach homes unless the consumer has consented to
get such calls or the message is introduced by a live operator."
* The National Association of Telecomputer Operators challenged the
original law, claiming it discriminated against small commercial
organizations who cannot afford live telemarketing operators.
* The law in question also bans automatic junk-faxes.
* Congressional testimony at the time of passage of the legislation
described automated calls as
...more invasive than live calls because the taped messages
"cannot interact with the customer except in preprogrammed
ways" and "do not allow the caller to feel the frustration
of the called party."
* Such calls, according to the judge, "also cluttered answering machines
and made it difficult for consumers to remove their names from calling
lists."
--
M.E.Kabay,Ph.D., Director of Education, Natl Computer Security Assn
(Carlisle, PA); Mgmt Consultant, LGS Group Inc. (Montreal, QC)
------------------------------
From: brunkhorst@mayo.EDU
Date: 10 Feb 1995 14:51:56 GMT
Subject: Store Returns
Organization: Mayo Foundation
privacy@interramp.com writes: I leave you all with the following
thought. How can a company conduct anonymous or name-only returns
but still protect itself against crooks who try to return products
they never bought? It is often months later that companies realize
that they returned money to ganiffs.
<KILGALLEN@Eisner.DECUS.Org> writes: I was under the impression
that this was a solved problem, years ago, independent of whether
identification is provided. from childhood I have seen signes
saying "no returns without a receipt". Presumably the store either
retains the receipt or marks it (in the case of a partial return of
the contents of a receipt). So long as this has been done, I don't
see any valid reason for the store to require any further
identification. (If receipts are readily forged, the store should
fix that problem.)
With the national competition in the retail marketplace, no-receipt
returns are more of a problem. Often times, your 'big-spenders' who
deal with cash tend to toss receipts with the bag. 'Big Spenders' are
what make your high-end stores their margin (always pay cash, never
shop sales, always buy accessories, etc), and if you start making them
think your store is not forgiving to little mistakes, then you lose
your cream sales to the competition at the other end of the mall.
My wife worked for Dayton-Hudson's recently, and the policy there was
if they carried that vendor (read: the product didn't even have to be
in the store catalog, just the vendor), take the return. If they had a
receipt, then you may credit them with cash. No receipt, but a store
card, then credit their account (at the lowest price within the last 10
days). No receipt, no card, then in store credit only. Didn't
completely zap the 'fencing' issue, but did dampen it. The major
dampener was the 12 hour return policy... Any return with a receipt
within twelve hours that was a charge, the returnee has to show the
card that was used for the imprint. This stopped the bag lifters (car
breakins to steal the bags containing both the purchase and the sales
slip) from being able to quickly and easily fence their wares back to
the store.
--
geoff
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com>
Date: 10 Feb 1995 10:46:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Requests for Home Phone Numbers
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
"Dennis G. Rears" (drears@pica.army.mil) writes: My opinions on
providing SSN to merchants have appeared to be disjointed in the
past. This is mainly because I haven't had an original post in CPD
in about 18 months, only followups. Here's my thoughts: 1. Don't
give false information. Either leave it blank or fill it in.
Giving false information poorly reflects on one integrity.
bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning) writes: This may be
a cultural difference. There is also a nuance of difference between
alias and false name. An alias is a name that you choose to use for
a particular purpose, as opposed to a false name made to
disassociate yourself from something. The legal right of canadians
to use any alias they choose in most financial transactions has
been widely publicized over the decades. My first recollection of
reading this was as a teenager in the 60s.
This is also a right that exists "south of the border" in the U.S.
Generally you can use any name you want in a transaction as long as
there is no intent to commit fraud. If I pay for a subscription to TV
Guide by a money order based on the price printed on one of its bingo
cards, the name they mail it to is irrelevant and cannot affect the
validity of the transaction.
Generally, if a person decides that they want to change their name, all
they have to do is to inform people of their new name; they can, if
they wish, file a court petition to do so, which is almost always
routinely granted, but that is typically done only because they want it
to be a matter of public record, or if the person having their name
changed is a minor, in which case it is required.
But I suppose something you might consider possibly fraudulent would be
the case where someone intentionally uses the last name of someone they
know in place of their own.
It is common practice for some people to literally use another person's
last name, typically because they are adopting the "sinister and
devious" practice of taking the last name of the man they got married
to. Women intentionally commit this "fraud" to make people believe
they are related. The law neither forbids nor requires this practice,
but it is routinely done.
And someone decides to sign a contract under an assumed name. Which of
the following names do you think was more valuable for a contract
involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1950s, signing it
"Norma Jean Baker" or using the alias of "Marilyn Monroe." (Assuming it
is whatever name is signed on the contract that is to be advertised).
Do you think it was "fraud" for the actor Michael Douglas to change his
name to "Michael Keaton"? (The name "Michael Douglas" was taken as an
alias in the Actor's union records by different man named "Michael
Danelovich," the son of the man whose birth name was Kirk Danelovich
and also used the alias of "Kirk Douglas"). The man born Cornelius
Grace Chace goes around telling people his name is "Chevy Chase". And
you're not.
On a issue not that has nothing to do with privacy, I am a firm
believer in property rights. Part of owning property is have the
ability to decide who you want to sell, lease, give, or otherwise
convey services or property to. I believe a merchant should have
the right to refuse to do business with anybody.
How far does that belief extend? Can a healthcare
merchant(hospital) refuse to provide life saving care to someone
who can pay the going rate but happens to have a skin color the
hospital doesn't like to see?
Federal law requires hospitals that get federal funding (which means
medicare) to provide emergency care to anyone regardless of ability to
pay and requires them to provide care to anyone on the same terms
without discrimination based on race and several other factors.
Apparently it's okay to demand involuntary servitude if it's for a good
cause. (If forcing someone not convicted of a crime to provide unpaid
labor isn't involuntary servitude, what is?)
Can someone who owns a restaurant refuse to sell the food they own
to people of a particular ethnic or racial background?
There was a bar in North Carolina that was profiled within the last
year or so on one of the tabloid news shows, that clearly had a sign in
the window, saying "Whites Only". I was surprised to find such a
practice still being done and that they hadn't been stomped on. Then
the show explained why.
The U.S. Civil Rights commission declared that the premises do not
operate in interstate commerce, so it has no jurisdiction over the
facility. The state of North Carolina (I do not know if it has one
now) did not have a law prohibiting discrimination by race on the part
of taverns. Therefore he can do so if he wants. If enough of his
customers oppose such practice as to make his business unprofitable, he
will either close up, sell out or change his conditions.
Allowing merchants to be arbitrary rather than equitable in their
choice of clients opens up a wide range of posibilities for them to
be discriminatory. If they are in business they should be prepared
to treat anyone with sufficient cash to pay in the same manner as
anyone else who can pay.
A person should the right to decide who they will associate with, and a
merchant should have the right not to provide goods or services if they
do not approve of the use of that service or the practices of the
particular person or organization buying them. What has happened is
that the people who are customers typically have more politcal power
than the sellers.
This was indicated in a front page report in {Digital News} three or
four years ago, when Executive Software decided to refuse to provide
warranty service for its Diskeeper defragmenter for Vax computers to
one particular customer because they had accidentally sold the product
to a customer that they did not approve of.
They informed the customer that they would honor their contract and
provide technical support until the original warranty ran out, and
would not renew their TS contract, or the customer could return the
software for a full refund. The customer chose to get a refund since a
maintenance program of this type is dangerous to useless without
technical support.
They had sold the product to a non-pharmeceutical division of the
Ciba-Geigy corporation. Executive Software passed a corporate bylaw,
at the demand of the President of the company, prohibiting it from
selling products to companies (and all subsidiaries of any company)
that manufactures or markets psychotropic drugs, or specifically
psychotropic drugs used on children, I don't quite remember which.
Ciba-Geigy is the manufacturer of a psychotropic drug sold under the
trade name Ritalin, which is commonly used on children who have
personality disorders. The department that bought the program has
nothing to do with the manufacture or marketing of any drugs, but
Executive Software decided to declare them "contaminated" because of
the other department. The president of the company opposes
psychotropics because he is a member of the Church of Scientology that
has formally opposed the use of psychotropic drugs on children.
Some people may think this is an odd-ball reason to refuse to sell
something to a company, but to that organization it may be a deeply
held religious belief or a moral conviction. Some people might see it
as the crackpot ravings of a cult religion. What it comes down to is
whether the person who looks at it finds the opinion valid or invalid.
Should a shopkeeper in Washington DC who opposes apartheid be permitted
to have refused to make sales to the mission office itself, or
diplomats or employees of the South African Embassy when that country
practiced such activities? Or should one be able to refuse to sell to
Ethiopia's embassy because of its country's practice of Marxist
collective farming and forced deaths through planned famines? In the
first case they would be refusing to sell to people who are almost
certainly exclusively white; in the other the people they would be
almost certainly exclusively black. If you looked at the practice
based on what was being done at the point of sale, not knowing why it
was being done, it might look like the person was refusing to sell to
people on the basis of race. Or does the reason matter if it happens
that all the people being discriminated against are of one color.
There was a problem reported in a newspaper with some shopkeepers in
South Dakota who did not want to sell on credit to indians from the
reservation. The reason was not because of their race, but because
they live on a reservation, if they don't pay (as some didn't) the
merchant would have no means to reposess the property or sue for
damages; the local courts have no jurisdiction. An attorney for either
the state or federal government was interviewed in the paper and opined
that such a practice was a violation of civil rights laws by these
merchants. Was their action discriminatory? What about their right to
be paid for what they sell, a right they are entitled to enforce
against any *other* group *except* indians living on a reservation?
Would I have the right to refuse to sell computer programs to the
Justice Department on the grounds of its use of militarily banned
gasses on children in Waco, Texas? How about because of the known
fondness of some of its staff for pirating and/or stealing computer
programs for official use? Would my action be discriminatory? Yes, it
would be, on the basis of one's employer. Am I right in
"discriminating" against some people simply because I don't like their
employer?
The only manufacturer of a particular chemical was planning to quit
business rather than be required to sell that chemical to the
Department of Defense so it could manufacture nerve gas. DOD decided
not to push the issue and made other plans. Was this company right in
"discriminating" against some people (a government is simply a group of
people) simply because the owner doesn't like what they are doing?
Some people can have reasons for not wanting to do something that are
illogical or do not make sense to people who do not follow their
customs; I would find the Jewish and Muslim custom of not eating pork
to be a rule that I find silly (as I grab some sausage for breakfast),
but they have such a rule and their opinion it is valid to them.
Some people believe in provisions of the Bible that they interpret to
mean that people of different races should not mix. Some interpret the
provisions to only mean that interracial marrages are not allowed;
others might interpret that as not having business dealings (or perhaps
any) with persons of another color. Is their opinion an old fashioned
crackpot idea (because the person who looks at it doesn't like it) or a
deeply held religious conviction (if they do).
Apparently it depends on whose ox is gored and whether they are
entitled to special treatment. It's apparently okay an NAACP operated
for the support of the betterment of black people. I have heard that
another organization founded to do the exact same thing for white
people was considered racist. To use a rather bad pun here, is the pot
calling the kettle black? If it is racist for one, why not the other?
If the demand is for people to be treated equally on the basis of
color, e.g. to act color blind, then any right or special privelege for
any race or group must also be permitted to any other equivalent group
or they should be forbidden. To do otherwise is to simply substitute
one (legally mandated) form of discrimination (Jim Crow Laws and
segregated facilities) for another (legally mandated) form of
discrimination (Affirmative Action and quotas), or if it's not legally
required, then people are saying they still support forms of
discrimination against some particular class of people they don't like,
e.g. as long as their particular oxen remain ungored.
What it all comes down to is whether the particular type of
discrimination is politically acceptable. A hundred years ago, it was
okay to discriminate against Chinese. Sixty years ago, it was routine
to discriminate against Irish. During the 1930s it was stylish to be
anti-semitic. After December 8, 1942 it was okay to deprive American
Citizens whose parents were Japanese of their civil rights. Until the
1960s, it was okay to do the same to blacks. Now it's okay to
discriminate against white males. Maybe my particular minority (there
are more women than men in the U.S. and more white women than white
men, so that makes me a member of this 'minority') can picket to
eliminate discrimination against us. Maybe they'll go after lawyers
this time. :)
There's always someone who get's picked as the particular target of the
times because it's politically acceptable to discriminate against some
groups at some times and other groups at other times.
The names and faces change but the ugliness and stench stays the same.
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 11 Feb 1995 08:03:32 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Post Office Partially Limits Address Access
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from EPIC Alert 2.02 Volume 2.02 February 6, 1995 Published
by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, DC
info@epic.org
The U.S. Postal Service announced on December 28 its final rule on
access to names and addresses. The agency announced it was eliminating
the service that allows anyone to obtain the new address of any
individual for a $3.00 fee. The Postal Service, however, left intact
its service that provides the addresses of all postal customers to
large mailers such as direct marketers.
The notice states "Congress has not given the Postal Service the
function of serving as a national registration point for the physical
whereabouts of individuals."
HR 434, The Postal Privacy Act of 1995, (introduced by Rep. Gary
Condit) requires that the Postal Service inform individuals of the uses
of information contained in Change of Address cards and mandates that
customers be offered an option to not have their names and addresses
forwarded.
The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center. To subscribe, send the message:
SUBSCRIBE CPSR-ANNOUNCE Firstname Lastname
to listserv@cpsr.org. You may also receive the Alert by reading the
USENET newsgroup comp.org.cpsr.announce.
------------------------------
From: Susan Evoy <evoy@pcd.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 08 Feb 1995 17:24:51 -0800
Subject: Conferences that May Be of Interest
CPSR Members and Friends,
If you are planning to attend one of these conferences, or another that
may be related to CPSR's work, please contact CPSR at cpsr@cpsr.org or
(415) 322-3778 for easy ways for you to be a presence for CPSR.
CONFERENCE /EVENT SCHEDULE [moderator: I have excerpted from her list
those items that deal with privacy.]
Technologies of Freedom: State of the Nation (A conference on the progress of
the National Information Infrastructure), Washington Court Hotel,
Washington, DC, Feb. 23-25.
Contact: holder@apt.org 202 408-1403 202 408-1134 (fax)
Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment, and Community, Chicago
Circle Center, UIC, IL, March 2-4. Contact: jdav@mcs.com 312 996-5463
Towards an Electronic Patient Record '95. Orlando, FL. Mar. 14-19,
1995. Sponsored by Medical Records Institute. Contact: 617-964-3926
(fax).
Access, Privacy, and Commercialism: When States Gather Personal
Information, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, March 17.
Contact: Trotter Hardy 804 221-3826
Computers, Freedom and Privacy CFP'95, Burlingame CA, Mar 28-31
Contact: info.cfp95@forsythe.stanford.edu
Information Security and Privacy in the Public Sector. Herdon, VA.
Apr. 19-20, 1995. Sponsored by AIC Conferences. Contact: 212/952-1899.
1995 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 8-10.
Contact: sp95@itd.nrl.navy.mil
[moderator: I have excerpted from her list those items that deal with
privacy.]
------------------------------
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 #017
******************************
.