Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 10:23:44 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#020
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 23 Feb 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 020
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Gopher Changes
German Phone Taps Down
New Evidence in French Bugging Scandal
NSC E-Mail
Private Idaho 1.5 Beta Release
What Does City Hall Have on Me?
Re: Cordless Phone Privacy
Question Regarding Wiretapping
Re: Privacy and Mirror
Snoops
Re: Credit Card Receipt and Phone Number
Re: Phone Users Slam Dunked
Re: Mailing Lists & Personal Information
Finnish Anonymity Compromised by Interpol
Re: Cordless Phone Privacy
Symposium on Medical Records
Re: Recent Break-ins and Collections of Credit Card Numbers
ACLU cyber-liberties Alert: Axe the Exon Bill!
Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse <prc@pwa.acusd.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 1995 18:55:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Gopher Changes
We at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse would like to announce several
changes to the legislative materials on our gopher site. Additionally,
we want to invite anyone who is interested to review these changes and
give us feedback.
Previously, we attempted to provide a comprehensive review of pending
bills that had privacy implications in both the California state
legislature and in Congress. We provided weekly updates on the status
of each of those bills.
Due to staff reductions, only a brief description of privacy- related
bills will be available on the gopher, and they will not be updated on
a weekly basis.
We hope that these changes will not place a hardship on those of you
who have taken advantage of our legislative materials in the past.
Anyone interested in a particular bill may call the sponsor's office or
local representative for a copy. Full texts of many privacy related
federal bills are also available on the Internet via EPIC's gopher
(gopher.cpsr.org). You can contact us at the Clearinghouse for
assistance in finding this information.
We wish to invite readers to take a look at our materials online and
let us know what you think. We want to hear your opinions of our
legislative updates (and of the gopher site in general, for that
matter), both good and bad.
These materials may be accessed by gophering to
gopher.acusd.edu
At the main menu, select "USD Campus-Wide Information System" then
select "Privacy Rights Clearinghouse."
To send us feedback, just Email it to
prc@pwa.acusd.edu
Your comments will be much appreciated.
=================================================================
Barry D. Fraser fraser@pwa.acusd.edu
Online Legal Research Associate
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse prc@pwa.acusd.edu
Center for Public Interest Law telnet teetot.acusd.edu
University of San Diego login: privacy
Privacy Hotline: 619-298-3396 BBS: 619-260-4789
In California: 800-773-7748 host: teetot
login: privacy
=================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com>
Date: 21 Feb 95 08:15:14 EST
Subject: German Phone Taps Down
>From the Reuters news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service:
RTw 02/15 1057
Fewer German phones tapped now after bugging boom
BONN, Feb 15 (Reuter) - The spread of legal wiretapping in
Germany slowed down in 1994 after a six-year bugging boom
that more than doubled the number of telephones under
surveillance, a leading liberal politician said on Wednesday.
The article provides the following statistics:
* 1994: 3,730 wiretaps
* 1993: 3,964
* 1987: 1,805.
M.E.Kabay,Ph.D., Director of Education, Natl Computer Security Assn
(Carlisle, PA); Mgmt Consultant, LGS Group Inc. (Montreal, QC)
------------------------------
From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com>
Date: 21 Feb 95 08:15:00 EST
Subject: New Evidence in French Bugging Scandal
>From the Reuters news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service:
RTw 02/18 1219
New evidence in French bugging scandal
PARIS, Feb 18 (Reuter) - A French judge has received new
evidence that anti-terrorist police at President Francois
Mitterrand's palace illegally bugged the phones of journalists
and politicians, the daily Le Monde said on Saturday.
Le Monde said five computer diskettes containing records of
numerous wiretaps were handed over anonymously to the office
of Judge Jean-Paul Valat who is probing the mid-1980s scandal.
According to the report in Le Monde as described in this Reuter story:
* Over 5,000 records list who asked for which wiretap.
* Subjects of the wiretaps included "two staff journalists at Le Monde,
lawyers, politicians and actress Carole Bouquet."
* Wiretaps extended to friends and relatives of the primary subjects.
* "The National Commission on Security Intercepts confirmed last year
that the anti-terrorist unit had bugged private citizens in what it
called `serious abuses.'"
M.E.Kabay,Ph.D., Director of Education, Natl Computer Security Assn
(Carlisle, PA); Mgmt Consultant, LGS Group Inc. (Montreal, QC)
------------------------------
From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com>
Date: 21 Feb 95 08:15:19 EST
Subject: NSC E-Mail
>From the Washington Post news wire via CompuServe's Executive News
Service:
WP 02/15
Judge Orders Opening of NSC E-Mail Records;
Agency Ruled Subject To Access Guidelines
By Toni Locy
Washington Post Staff Writer
A federal judge ruled ...[14 Feb]... that the National Security
Council must preserve its electronic mail records and make
them available to the public as long as they do not deal with
advice given to the president on sensitive national security
matters.
....
The judge ordered the NSC to create new guidelines by Feb. 27
for preserving and releasing its records.
According to the author, the lawsuit began in 1989 when "historian and
former Washington Post reporter Scott Armstrong, the National Security
Archive and others" sued to prevent the White House from deleting
e-mail archives which apparently deal with the Iran-Contra scandal.
M.E.Kabay,Ph.D., Director of Education, Natl Computer Security Assn
(Carlisle, PA); Mgmt Consultant, LGS Group Inc. (Montreal, QC)
------------------------------
From: joelm@eskimo.com (Joel McNamara)
Date: 22 Feb 1995 04:31:35 GMT
Subject: Private Idaho 1.5 Beta Release
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
The beta version of Private Idaho 1.5 is now available for testing.
Private Idaho is a freeware PGP/anonymous remailer utility for use with
Windows e-mail packages. The first version of Private Idaho only
worked with Eudora. This version will work with most available Windows
mail programs.
Additional enhancements include "encrypt to self," support for Eric
(i.e. Soda) and Anon.penet type remailers, and a cleaner interface.
You can download the beta release from:
anonymous ftp - ftp.eskimo.com /joelm/pidho15b.zip
or
WWW - http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm
Bug reports and suggestions welcomed.
Thanks!
--
Joel McNamara
joelm@eskimo.com
finger or http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm for PGP key
------------------------------
From: donath@hweng.syr.ge.com (Kurt Donath)
Date: 21 Feb 1995 13:45:45 GMT
Subject: What Does City Hall Have on Me?
Organization: Martin Marietta Internal Information Systems
I'm wondering what is available about me through the local city/county
government? Any tips on where to find this information and what is
available? Is there a FAQ that has this information?
Thanks
--
Kurt Donath
donath@hweng.syr.ge.com
------------------------------
From: jac@cis.ohio-state.edu (Jim Clausing)
Date: 21 Feb 1995 10:20:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Privacy
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Lane Lenard <llenard@pipeline.com> writes: I'm doing some research
on cordless phone snooping and have heard that there are
"monitoring enthusiast clubs" in which members share monitoring
techniques. There is even supposed to be a monthly magazine called
"Monitoring Times" that gives eavesdropping techniques. Does
anybody know anything about these clubs and/or this magazine? Also,
what is the current legal status of cordless phone snooping? Am I
correct in assuming that it is now illegal as of the passage of the
recent Digital Telephony legislation?
Okay, I will now get on my soapbox, since this starts off sounding like
an attack on those evil scanner owners. I am a scanner owner and a
Monitoring Times subscriber. There are indeed groups of scanner
enthusiasts around. There are even occasionally (rarely) articles in
MT about eavesdropping techniques. So, what. I tend to listen to
local fire frequencies, in part because my wife is a nurse and may end
up treating the victims of these tragedies. I also listen to local law
enforcement because you don't always get the whole story from the
media. I listen to air traffic at the old Air National Guard base near
by because their planes are always flying over my house. I also own a
shortwave and listen to the BBC, is there a problem here? With the
passage of the recent bill it is indeed now illegal to listen to
cordless phones. I still believe all of these laws are a crock, but my
opinion obviously didn't carry as much weight in Washington as the
cellular phone lobby and their ilk. Since 1934 it has been illegal to
discuss what you heard over the air if you were not the intended
recipient. The real problem with cordless and cellular phones was that
the industry wanted you to forget that you were actually transmitting a
radio signal. The other problem is that while the technology exists
(has for a long time) to make communication over the airwaves secure,
it was LAW ENFORCEMENT and MONEY (from the cellular phone industry)
that pressured the legislature into this "Emperor's new clothes" denial
of reality. The real privacy problem here is that the government now
says that I cannot listen to radio signals that you are broadcasting
THROUGH MY HOUSE. If you don't want me to hear it, don't broadcast it
through my airspace. Most intelligent people realize that if there is
an antenna attached then for some distance around people can pick it up
(including on your baby monitor), so they shouldn't be saying anything
there that they don't want the world to hear. By the way, if you want
to know the frequencies for cordless phones, I have them at home and
will be happy to send them to you, they are public information. If you
want more information about Monitoring Times (or its sister publication
Sattelite Times) call the publisher, Grove Enterprises in Brasstown, NC
(I don't have the 800 number in front of me). I still believe the best
way to protect privacy is to educate people and not to mindlessly make
it illegal to notice when your neighbor does something stupid. I will
close this rant by pointing those of you with Web access to the parable
by Perry Metzger at
http://draco.centerline.com:8080/~franl/privacy/parable.html
I now descend from my soapbox and don my asbestos underwear.
--
Jim Clausing jac@cis.ohio-state.edu
CIS Dept. (614)292-8234
Ohio State University fax: (614)292-2911
------------------------------
From: Michael Benedek <benem@u.washington.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 1995 12:28:18 -0800
Subject: Question Regarding Wiretapping
Organization: University of Washington
Pardon me if this is not an appropriate usergroup on which to post this
question:
If the government is tapping your phone line, is there anyway,
theoretically to make an untraceable phonecall or send an untraceable
computer transmission?
Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
From: jimray@halcyon.com (james ray)
Date: 21 Feb 1995 14:19:33 +0200
Subject: Re: Privacy and Mirror
Here is my question. The manegment of the institution I work at is
unwilling to confront the individual who did this. This is a result of
union relations. I feel however that this was a personal privacy
violation. I want to find ot if there are laws or even case law which
defines the security of memos ect which are dug out of memory on
computers. I wrote this memo directly onto a disk and never saved it
onto the hard drive. Apart from the copy I printed ut the only other
place I intednded for it to exist was on my own disk. I did not know
this mirror aspect of PC Tools existed untill after my memo was spread
arount the unit. Since managment would not do anything I want to get a
lawer and persue actions against managment if it is truly something
which can be pursued. Managment has had many problems with the
computer security of the unit for the past 5 years and have not done
anything to prevent the individual for the practices. if you need any
more information I will be happy to tell you more of the story. Dan
Burbank
------------------------------
From: kp47@umail.umd.edu
Date: 22 Feb 1995 22:05:10 GMT
Subject: Snoops
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Does anyone out there know 1)if there is such a thing as snoopware
(that is a means by which one person in a network can observe or
somehow keep tabs on others in the same group?) 2) what kinds,
specifically, there are and 3) how can one determine if he/she is
being "observed"?
Perhaps this query is too "local" in subject for this board--if so, my
apologies. Many thanks for any info.
------------------------------
From: privacy@interramp.com
Date: 20 Feb 95 23:20:41 pdt
Subject: Re: Credit Card Receipt and Phone Number
Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
<barnett@convex.com> writes: I'm not familiar with all the legal
and commercial issues, but my guess is that a merchant can impose
whatever requirements they choose before accepting a check. It is
up to the purchaser to comply or take their business elsewhere.
Mr.Barnett,
Many states have laws regarding what merchants may or may not require
for check acceptance. In Pennsylvania, merchants may require phone
number, address, driver's license number or other forms of
identification. They may also seek a major credit card and may record
the name of card issuer and expiration date. Merchants aren't required
to accept any personal check. They may not record a credit card number
as a condition for accepting a personal check.
For credit cards, a valid card and signature only, according to
Pennsylvania's new credit card law.
--
John Featherman
Editor
Privacy Newsletter
PO Box 8206
Philadelphia PA 19101-8206
Phone: 215-533-7373
E-mail: privacy@interramp.com
------------------------------
From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning)
Date: 21 Feb 1995 05:25:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Phone Users Slam Dunked
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
In a previous posting, Tomkaiser (tomkaiser@aol.com) writes: Its
that kind of activity that validates this group, however
deregulation and divestiture caused this to happen intentionally
and accidently many times, hurting the carriers involved and their
customers. A small private detective would have to either become a
reseller or front some substantial capital to deal with the rboc's
who would do the local connection (until that becomes a free for
all, it has started here in NY already). Lets hope nobody tries
it!
But they wouldn't have to set up their own alternate long distance
operation. Private Dicks have demonstrated that it is easy to find
someone to take a bribe at the old line telco's. Now if they can't they
can just shop around for someone working at some alternate long
distance company who will slam the targetted phone over and pass along
the calling details.
The fees private dicks collect may not be up to setting up an operation
like this, but they are sufficient to corrupt people. A case on CBC's
"fifth estate" described how a loonie had spent $50K tracing a woman,
even finding ways to get her new non-published number despite access
audits added to Bell Ontario's online systems.
------------------------------
From: ranck@earn.net (Bill Ranck)
Date: 21 Feb 1995 10:15:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Mailing Lists & Personal Information
Organization: Universite Paris-Sud, France.
Sarah Holland <70620.1425@compuserve.com> wrote: I think the issue
is that when one subscribes to a mailing list, one doesn't expect
that one's email address will be sent out to other people without
having first posted! It's not a big problem, of course...
Gary McGath (gmcgath@condes.MV.COM) wrote: On my recently started
book review mailing list, I send the mailings to myself, and BCC
everyone else on the list. Everyone's privacy is thus guaranteed.
Just something which other people who have mailing lists might
consider doing in order to avoid the problem mentioned.
While Gary's solution is nice, it requires him to manually maintain the
list. Mailing list servers should allow you to set your subscription
to "hide" your name/address. I know that Listserv has this feature.
To use it, you send the command "set <listname> conceal" from the
subscribed userid and then only the list owner can see who you are.
For example, if you send a "review <listname>" to a Listserv server the
result will give you the name and e-mail address of everyone subscribed
*except* hidden subscribers. The review will say how many hidden
subscribers exist.
You should be aware that not all mailing list software has this
feature. Listserv and Listproc do, but majordomo apparently does not.
There is a lot of other mailing list software out there so some others
may also. Send a "help" command to the server that runs your favorite
lists and see if there is a conceal option.
--
* Bill Ranck +33.1.69.41.24.26 ranck@earn.net *
* Technical Staff, European Academic & Research Network (EARN) Orsay, France *
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 1995 07:49:50 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Finnish Anonymity Compromised by Interpol
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from the Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 19, 1995 Volume 7 :
Issue 14 ISSN 1004-042X
Date: 19 Feb 1995 21:41:12 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 1--Finnish anonymity compromised by Interpol (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From--an0@anon.penet.fi (The Anonymous Administrator)
Organization--Anonymous contact service
Reply-To--an0@anon.penet.fi
Date--Sat, 18 Feb 1995 12:03:58 UTC
Subject--Anon.penet.fi compromised!
I am pretty shocked! Based on a request from Interpol, the Finnish
police have gotten a search&seizure warrant on my home and the
anon.penet.fi server, and gotten the real mail address of a user that
has allegedly posted material stolen from the Church of Scientology.
Fortunately I managed to prevent them from getting more than this one,
single address.
There is going to be a very high-level public debate on how it is
possible that a country that prides itself on honoring human rights
and privacy very strongly has allowed this to happen. Maybe we can use
the publicity to stop this from happening again.
But in this situation, I find it pretty understandable that some of
you might want all traces of your ID removed. I have now added the
alias "remove@anon.penet.fi" to my server. If you want to be removed,
just send a (possibly empty) message to that address. But I am hoping
it won't be empty. I am hoping that you do outline *why* you have
needed the server, and what you think about the actions of the Finnish
authorities.
The messages will be anonymized using the normal anon.penet.fi
procedure, and used to support the demand for a re-interpretation of
the privacy laws in Finland.
If you *don't* want to be removed, but still want to send a comment,
you can use the addresses anon-support@lists.otol.fi (if you are *for*
keeping the server) and anon-against@lists.otol.fi (if you are
*against* the server). If you want to be anonymous, use
anon-support@anon.penet.fi and anon-against@anon.penet.fi.
Julf (admin@anon.penet.fi)
------------------------------
From: casc@hpax.cup.hp.com (Cas Caswell)
Date: 21 Feb 1995 16:40:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Privacy
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
Lane Lenard (llenard@pipeline.com) wrote: <snip question regarding
cordless phone monitoring clubs/pubs deleted>
I recall (it's been awhile) seeing some discussions on this over in the
ham groups (rec.radio.* or rec.amature.* or?? as I said, it's been
awhile). Monitoring of any broadcast is something some folks get off
on. There are monitoring pubs that discuss finding navigation aids...
so it's not just listening for the latest neighborhood scandle.
Also, what is the current legal status of cordless phone snooping?
Am I correct in assuming that it is now illegal as of the passage
of the recent Digital Telephony legislation?
I thought, and I'm not a bonafide expert and won't pretend to play one
on the net..., that this piece of work covered Cell Phone freqs only.
Be that as it may, depending on the illegallity of an activity to
protect you from someone participating in it, is not the wisest course
of action (IMO).
If using cordless or cell phones, you would be safest to say only those
things you wouldn't mind shouting out in a crowded room (with people
you don't trust in it). In otherwords... credit card numbers, voice
mail passwords, vacation plans (I'm leaving the state for 3 days on Feb
31 ... and no one will be checking my home), extra marital affairs,
and negotiating the price of non-legal activities are probably things
you shouldn't discuss....
With that said, it seems the 900 Mhz cordless phones are now offering
spread spectrum broadcasts which should make the monitoring more
difficult.
Remember that until the FCC outlaws Ham operations, many of these
technologies operate in portions of the RF spectrum that lie real close
to Ham bands, so if my legal ham receiver happens to drift outside the
band a bit... who's to know? The FCC don't care (now if my transmit
happens to slip, that they do care about, but enforcement is tough).
By the way, have one of those cordless baby monitors? You know, the
ones that let you listen to hear if junior is fussing in the other
room.... they tend to leak too... so discussing your swis bank
account... or the fact that neighbor x is a *&(*^ for whatever, may not
be staying within your own walls.
--
=======================================================================
cas caswell "Fac ut gaudeam"
casc@cup.hp.com By the way: I said it.... not my company.
=======================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 22 Feb 1995 19:34:52 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Symposium on Medical Records
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Tuesday 21 February 1995
Volume 16 : Issue 83 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND
RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) ACM Committee on Computers and Public
Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator
Date: 18 Feb 1995 18:28:29 -0800
From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: symposium on medical records
A symposium is coming up that has tremendous consequences for the
privacy of sensitive personal medical records -- Toward an Electronic
Patient Record '95, 14-19 March 1995 in Orlando, Florida. The basic
idea is to put all of your medical records on-line in a centralized
repository, accessible to any medical professional who needs them.
This is great when the folks in the emergency room need your records in
a hurry, but it's not so great when your records are also available to
insurance companies and marketers, not to mention private investigators
who are willing to push the law a little bit. Right now the outlook
for serious privacy protections on computerized medical records is not
so good. As a result, I think it would be excellent if any net
citizens were to attend this symposium and report back to the net
community.
I would particularly direct your attention to a meeting of the
Standards Subcommittee on Access, Privacy and Confidentiality of
Medical Records, which is to be held on Sunday March 12th and will be
open to the public. It isn't good enough for privacy to be protected
by vague principles and guidelines after the systems have been
designed. Privacy capabilities such as patients' control over their
personal information must be built into the technical standards, and if
you can be in Florida in March then you can help out by informing the
net community about the progress of those standards.
More generally, the standards for a whole generation of
privacy-sensitive systems are being set right now -- Intelligent
Transportation Systems are another example -- and I think it's
important for the net community to track the standard-setting process,
publicizing problems and intervening to make sure that the new
generation of standards makes full use of the new generation of privacy
technologies -- especially technologies such as digital cash that are
based on public-key cryptography. In the case of medical records, some
of the people designing the systems actually are aware of the existence
of these new privacy technologies. The hard part is making sure that
real privacy protection is actually built into the standards despite
the probable pressure of various economic interests to the contrary.
The symposium is organized by the Medical Records Institute. MRI is on
the Web at http://www.nfic.com/mri/mri.html But I particularly
recommend the 36-page paper version of the conference announcement
since it includes information about the exhibitors -- valuable raw
material for research by privacy advocates. MRI's e-mail address is
71431.2030@compuserve.com and their paper address is 567 Walnut Street,
PO Box 289, Newton MA 02160 USA.
--
Phil Agre, UCSD
------------------------------
From: wmcclatc@gmu.edu (Bill McClatchie)
Date: 21 Feb 1995 23:41:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Recent Break-ins and Collections of Credit Card Numbers
"Vinod Narayanan" <vinod@watson.ibm.com> wrote: Todays NY times had
a story about the apprehension of Mr.Mitnick for various computer
related breakins. There are various risks to be considered in this
incident, including some that Mr.Mitnick did not anticipate, but
one particular item caught my attention. [snip] I would have
expected at least one of the following measures to be taken: -
Move the credit card numbers physically to a separate system, which
cannot be accessed directly from the hosts connected to the
networks, maybe on a daily basis. - Use some strong encryption,
with the key being stored on a separate system, and all decryption
being done on a separate system.
I think the reason that they stored the numbers in one file was to make
it easier to do a mass billing every month. They probably have a
seperate file for each different level of payment.
This sort of information should have definately been kept somewhere
else. I agree, they should have kept this information on another
system, prefereably one that wass not accessable from the outside world
unless someone at netcom plugged in a modem.
Now, we may think that this is a risk associated only with online
providers who collect your credit card numbers for access to
accounts. However, this is not the case. As more and more
merchants come on-line, it is likely that their databases are
accessible directly from the network also.
These databases may or may not be accessable. Hopefully Netcom will
have demonstrated the need to keep this information on seperate systems
than the ones connected to the Internet.
Also, I think that this information is stored in a different manner,
with the information organized by customer phone numbers and names. I
don't think that they keep a customers credit card number in the file
since there is no need to do so, and many people don't always use the
same card.
I think the basic lesson is that we all need to be aware of the
higher risk associated with on-line collections of sensitive data.
This sort of awareness should be used with all transactions we enter
into.
Do you know how many people each year still give their credit card
numbers to complete strangers, just becuase they were asked for it?
Bill McClatchie wmcclatc@gmu.edu
------------------------------
From: ACLU Information <infoaclu@aclu.org>
Date: 23 Feb 1995 10:48:53 -0500
Subject: ACLU cyber-liberties Alert: Axe the Exon Bill!
**ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES ALERT**
FIGHT ONLINE CENSORSHIP!
AXE THE EXON BILL!
The American Civil Liberties Union urges you to contact the members of
the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee and your own Senators to ask them to
oppose the efforts to turn online communications into the most heavily
censored form of American media.
In a clumsy effort to purge sexual expression from the Internet and
other online networks, the self-described "Communications Decency Act
of 1995" (S.314, introduced by Senator Exon on 2/2/95) would make ALL
telecommunications service providers liable for every message, file, or
other content carried on their networks. Senator Exon is planning to
attach the bill to Senator Pressler's new telecommunications
legislation, which is targeted for action in early March.
The Exon proposal would severely restrict the flow of online
information by requiring service providers to act as private censors of
e-mail messages, public forums, mailing lists, and archives to avoid
criminal liability. The ACLU believes that online users should be the
only censors of the content of the information they receive.
**The Exon proposal broadens existing law by subjecting service
providers, as well as the individuals who actually send messages, to
criminal liability for any "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
indecent" message transmitted over their networks.**
If enacted into law, this vague and overly broad legislation could have
the following draconian effects:
* The Exon proposal would prohibit communications with
sexual content through private e-mail between consenting
adults, and would inhibit people from making comments that
might or might not be prohibited.
* Under the Exon proposal, service providers would pay up
to $100,000 or spend up to 2 years in jail for prohibited
content produced by subscribers on other networks, over which
they had no control.
* The Exon proposal would expand current restrictions on
telephone access by minors to dial-a-porn services to include
online access to indecent material, requiring service providers
to purge "indecent" material from public bulletin boards and
discussion groups to avoid accidental viewing by a minor.
In effect, online providers would be forced to offer to adults only
that content that is "suitable for minors."
S. 314 is nearly identical to an amendment Senator Exon successfully
attached to last year's Senate version of the telecommunications law
overhaul. Last year's bill died for unrelated reasons, but the Senate
Commerce Committee is determined to pass new telecommunications
legislation this year that could easily include the Exon proposal.
The ACLU opposes the restrictions on speech imposed by this legislation
because they violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free
expression. Forcing carriers to pre-screen content violates the
Constitution and threatens the free and robust expression that is the
promise of the Net. The Constitution requires that any abridgement of
speech use the least restrictive means available -- the language of the
Exon proposal is clearly the most restrictive because it sweeps broadly
against a wide array of protected material involving sexual
expression.
Stop the information superhighway from becoming the most censored
segment of communications media!
ACT NOW:
Urge members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation:
*To oppose the Exon proposal, or any Senate or House
variation.
*To drop the Exon proposal BEFORE it goes to the Senate floor.
*To hold full hearings on the Exon proposal and to review it
thoroughly before it goes to the Senate floor.
*To reject any effort to attach the Exon proposal to the Senate
telecommunications legislation.
THE EXON PROPOSAL COULD BE LAW WITHIN WEEKS IF WE DON'T ACT TODAY.
Send your letter by e-mail, fax, or snail mail to:
Senator Larry Pressler, S.D. Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation SR-254 Russell Senate Office Building Washington,
DC 20510-6125 (202) 224-5842 (phone) (202) 224-1630 (fax) e-mail:
larry_pressler@pressler.senate.gov
To maximize the impact of your letter, you should also write to the
members of the Senate Commerce Committee and to your own Senators.
A sample letter is attached.
Majority Members of the Senate Commerce Committee
Senator Bob Packwood, Ore. SR-259 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3702 (202) 224-5244 (phone) (202) 228-3576 (fax)
Senator Ted Stevens, Alaska SH-522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0201 (202) 224-3004 (phone) (202) 224-1044 (fax)
Senator John McCain, Ariz. SR-111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0303 (202) 224-2235 (phone) (202) 228-2862 (fax)
Senator Conrad Burns, Mont. SD-183 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2603 (202) 224-2644 (phone) (202) 224-8594 (fax)
Senator Slade Gorton, Wash. SH-730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4701 (202) 224-3441 (phone) (202) 224-9393 (fax)
e-mail: senator_gorton@gorton.senate.gov
Senator Trent Lott, Miss. SR-487 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2403 (202) 224-6253 (phone) (202) 224-2262 (fax)
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Tex. SH-703 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4303 (202) 224-5922 (phone) (202) 224-0776 (fax)
e-mail: senator@hutchison.senate.gov
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Maine SR-174 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1903 (202) 224-5344 (phone) (202) 224-6853 (fax)
Senator John Ashcroft, Mo. SH-705 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2504 (202) 224-6154 (phone) (202) 224-7615 (fax)
Minority Members of the Senate Commerce Committee
Senator Ernest F. Hollings, S.C. SR-125 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4002 (202) 224-6121 (phone) (202) 224-4293 (fax)
Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii SH-772 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1102 (202) 224-3934 (phone) (202) 224-6747 (fax)
Senator Wendell H. Ford, Ky. SR-173A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1701 (202) 224-4343 (phone) (202) 224-0046 (fax)
e-mail: wendell_ford@ford.senate.gov
Senator J. James Exon, Neb. SH-528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2702 (202) 224-4224 (phone) (202) 224-5213 (fax)
Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, W. Va. SH-109 Hart Senate Office
Building Washington, DC 20510-4802 (202) 224-6472 (phone) (202)
224-1689 (fax)
Senator John F. Kerry, Mass. SR-421 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2102 (202) 224-2742 (phone) (202) 224-8525 (fax)
Senator John B. Breaux, La SH-516 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1803 (202) 224-4623 (phone) (202) 224-2435 (fax)
Senator Richard H. Bryan, Nev. SR-364 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2804 (202) 224-6244 (phone) (202) 224-1867 (fax)
Senator Byron L. Dorgan, N.D. SH-713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3405 (202) 224-2551 (phone) (202) 224-1193 (fax)
You can also write or fax your own Senator at:
The Honorable ______________________ U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Senate directories including fax numbers may be found at:
gopher://ftp.senate.gov:70
gopher://una.hh.lib.umich.edu:70/0/socsci/polscilaw/uslegi
Additional information about the ACLU's position on this issue and
others affecting civil liberties online and elsewhere may be found at:
gopher:\\aclu.org:6601 OR request our FAQ at infoaclu@aclu.org
-----------------------------------------------cut
here----------------------------------------------------------
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear Senator _______:
I am writing to urge you to oppose the restrictions on speech that
would be imposed by the legislation introduced by Senator Exon, known
as the Communications Decency Act of 1995, S.314, introduced on
2/2/95. The Exon proposal would severely restrict the flow of online
information by requiring service providers to act as private censors of
e-mail messages, public forums, mailing lists, and archives to avoid
criminal liability. I believe that online users should be the only
censors of the content of the messages they receive.
I urge you to:
*Oppose the Exon proposal, or any Senate or House variation.
*Drop the Exon proposal BEFORE it goes to the Senate floor.
*Hold full hearings on the Exon proposal and review it
thoroughly before it goes to the Senate floor.
*Reject any effort to attach the Exon proposal to the Senate
telecommunications legislation.
Sincerely,
[name] -- ACLU Free Reading Room | American Civil Liberties Union
gopher://aclu.org:6601 | 132 W. 43rd Street, NY, NY 10036
mailto:infoaclu@aclu.org| "Eternal vigilance is the
ftp://ftp.pipeline.com | price of liberty"
------------------------------
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 #020
******************************
.