Date: Sun, 21 May 95 12:14:51 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#047
Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 21 May 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 047
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
Policy Statement of Computer Privacy Digest
CIBC and Royal Bank to do MONDEX Pilot
Re: Medical Records Privacy
Sending VISA Card Details Across the Net
Washington Goings On
Nautilus, PLEASE....
FCC Press Release regarding CNID
Privacy? What Privacy?
Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dr. Tom Blinn, 603-881-0646" <tpb@zk3.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 09:55:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
[moderator: I allow people who wish to remain anonymous to request
such and post the material over my own sig. I, however, do not
allow postings sent openly from anonymizers (sp?). Should I change
this policy?]
In my opinion, no. You are the moderator, and as such, responsible to
some degree for the content. If you can't verify where something is
coming from there is no reason why you should post it in a moderated
newsletter (unless that was your choice).
There are plenty of unmoderated forums where people can post anything
they like. The value of the content is often quite low.
Basically, I don't think the current policy is broken, and I see no
reason to "fix" it.
--
Dr. Thomas P. Blinn, UNIX Software Group, Digital Equipment Corporation
110 Spit Brook Road, MS ZKO3-2/U20 Nashua, New Hampshire 03062-2698
Technology Partnership Engineering Phone: (603) 881-0646
Internet: tpb@zk3.dec.com Digital's Easynet: alpha::tpb
------------------------------
From: "Peter G. Neumann" <neumann@chiron.csl.sri.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 8:40:02 PDT
Subject: Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
Leonard, Your policy
I allow people who wish to remain anonymous to request such and
post the material over my own sig. I, however, do not allow
postings sent openly from anonymizers.
seems quite appropriate to me. Employees of governments and
corporations may be under serious restraints that prevent them from
speaking out, and posting anonymously makes it possible for them to say
things that otherwise might never be said. However, there remains the
problem that E-mail can easily be spoofed, and thus something that
appears to come from an unquestionably reliable source could actually
be a hoax. That risk exists whether or not the correspondent wishes to
be anonymous, but you might be more willing to run something that
appears to come from someone who has over the years demonstrated
consistent veracity and responsibility. The bottom line is that
moderators should judge all postings on merit and not on presumed
authorship; sensitive topics require much greater thought on the part
of the moderator, and I appreciate your efforts in that direction.
------------------------------
From: <ead@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 10:05:48 -0600
Subject: Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
Organization: Netcom
Dr. Levine,
[moderator: I allow people who wish to remain anonymous to request
such and post the material over my own sig. I, however, do not
allow postings sent openly from anonymizers (sp?). Should I change
this policy?]
Yes. There's too much room for human error. For example, earlier this
year I requested that you post one of my articles anonymously, and you
erred and included my sig and email address.
--
Eric De Mund <ead@netcom.com>
------------------------------
From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills)
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 13:39:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
<in CPD.6.46> you wrote: [moderator: I allow people who wish to
remain anonymous to request such and post the material over my own
sig. I, however, do not allow postings sent openly from
anonymizers (sp?). Should I change this policy?]
No, please don't change it. It is hard enough already to judge if some
postings are real or hoaxes. Small protection that it is, having non-
anonymous return addresses is better than the alternate.
--
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: WELKER@a1.vsdec.nl.nuwc.navy.mil
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 15:41:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
[moderator: I allow people who wish to remain anonymous to request
such and post the material over my own sig. I, however, do not
allow postings sent openly from anonymizers (sp?). Should I change
this policy?]
It's your mailing list -- do what you feel is appropriate.
Since you're asking for opinions, I'm inclined to suggest that you
formulate a disclaimer for anonymous postings to the effect that you
cannot be held responsible for them, and post it over any anonymous
post. I have no idea how people such as the Church of Scientology
would react, however (no slight intended).
------------------------------
From: shields@tembel.org (Michael Shields)
Date: Sat, 20 May 95 22:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Anonymity on Computer Privacy Digest
Organization: Tembel's Hedonic Commune
[moderator: I allow people who wish to remain anonymous to request
such and post the material over my own sig. I, however, do not
allow postings sent openly from anonymizers (sp?). Should I change
this policy?]
Even if you don't, it would be good to make the header information
clearer, noting that you *can* be published anonymously, but not submit
anonymously.
--
Shields.
------------------------------
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <drears@Pica.Army.Mil>
Date: 19 May 95 17:08:47 EDT
Subject: Policy Statement of Computer Privacy Digest
[moderator: Dennis Rears was the originator of CPD. His response,
modified only to update addresses to their present forms is posted
below. The policy he posted is still the policy of the digest. The
full policy has not been posted here for years so this is a good time
to repeat it.]
I originally instituted this policy when I started the CPD. The actual
statement was
c. Anonymous submissions are generally not accepted. Under
certain conditions an exception will be made at the Moderator's
discretion.
The thinking was that anonymous posting would only be allowed if it
could negatively affect the author. Anonymity and privacy are closely
related issues but not the same issue.
Policy on Posting to the Computer Privacy Digest.
Revision History:
Revision 1.0 27 May 1992
Revision 1.1 24 April 1993
Revision 2.0 21 May 1995
Introduction:
The Computer Privacy Digest is an electronic digest dedicated to the
discussion of how technology affects privacy. The digest is burst into
separate articles and fed into the USENET newsgroup
comp.society.privacy. The newsgroup and digest are different forms of
the same forum.
Discussions should be centered around the following topics:
o Technology - What devices are out there now and are on the
drawing boards that will enhance or take away privacy from
individuals and entities.
o Ramifications - What are the ramifications are current and new
technology.
o Public Policy - What should public policy be in regulating, not
regulating, and/or using the technology. Privacy includes the
right of the individual/entitity to privacy against other
individuals, entities, businesses, and the various forms of
government.
o Education - This kind of goes with ramification. One of the
functions of this forum should be to educate people on how current
technology affect their privacy. This can range from corporate
data bases to credit card usage.
1. Submissions:
a. All submissions should be emailed to comp-privacy@uwm.edu or
posted to the comp.society.privacy newsgroup. Only submissions
that are relevant to the charter of the forum will be published.
Please keep text to under 76 characters per line. Personal
attacks, excess flamage, or libelous postings will not be
published.
b. Submissions should not be sent to
comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. This address is for drop/add
requests, administrative changes, and confidential requests to the
moderator. Those submissions sent to that address will only be
published if explicit permission is granted to publish by the
poster.
c. Anonymous submissions are generally no accepted. Under certain
conditions an exception will be made at the Moderator's
discretion.
2. Copyright Issues
a. It is assumed that the copyright on material submitted to the
CPD will remain with the author. In the case where the author is
the submitter, it is assumed that the author explicitely grants (by
the act of submitting the material) permission for the material to
be published in the CPD, to be posted to the USENET group
comp.society.privacy, and to any archiving of either medium.
b. When the submitter is not the owner of the copyright, only those
submissions which carry a notice from the submitter that the
permission of the copyright holder has been obtained will be
accepted. This does not apply to limited inclusions of copyrighted
material that meet the fair use criteria.
3. Signal to Noise Ratio:
It is my desire to keep a high signal to noise ratio. As a result
a particular posting may not be published or a subject thread might
be terminated when postings start to fail to shed new insight into
the subject. I welcome submissions on new topics and encourage
them. The quality of the digest is up the readers and posters.
4. Long Articles
Articles between 10 - 50Kbytes will be split into chunks
not longer than 20K and be placed in separate digests. Articles
longer than 50K will be announced and be made available via FTP.
For people without ftp access I will mail copies upon request.
5. Computer Privacy Digest Archives
Back issues are most easily available via gopher or Mosaic using
the command:
'gopher gopher.cs.uwm.edu'
or
'Mosaic gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu'
Standard commands apply. Back issues are also available via
anonymous ftp:
'ftp ftp.cs.uwm.edu'
ftp.cs.uwm.edu = (129.89.9.18). Come in and look around.
With any of the above, move to the comp-privacy directory. In
addition to a 'z-library' subdirectory there are subdirectories
named 'volume1' through the current volume that you are free to
examine and copy from.
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: WELKER@a1.vsdec.nl.nuwc.navy.mil
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 15:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: CIBC and Royal Bank to do MONDEX Pilot
The cards would have no PIN or other password and if they were lost
or stolen the user would be out of pocket unless it was returned to
the bank.
A pity -- such a security feature could be a major selling point for
this technology, since no one would steal your card if they couldn't
use it themselves. The capability to report a card stolen by serial
number and have it denied would also seem to be desirable. In the
absence of such features, I presume the cards will have some limit on
how much they can carry -- how much?
Is this one likely to take off? The bank representative I spoke
with seemed quite up front about the idea of it being a cost saving
measure for the banks(an attempt to reduce the use of cash in ATMs)
as a well as one that would let them charge new fees to the users
and merchants.
Fascinating, since ATMs already represent a cost savings to the bank
over tellers, and they get to charge you for them anyway.
With the proliferation of debit and credit card technology this
seems like a specialty item. I've heard enough about ATM and credit
card account disputes to wonder about how easy it would be to
dispute this if the merchants deducted more from the card than they
should.
They can't deduct more than is on the card, and I suspect (above) that
this is a pretty finite limit. Your statement about ATM/phone recharge
implies that the value of the card is maintained at a central bank
computer vice being encoded on the card -- making this really just an
"anonymous debit card". If true, this would imply that charges could
be disputed and "rolled back". What'd be really neat is if the
government would issue something like this as an alternative form of
currency!
I'm not sure that users would rather pay for the privilege of using
this kind of card, or than enough businesses would get on board to
make it fly.
If it is cheaper for the businesses than credit cards (approx. five
percent commission), then any business which currently takes credit
cards would seem to have an incentive to participate. Users who have
been through the credit buying "trap" would also probably like it,
too.
------------------------------
From: alap@ac.dal.ca ( =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= La Prairie)
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 14:55:04 -0300
Subject: Re: Medical Records Privacy
Please contact me if you know of anyone who has experienced a
violation of their privacy because their medical records were on a
computer in their health plan, doctor's office, hospital, or
Medical Information Bureau. You can reach me at cprma@aol.com or
by calling 617-433-0114 The Coalition of Patient Rights of
Massachusetts.
I do not have a case of computer record invasion, as you requested, but
Nova Scotia has had a recent case where the psychiatrist offered
information on a one of his patients who had brought sexual assault
charges against a law student.
The outcome of this action has been a review of the law and rights of
patients.
Perhaps if you contact the Psychiatry Association here in Halifax they
may be able to tell you if they have addressed your question.
--
Andre
------------------------------
From: udap251@kcl.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 19:13:02 GMT
Subject: Sending VISA Card Details Across the Net
Organization: King's College London
Recently I've seen several suppliers saying something like "as the
internet is not a secure network, you may not wish to post your credit
card details across the net"
Is this caution necessary? After all, in order to use a credit card
down the phone one has to give one's card details to a total stranger,
and we all do that (don't we?) My understanding is that unless the
supplier can produce your signature on an order or card foil, then it's
him that's taking a chance on not being paid should the order turn out
to be a spoof.
The worst I can think of is that some insane hacker could intercept
your card details and then order you something unwanted. But since
there's nothing vaguely resembling any legal proof that you authorized
the transaction, surely when you protest it's the supplier who'd lose
out, not the cardholder.
Anyone got further insights?
--
Nigel Arnot
NRA@MAXWELL.PH.KCL.AC.UK
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 16:04:17 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Washington Goings On
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The Telecom Post just bounced against my electronic door and contains
the following:
The Telecom Post will be published weekly while the U.S. Congress
reconfigures our telecommunication reality. It is posted to a number
of lists and is also available from the CPSR listserv. To subscribe
send to LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG with the message SUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST YOUR
NAME.
[...]
Privacy
The much publicized Exon Amendment is still under the knife. Sen.
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has introduced S.714, the Child Protection, User
Empowerment, and Free Expression in Interactive Media Study measure.
The Department of Justice claims that the Exon approach will actually
hamstring their attempts to enforce child pornography and obscenity
laws. Leahy's bill, on the other hand, encourages the development of
technologies to enable the screening of unwanted material. It blocks,
not censors, content without drawing boundaries around the First
Amendment.
[...]
--
Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu
Professor, Computer Science Office 1-414-229-5170
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Fax 1-414-229-6958
Box 784, Milwaukee, WI 53201
PGP Public Key: finger llevine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu
------------------------------
From: Tsled@aol.com
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 22:00:49 -0400
Subject: Nautilus, PLEASE....
About a week and a half ago I read an article about a program called
NAUTILUS. I am trying to find where it can be found, can you help me
P-L-E-A-S-E !!! I thank you ahead of time for your help in this matter.
--
Tsled@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 07:56:03 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: FCC Press Release regarding CNID
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
This is an excellent review of the current status of National
CallerID. It was taken from PRIVACY Forum Digest Friday, 19 May 1995
Volume 04 : Issue 11 Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A.
If you are interested in following this excellent board the material
below would be of interest: Subscriptions are by an automatic
"listserv" system; for subscription information, please send a message
consisting of the word "help" (quotes not included) in the BODY of a
message to: "privacy-request@vortex.com". Mailing list problems
should be reported to "list-maint@vortex.com".
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
Date: 11 May 95 19:36 PDT
Subject: FCC Press Release regarding CNID
Greetings. As you may recall from the previous digest, a new FCC order (the
full text of which still doesn't seem to have appeared on their gopher) has
enhanced privacy protection for callers relating to calling number ID
systems, primarily through permitting the use of per-line ID blocking
systems. It's particularly important that the Commission clearly addressed
the important issue of ID unblocking (the new *82 code) and the issue of
call-return.
Below is the full text of the press release announcing this order. It is
worth noting however, that litigation regarding this matter may continue.
Some states are petitioning for reconsideration on the basis that the FCC
didn't go far enough in providing protections to subscribers with
non-published numbers (among other matters). Similarly, some major telcos
are petitioning with the claim that the FCC went too far in the direction of
privacy by allowing per-line ID blocking at all (not unexpected, since
per-line ID blocking is a major blow to the desirability of CNID systems for
marketing and other purposes).
--Lauren--
-------------------------------
Report No. DC 95-71 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE May 4, 1995
FCC FINALIZES RULES FOR CALLER ID; ALLOWS PER LINE BLOCKING WHERE
STATES PERMIT; PBX CALLER ID RULES PROPOSED
(CC DOCKET 91-281)
The Commission today voted to approve national Caller ID rules that
will protect the privacy of the called and the calling party by
mandating that carriers make available a free, simple and consistent,
per call blocking and unblocking mechanism. Under the rules adopted
today, callers dialing *67 before dialing a particular call will, for
interstate calls, block calling party information for any interstate
calls and those callers using a blocked line can unblock the line and
release that information by dialing *82. The Order permits carriers
to provide privacy on all calls dialed from a particular line, where
state policies provide, and the customer selects, that option.
Today's action came as the Commission reconsidered its original Caller
ID nationwide Caller ID system is in the public interest. It found
that passage of the calling party's number, or CPN, could benefit
consumers by encouraging the introduction of new technologies and
services to the public, enabling service providers and consumers to
conduct transactions more efficiently.
The rules adopted today will take effect December 1, 1995. Public pay
phones and partylines will be required to be in compliance by January 1,
1997. The Commission also issued a rulemaking proposal concerning PBX
and private payphone obligations under the Caller ID rules.
In March 1994, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that concluded
that a nationwide Caller ID system was in the public interest and stated
that the potential benefits of a Caller ID system -- efficiency and
productivity gains, infrastructure development and network utilization,
and new service and employment opportunities -- would only be possible if
CPN is passed among carrier networks. It noted two areas of concern
however -- compensation issues related to passage of CPN for interstate
calls and varying state requirements intended to protect the privacy
rights of calling and called parties on interstate calls.
In today's action the Commission affirmed its finding that common
carriers, including Commercial Mobile Radio Service providers, with
Signaling System 7 (SS7)call set up capability, must transport CPN
without charge to interstate connecting carriers. The Commission
clarified that carriers without SS7 call set upcapability do not have
to upgrade their networks just to transport CPN to connecting
carriers. The Commission noted that local exchange carriers are
required to resell interstate access for Caller ID to other carriers
wishing to compete for end-user business in this market.
The Commission modified its previous decision that only per-call
blocking would be allowed. Today's action permits per-line blocking
for interstate calls instates where it is permitted for intrastate
calls, provided the customer elects per line blocking. The Commission's
original rules required a caller to dial *67 before each call in order
to block the called party from knowing the caller's number. The
Commission has now modified its rules to permit carriers to provide
privacy on all calls dialed from a particular line, where state
policies provide, and the customer selects, that option, provided
carriers permit callers to unblock calls from that line by dialing
*82. Where state policies do not require or permit at the customer's
election per line blocking, carriers are bound by the federal privacy
protection model to provide privacy only where *67 is dialed.
The Commission noted that it continues to exempt calls to emergency lines
from its rules; that is, a carrier's obligation to honor caller privacy
requests to emergency numbers will be governed by state policies.
As an additional privacy measure, the Commission requires that when a
caller requests that the calling party number be concealed, a carrier may
not reveal the name of the subscriber to that line and callers requesting
that their number not be revealed should be able to block an automatic
call return feature. The Commission continues to require that carriers
with call set up capability that pass CPN or transmit Automatic Number
Identification (ANI) educate customers regarding the passage and usage of
this information.
Finally, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing
that Private Branch Exchange (PBX) systems and private payphones capable
of delivering CPN to the public switched telephone network also be capable
of delivering a privacy indicator when users dial *67 and be capable of
unblocking the line by dialing *82.
Action by the Commission May 4, 1995, by MO&O on Reconsideration, Second
R&O and Third NPRM (FCC 95 - 187). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello,
Barrett, Ness and Chong.
-FCC-
News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet at (202) 418-1500.
Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Marian Gordon at (202) 634-4215.
------------------------------
From: Peter Marshall <rocque@eskimo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 16:49:52 -0700
Subject: Privacy? What Privacy?
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
The following is reposted, with permission of the author, from HIM-L, a
mailing list for discussion of health information management issues. I
felt that some people getting bent out of shape over some pretty minor
points needed some shock treatment about where the real privacy issues
lie.
Note that the auto insurance talked about is compulsory in many places.
--
Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, Pearly Gateway, Ballston Spa, NY
stpeters@NetHeaven.com Owner/operator, NetHeaven 1-800-910-6671
PPP/SLIP for Albany, Schenectady, Troy, and (coming in June) Glens Falls.
Visit the Internet Conference Calendar http://calendar.com/conferences
______________________________________________________________________
From: AGENTLE@aol.com
Sender: him-l@fiona.umsmed.edu
To: stpeters@netheaven.com
Subject: Confidentiality/Pertinent Record
Date: Thu, 18 May 95 13:19:58 -0500
Recently, there have been e-mail exchanges regarding release of
pertinent medical records only, for processing of medical bills. Let me
share with you some insights that I thought perhaps everyone was aware
of, that might benefit HIM-L subscribers personally and
professionally.
Most people apparently are not aware that auto insurors, who are, by
the way, some of the worst manipulators and exploiters of medical
records, have, by contract, access to all, that is ALL, of their
insureds' medical files.
I suggest everyone who is an HIM-L subscriber pull out your auto
insurance policies tonight, and read ALL of the fine print. What
virtually every car insurance policy in this nation states, is:
YOU (insured) agree to provide any and all medical records requested,
in case of an auto accident). This does not mean all pertinent records,
it means, everything they ask for. So if a reckless driver hits you,
and injures you, and the insurors demand to see a list of the name and
current mailing address of every doctor, hospital, psychologist,
rehab, and clinic you ever attended since age two years old, and access
to each and every chart and every page of their files, you have to do
it. YOU are under contract to provide it, because you agreed to release
everything the day you signed up for auto insurance!
This, of course, means they can pull every skeleton out of your closet,
use your personal problems, as a weapon against you, ridicule each and
every word you ever uttered to a doctor, and every physical or personal
problem documented, to attack you with. Since, if you allege an injury,
your entire history becomes the issue.
As I found last year, there is no such thing as a partial release.
There is no such thing as 'I agree to provide all pertinent medical
data'. they can sue you for failure to produce all your records, if
they so choose, if you don't spill all the beans. You are under
contract to allow them access to every word of your history. If they
demand them, by God, you have to provide them. End of discussion.
Very few people read the fine print in the auto insuror files, but I
suggest you all do. You will be amazed. What folks also do not
understand, until they get injured in a wreck is, every word you ever
said to any doctor or clinic, anywhere, can and will be used against
you to evade a claim. Auto insurors commonly reject injury claims, if
they find any sort of prior personal or physical problem, in your
entire history, forcing the insured to sue; then the fun starts. Their
lawyers get to read your entire history out loud in court, each and
every word of it, relishing the excitement of unveiling and mocking
your personal life in public.
Again, I suggest everyone in America, particularly medical information
managers, read their car insurance policies, and think about having
your personal comments to doctors read aloud somewhere, and used
against you. It happens all the time. Maybe not to you. But it could. I
was just telling a friend of mine her case was totally a fluke, and
could never happen again, when I was hit by a reckless driver last
year, and I went thru the same exact witch hunt.
I have spent the last year writing Insurance Commissioners, lawyers,
AMA, APA, medical ethicists, health care providers, medical records
experts, judges, rehabs, all across this nation about this matter, all
the way to Janet Reno, attorney general of the US, and everyone told me
the same thing. By contract, insurors have a right to do what they do,
and there is nothing the public can do to prevent them from
accumulating, manipulating, and exploiting medical records in any way
they see fit.
I just thought you all might benefit from my friend's and my
experience. People have a right to know how things work.
--
Agentle@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: Thu, 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 #047
******************************
.