Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 11:05:28 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#054
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 13 Jun 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 054
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Course: Cryptology for the Internet
Fulbright & Computer Ethics in the UK
Course: Internet Security, 7/ 24-28, at Stanford
Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement
Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement
Re: Text Filter for the Very Good
Defences Against Cyber-Seduction
Re: The Microsoft Win95 Virus - update
Re: Sending VISA Card Details by e-Mail
Re: Mondex Project
CA PUC battles FCC over CNID blocking
NSW electoral ID card
MasterCard Survey on Junk Mail and Junk Phone Calls
Freedom to Read
Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wengler@ee.rochester.edu (Michael J. Wengler)
Date: 08 Jun 1995 14:34:10 -0500
Subject: Course: Cryptology for the Internet
Organization: EE Dept., University of Rochester
EE 492: "SPECIAL TOPICS: CRYPTOLOGY AND COMPUTER-NETWORK SECURITY"
We offer this summer (July 10 to August 16) a special course on the
topic of privacy and security on computer networks, and how these can
be enhanced using encoding. This course addresses:
Financial fraud and theft on the internet Data theft as the
internet is used to transport files Privacy of communication
over the internet.
This course provides 4 Credit Hours at the graduate level in the
Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Rochester.
For more information on the course send e-mail to Professor Gaj at
gaj@ee.rochester.edu, or call him at (716) 275-2099.
Or see our web page:
http://www.ceas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/wengler/ee492.html
--
For PGP, research plans, and more information, see web page:
http://www.ceas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/wengler/home.html
Electrical Engineering Department Voice: 716 275-9402
University of Rochester Fax : 716 473-0486
Rochester NY 14627 Cell: 716 748-1930
------------------------------
From: Simon Rogerson <srog@dmu.ac.uk>
Date: 09 Jun 1995 13:48:05 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Fulbright & Computer Ethics in the UK
The Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility was launched at
ETHICOMP95 in March this year. Its aim is to raise awareness of the
impact of IT on individuals, communities and organisations around the
globe. Based in the University's School of Computing Sciences, CCSR
undertakes research and provides teaching, consultancy and advice on
all aspects of IT, addressing issues surrounding its dramatic
expansion. Within the UK and other European countries there is an
urgent need to address, both conceptually and practically, the ethical
issues of computing.
CCSR is a key player in computer ethics not only in the UK but across
the world through its links with centres in other countries including
Norway, Belgium, Spain and in the USA, the Research Centre on Computing
and Society at Southern Connecticut State University whose Director,
Terrell Ward Bynum is Visiting Professor at CCSR. Membership of the
Centre's International Advisory Board comprises many of the leading
authorities in the field.
The Centre would welcome the opportunity of hosting a Fulbright Scholar
who wishes to work on aspects of computer ethics and social
responsibility. The work of the Centre would ideally suit someone
working in applied philosophy who wants the opportunity of working
alongside computer scientists who are interested in the practical
application of ethics to computing in the workplace, in the home and in
education. In the current climate in the UK there are many exciting and
stimulating projects that can be undertaken in the field of computer
ethics.
Further details about CCSR can be found on
http://www.cms.dmu.ac.uk/CCSR
If you wish to discuss this opportunity further, please email me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Rogerson
Director, Centre for Computing & Social Responsibility
School of Computing Sciences
De Montfort University TEL: +44 116 257 7475
The Gateway, Leicester FAX: +44 116 254 1891
LE1 9BH, UK EMAIL: srog@dmu.ac.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: ark@Office.Stanford.EDU (Arthur Keller)
Date: 13 Jun 1995 02:39:13 -0700
Subject: Course: Internet Security, 7/ 24-28, at Stanford
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
The Western Institute of Computer Science announces
a week-long course on
INTERNET SECURITY
taught at Stanford University
July 24 -- 28, 1995
by Arthur M. Keller (Stanford University)
David H. Crocker (Brandenburg Consulting)
Tina M. Darmohray (Internet Works!)
Whitfield Diffie (Sun Microsystems)
Mark Eichin (Cygnus Support)
Gail Grant (Open Market)
Lance Hoffman (George Washington University)
Sushil Jajodia (George Mason University)
Peter G. Neumann (SRI International)
Allan M. Schiffman (Terisa Systems)
William Wong (Enterprise Integration Technologies)
A Practical Week-long Course for Consultants, Educators, Government and
Industry Scientists and Engineers
This course is taught by leading researchers and practioners in the
area of internet security: Arthur M. Keller, Dave Crocker, Tina M.
Darmohray, Whitfield Diffie, Mark Eichin, Gail Grant, Lance Hoffman,
Sushil Jojodia, Peter Neumann, Allan M. Schiffman, and William Wong.
Participants will receive a grounding in internet security, familiarity
with current concepts and issues, and exposure to the most important
research and development trends in the area.
[moderator: full information can be obtained from the course
coordinators, address above.]
------------------------------
From: PHILS@RELAY.RELAY.COM (Philip H. Smith III, (703) 506-0500)
Date: 09 Jun 95 07:29:10 EDT
Subject: Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement
Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> said: In the next
version of the Web navigators, just introduce a new HTML tag
<adult_only>. If a WWW browser encounters this tag enclosed inside
the <head> </head> part of a HTML document, then the browser will
simply refuse to load or render the document. The author of a Web
page should put that tag in all of his pages containing materials
that he does not want to be seen by young children.
According to our local HTML expert, when asked "Could this work?":
It might, but it strikes me as a bad solution. The "SurfWatch" concept
would be more secure and would be general rather than specific to HTML.
Ah yes, now I know why it WON'T work.. kids could simply access a URL
for an adult GIF (or JPEG, or ...) directly if they knew what it was.
And you can bet they would find such URLs. No HTML. No <adult_only> tag.
No security.
It seems to me that something at the TCP/IP access level (e.g. SurfWatc)
is the only thing that would work.
Further, deponent sayeth not.
--
...phsiii
------------------------------
From: ramole@aol.com (RAMole)
Date: 10 Jun 1995 23:07:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Re: labeling and lockouts for adult material.
I agree. The cover of Playboy has always said "Entertainment for Men",
and that's never been called censorship, just truth in labeling. ( For
the same reason, CD's with offensive lyrics can be labeled as such --
on this one, Tipper Gore is right.) And Playboy was never sold to
minors [meaning we had to work to get it!]
I think lockouts will work for young children, though I have doubts
that anything will work for almost-eighteen-year-olds. But is this a
concern when, on average, kids first have sex at 16?
Labeling is such an easy, obvious solution. But then, Exon's idea
would work too. And universal castration would prevent rape, but that
doesn't make it a good plan!
Alan Mole ramole@aol.com
------------------------------
From: ramole@aol.com (RAMole)
Date: 10 Jun 1995 22:27:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Text Filter for the Very Good
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Dick Mills writes that this filter would work like a cancelbot and
remove everything from the Net. That wasn't what I had in mind-- the
filter program would run only on the *individual's* computer and
protect her, him or the Sensitive Senator from *any* words they
considered naughty. Naturally, no normal adult would imagine using the
thing, even to filter out mail from Johnathan Edwards or SEXon. (Oops,
I Mean S.Exon!) It could be provided by AOL etc, for download,
customization and use by whoever felt the need for protection.
I never use their chat groups, but AOL already provides an icon of a
man with his hands in his ears, so you can choose not to receive the
speech of a person you dislike. This has never been an issue that I
know of -- one person refusing to listen is not censorship. To the
contrary, "Freedom is the right to say 'NO' ." -- George Orwell.
Anyway, such a filter for the few Sensitive Souls is *all* that's
needed to solve the problem that worries them, not the destruction of
free speech for everyone.
Mr Mills also mentions pictures, but as I said, there is already a
filter program that locks out a computer from access to sites with
dirty pics. In answer to your next question, NO, they do not plan to
sell their Index Expurgatorius to people who *want* to see the
pictures. But if there was ever a file that hackers would crack....
Alan Mole ramole@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com>
Date: 13 Jun 95 11:03:13 EDT
Subject: Defences Against Cyber-Seduction
>From the Associated Press news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service:
APn 06/12 2359 On-Line Runaways
By DAVID FOSTER
Associated Press Writer
What could be safer for a teen-ager than staying home to peck away at a
computer keyboard? Plenty, it would appear from two recent cases of
teen-age runaways lured from home by computer users they met on line.
The article summarizes the cases of 13-year old Tara Noble and 15-year
old Daniel Montgomery, both of whom left home to join cyber-friends
they had met through America Online.
There were some interesting quotes from parents and others in the
story:
"I would consider myself computer literate, but frankly, I didn't
suspect what I found out," said Bill Montgomery of Maple Valley,
Wash. [...] "You can get into anything you want on line,"
Montgomery said. "There's pornography in these chat rooms. There
are obscenities. It's really wide open."
[...]
But the ...[FBI's]... Louisville office issued a statement saying
Tara Noble's case "demonstrates the need for parents to provide
oversight and guidance to their children in the use of computers."
[...]
...[T]he big three computer network services -- America Online
Inc., CompuServe Inc. and Prodigy Service Co.... say they allow
subscribers to screen what their children see on line by blocking
certain services such as chat rooms or access to the Internet.
But the ultimate responsibility rests with parents, they say.
The companies point out that there is an immense range of information
available through their services, from education to pornography.
"Two-point-five million use this service," said Pam McGraw,
spokeswoman for America Online. "That's like a city. Parents
wouldn't let their kids go wandering in a city of 2.5 million
people without them, or without knowing what they're going to be
doing."
In conjunction with the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, the companies have helped to produce a brochure called "Child
Safety on the Information Highway."
"There are parents out there who don't know where the on-off switch
is, and they don't know what their kids are doing," said Ernie
Allen, the center's president. "It's important for parents to
develop an understanding of what their kids are doing on the
computer."
Parents should establish what their children may or may not do on line.
"The point, whether you're talking about on-line services or
television or anything else, is that it's not inappropriate
to set limits," Allen said.
[...]
Montgomery believes the most important lesson his family's
crisis offers is personal, not technological.
"It's not computer-related at all," he said. "I've learned
how important it is to spend more time with my son, and to
let him know that he's real important to us."
In a separate story issued at the same time, AP provided the following
excerpt from the brochure:
A brochure distributed by the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children includes this pledge for minors who use
computer networks:
o I will not give out personal information such as my address,
telephone number, parents' work address, telephone number
or the name and location of my school without my parents'
permission.
o I will tell my parents right away if I come across any
information that makes me feel uncomfortable.
o I will never agree to get together with someone I "meet"
on line without first checking with my parents. If my
parents agree to the meeting, I will be sure that it is
in a public place and bring my mother or father along.
o I will never send a person my picture or anything else
without first checking with my parents.
o I will not respond to any messages that are mean or in
any way make me feel uncomfortable. It is not my fault
if I get a message like that. If I do, I will tell my
parents right away so that they can contact the on-line
service.
o I will talk with my parents so that we can set up rules
for going on line. We will decide upon the time of day
that I can be on line, the length of time I can be on line,
and appropriate areas for me to visit. I will not access
other areas or break these rules without their permission.
For the full brochure, titled "Child Safety on the Information
Highway," available free from the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, call 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678).
M.E.Kabay,Ph.D. / Dir. Education, Natl Computer Security Assn (Carlisle, PA)
------------------------------
From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris)
Date: 10 Jun 1995 02:29:12 GMT
Subject: Re: The Microsoft Win95 Virus - update
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Dean Ridgway <ridgwad@PEAK.ORG> writes: An update on this. A friend
of mine got hold of a copy of the beta test CD of Win95, and set up
a packet sniffer between his serial port and the modem. When you
try out the free demo time on The Microsoft Network, it transmits
your entire directory structure in background. This means that
they have a list of every directory (and, potentially every file)
on your machine. It would not be difficult to have something like a
FileRequest from your system to theirs, without you knowing about
it. This way they could get ahold of any juicy routines you've
written yourself and claim them as their own if you don't have them
copyrighted. Needless to say, I'm rather annoyed about this.
Isn't this the same sort of thing that got Prodigy in trouble a
year or so ago? I remember reading about some class action
lawsuits in California when some lawyers found Prodigy reading
confidential lawyer/client info off their harddrives. I never
heard how any of the lawsuits turned out though.
If it's the incident I remember, then what Prodigy's installation
software did was it allocated a swap file on the user's hard disk _BUT
DIDN'T FIRST ZERO IT OUT_. Remember - when MS-DOS deletes a file it
only deletes the directory information, then marks the space free.
Well, some lawyer who knew just enough to be dangerous went snooping in
the Prodigy files (probably with LIST, or maybe just by TYPEing them)
and found some of his (deleted) documents. And made assumptions and
went ballistic.
After somebody got educated, it all died down. And hopefully Prodigy
put a file zeroing routine in their installation software.
--
Mike Morris WA6ILQ | All opinions must be my own since nobody
PO Box 1130 | pays me enough to be their mouthpiece...
Arcadia, CA. 91077 |
ICBM: 34.07.930N, 118.03.799W | Reply to: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us
------------------------------
From: bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: 10 Jun 1995 21:17:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Sending VISA Card Details by e-Mail
Organization: Fantasy Farm, Pearisburg, VA
Sean Donelan writes: Berclay's bank must have some different
language in their cardholder agreement than most US banks do. US
bank card holder agreements say nothing about the Internet, or
encryption. Of course, US law tends to put the bulk of the risk on
the card issuer, not the card holder. The US credit card
associations rules and regulations further allocate much of the
risk to the merchant acquirier.
Well, one way to find this out fairly quickly would be for one of the
folk who're arguing that "there's really no risk" simply to post
*THEIR* MasterCard number to a handful of newsgroups where those with
less-than-the-highest ethics hang out, and then report back to us how
much in bogus charges got racked up and how hard it was to get the mess
cleared up.
--
Bernie Cosell bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358
--->>> Too many people; too few sheep <<<---
------------------------------
From: renaud@CAM.ORG
Date: 12 Jun 1995 10:44:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Mondex Project
I have seen in the list the letters from Kelly Bert Manning
<bo774@freenet.carleton.ca> and Paul McKeever mckeever@cogsci.uwo.ca
about the Mondex project from the Royal Bank and CIBC. I want to bring
some precisions, not about the project, but about the smart cards. A
smart card is a micro-processor on a credit/debit card with memory.
What is interesting in that the memory is controled by the
micro-processor only. That means that a smart card may be really
secure, depending on the usage and the security architecture we design
for it.
In the banking industry, thay are a lot of options for a smart card:
credit card, debit card, electronic purse and the combination of all
these options. If you choose the electronic purse option only, I agree
with Paul McKeever that the smart card is really anonymous because it
is no link between the bank account ant the purchase. It's like cash
payment.
If you choose to combine debit/credit card with electronic purse,
that's another thing. The secure features of the smart card enables to
encode securely the PIN into the card and, of course all account
informations. In this case, the smart card is no more anonymous. The
protection of private life depends on the laws and the management of
the bank. Of course, the information stored in the card can't be stolen
or used by criminals.
The snart card is very versatile. It has been used for years in Europe
for a lot of different projects, from the payment of the fare tickets
to the storage of the medical informations. The protection of the
private life and the security of the informations is conditionnal to
the rules that are applied in the smart card applications and
architecture.
Renaud Pirsch, CISA
EDP Auditing Advisor
renaud@cam.org
------------------------------
From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com>
Date: 12 Jun 95 10:55:36 EDT
Subject: CA PUC battles FCC over CNID blocking
Forum: CIS:NCSAFO Section: Telco/PBX/Cellular
Subj : CA appeals FCC CNID rule
To : All
from the United Press Intl news wire via CompuServe's Executive News
Service:
UPn 06/07 1927 Calif. appeals FCC Caller ID decision
SAN FRANCISCO, June 7 (UPI) -- The state Public Utilities
Commission filed an appeal in federal court Wednesday, claiming the
Federal Communication Commission's decision not to require phone
companies to automatically block unlisted numbers violates
California's privacy protections.
In essence, the story explains that the FCC has decided not to force
telcos to provide automatic blocking of CNID on all calls from unlisted
numbers. Over 60% of all the phone subscribers in California's 10
largest cities have unlisted numbers.
M.E.Kabay,Ph.D. / Dir. Education, Natl Computer Security Assn (Carlisle, PA)
------------------------------
From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com>
Date: 12 Jun 95 18:24:31 EDT
Subject: NSW electoral ID card
>From the Australian Associated Press news wire via CompuServe's
Executive News Service:
AAP 06/09 1437 NSW: LEGISLATION FOR VOTER IDENTITY CARD
SYDNEY, June 9 AAP - People enrolling to vote in state elections
would be provided with an identity card under legislation
introduced into the New South Wales parliament.
[...]
Under the legislation the state electoral commissioner would
distribute a Voter Identity Card with the issuing of writs before
any state election or by-election.
--
M.E.Kabay,Ph.D. / Dir. Education, Natl Computer Security Assn (Carlisle, PA)
------------------------------
From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com>
Date: 13 Jun 95 11:03:25 EDT
Subject: MasterCard Survey on Junk Mail and Junk Phone Calls
>From the United Press Intl news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service:
UPn 06/12 1014 Lifestyles
By CYNTHIA LITTLETON United Press International
TELE-NUISANCE?: MasterCard International wants to know how
consumers feel about direct marketing, better known to some as junk
mail and unsolicited sales pitches by phone.
[...]
MasterCard has set up a toll-free line, 800-622-7581, for consumers
to voice their opinions on these practices through July 4. The
credit giant will issue a report on the responses later this year.
The short article also reports on "the Illinois-based Private Citizen,
which helps people get their names off direct-marketing lists."
According to its founder, Robert Bulmash, it is even possible to make
money from the telemarketeers. What you do is send them a legal notice
warning that you charge, say, $500 for each unsolicited call. Then if
the firm fails to prevent its minions from calling you, you sue them.
The article ends with these details:
For more information about the direct-marketing survey, call
MasterCard International, 212-649-6400, ex. 2082, or Robert Bulmash
with Private Citizen, 708-393-1555....
--
M.E.Kabay,Ph.D. / Dir. Education, Natl Computer Security Assn (Carlisle, PA)
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 1995 10:58:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Freedom to Read
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from Computer underground Digest Sun Jun 11, 1995 Volume 7
: Issue 48 ISSN 1004-042X
Date: 09 Jun 1995 17:21:21 GMT
From: kadie@SAL.CS.UIUC.EDU(Carl M Kadie)
Subject: Can Parents prevent Web page viewing?
Here is my suggested alternative:
That authors, publishers, and distributors (both for-profit and
non-profit) assert and defend their full First Amendment-protected
rights by adopting the American Library Assocations and Association
of American Publishers's "Freedom To Read" statement (enclosed).
These priciples have been in use for over 40 years. They are tested.
They have a good track record of protecting freedom of speech, much
better than any self-labeling scheme.
That is not to say there is no place for labeling. I think SurfWatch
and similar projects and projects are fine for parents who want
them. But self-labeling is not necessary and makes formal and
informal cenesorhsip more likely.
- Carl
==============
THE FREEDOM TO READ
The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously
under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of
the country are working to remove books from sale, to censor textbooks,
to label "controversial" books, to distribute lists of "objectionable"
books or authors, and to purge libraries. These actions apparently rise
from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer
valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the
subversion of politics and the corruption of morals. We, as citizens
devoted to the use of books and as librarians and publishers
responsible for disseminating them, wish to assert the public interest
in the preservation of the freedom to read.
We are deeply concerned about these attempts at suppression. Most such
attempts rest on a denial of the fundamental premise of democracy: that
the ordinary citizen, by exercising critical judgment, will accept the
good and reject the bad. The censors, public and private, assume that
they should determine what is good and what is bad for their
fellow-citizens.
We trust Americans to recognize propaganda, and to reject it. We do not
believe they need the help of censors to assist them in this task. We
do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice their heritage of a free
press in order to be "protected" against what others think may be bad
for them. We believe they still favor free enterprise in ideas and
expression.
We are aware, of course, that books are not alone in being subjected to
efforts at suppression. We are aware that these efforts are related to
a larger pattern of pressures being brought against education, the
press, films, radio and television. The problem is not only one of
actual censorship. The shadow of fear cast by these pressures leads,
we suspect, to an even larger voluntary curtailment of expression by
those who seek to avoid controversy.
Such pressure toward conformity is perhaps natural to a time of uneasy
change and pervading fear. Especially when so many of our apprehensions
are directed against an ideology, the expression of a dissident idea
becomes a thing feared in itself, and we tend to move against it as
against a hostile deed, with suppression.
And yet suppression is never more dangerous than in such a time of
social tension. Freedom has given the United States the elasticity to
endure strain. Freedom keeps open the path of novel and creative
solutions, and enables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a
heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and
resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with
stress.
Now as always in our history, books are among our greatest instruments
of freedom. They are almost the only means for making generally
available ideas or manners of expression that can initially command
only a small audience. They are the natural medium for the new idea and
the untried voice from which come the original contributions to social
growth. They are essential to the extended discussion which serious
thought requires, and to the accumulation of knowledge and ideas into
organized collections.
We believe that free communication is essential to the preservation of
a free society and a creative culture. We believe that these pressures
towards conformity present the danger of limiting the range and variety
of inquiry and expression on which our democracy and our culture
depend. We believe that every American community must jealously guard
the freedom to publish and to circulate, in order to preserve its own
freedom to read. We believe that publishers and librarians have a
profound responsibility to give validity to that freedom to read by
making it possible for the readers to choose freely from a variety of
offerings.
The freedom to read is guaranteed by the Constitution. Those with faith
in free people will stand firm on these constitutional guarantees of
essential rights and will exercise the responsibilities that accompany
these rights.
_We therefore affirm these propositions:
1. It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians
to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions,
including those which are unorthodox or unpopular with the
majority._
Creative thought is by definition new, and what is new is different.
The bearer of every new thought is a rebel until that idea is refined
and tested. Totalitarian systems attempt to maintain themselves in
power by the ruthless suppression of any concept which challenges the
established orthodoxy. The power of a democratic system to adapt to
change is vastly strengthened by the freedom of its citizens to choose
widely from among conflicting opinions offered freely to them. To
stifle every nonconformist idea at birth would mark the end of the
democratic process. Furthermore, only through the constant activity of
weighing and selecting can the democratic mind attain the strength
demanded by times like these. We need to know not only what we believe
but why we believe it.
2. _Publishers, librarians and booksellers do not need to
endorse every idea or presentation contained in the books they make
available. It would conflict with the public interest for them to
establish their own political, moral or aesthetic views as a
standard for determining what books should be published or
circulated._
Publishers and librarians serve the educational process by helping to
make available knowledge and ideas required for the growth of the mind
and the increase of learning. They do not foster education by imposing
as mentors the patterns of their own thought. The people should have
the freedom to read and consider a broader range of ideas than those
that may be held by any single librarian or publisher or government or
church. It is wrong that what one can read should be confined to what
another thinks proper.
3. _It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or
librarians to determine the acceptability of a book on the basis of
the personal history or political affiliations of the author._
A book should be judged as a book. No art or literature can flourish if
it is to be measured by the political views or private lives of its
creators. No society of free people can flourish which draws up lists
of writers to whom it will not listen, whatever they may have to say.
4. _There is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the
taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed
suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to
achieve artistic expression._
To some, much of modern literature is shocking. But is not much of life
itself shocking? We cut off literature at the source if we prevent
writers from dealing with the stuff of life. Parents and teachers have
a responsibility to prepare the young to meet the diversity of
experiences in life to which they will be exposed, as they have a
responsibility to help them learn to think critically for themselves.
These are affirmative responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by
preventing them from reading works for which they are not yet prepared.
In these matters taste differs, and taste cannot be legislated; nor can
machinery be devised which will suit the demands of one group without
limiting the freedom of others.
5. _It is not in the public interest to force a reader to accept
with any book the prejudgment of a label characterizing the book or
author as subversive or dangerous._
The ideal of labeling presupposes the existence of individuals or
groups with wisdom to determine by authority what is good or bad for
the citizen. It presupposes that individuals must be directed in making
up their minds about the ideas they examine. But Americans do not need
others to do their thinking for them.
6. _It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians, as
guardians of the people's freedom to read, to contest encroachments
upon that freedom by individuals or groups seeking to impose their
own standards or tastes upon the community at large._
It is inevitable in the give and take of the democratic process that
the political, the moral, or the aesthetic concepts of an individual or
group will occasionally collide with those of another individual or
group. In a free society individuals are free to determine for
themselves what they wish to read, and each group is free to determine
what it will recommend to its freely associated members. But no group
has the right to take the law into its own hands, and to impose its own
concept of politics or morality upon other members of a democratic
society. Freedom is no freedom if it is accorded only to the accepted
and the inoffensive.
7. _It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians to
give full meaning to the freedom to read by providing books that
enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression. By the
exercise of this affirmative responsibility, they can demonstrate
that the answer to a bad book is a good one, the answer to a bad
idea is a good one._
The freedom to read is of little consequence when expended on the
trivial; it is frustrated when the reader cannot obtain matter fit for
that reader's purpose. What is needed is not only the absence of
restraint, but the positive provision of opportunity for the people to
read the best that has been thought and said. Books are the major
channel by which the intellectual inheritance is handed down, and the
principal means of its testing and growth. The defense of their freedom
and integrity, and the enlargement of their service to society,
requires of all publishers and librarians the utmost of their
faculties, and deserves of all citizens the fullest of their support.
We state these propositions neither lightly nor as easy
generalizations. We here stake out a lofty claim for the value of
books. We do so because we believe that they are good, possessed of
enormous variety and usefulness, worthy of cherishing and keeping free.
We realize that the application of these propositions may mean the
dissemination of ideas and manners of expression that are repugnant to
many persons. We do not state these propositions in the comfortable
belief that what people read is unimportant. We believe rather that
what people read is deeply important; that ideas can be dangerous; but
that the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society.
Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is ours.
___________________________
This statement was originally issued in May of 1953 by the Westchester
Conference of the American Library Association and the American Book
Publishers Council, which in 1970 consolidated with the American
Educational Publishers Institute to become the Association of American
Publishers.
Adopted June 25, 1953; revised January 28, 1972, January 16, 1991, by
the ALA Council and the AAP Freedom to Read Committee.
_A Joint Statement by:_
American Library Association
Association of American Publishers
_Subsequently Endorsed by:_
American Booksellers Association
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
Association of American University Presses
Children's Book Council
Freedom to Read Foundation
International Reading Association
Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression
National Association of College Stores
National Council of Teachers of English
P.E.N. - American Center
People for the American Way
Periodical and Book Association of America
Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Society of Professional Journalists
Women's National Book Association
YWCA of the U.S.A.
Information provider:
Unit: American Library Association
Email: Edward.Valauskas@ala.org
Posted: 24 Apr 1994
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization or employer; this is
just me.
= Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
= URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>
------------------------------
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 #054
******************************
.