Date: Sun, 09 Jul 95 12:15:29 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 V7#002
Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 09 Jul 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 002
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Allegations of Privacy Violation by Microsoft
Per-call blocking exclusion
Re: Encryption Laws
Prevent Censorship on the Net
Re: Bitten & Branded
Help for Funding
Privacy Conference Announcement
Exon Coats Amendment [Long]
Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: scherrey@proteus-tech.com (Benjamin Scherrey)
Date: 04 Jul 1995 02:34:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Allegations of Privacy Violation by Microsoft
Organization: Proteus Technologies, Inc.
Dean Ridgway <ridgwad@PEAK.ORG> writes: 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.
I don't know how the lawsuits turned out (I imagine that they were
dropped) but the Prodigy software was reserving a file of X bytes for
data transfers. Apparently they didn't bother to initialize that space
so any data left over from previous deleted files would still be there.
I don't recall whether any unitialized data was actually transferred
over modem or not but if you went and looked at the raw file on your
hard drive you would have found stuff that didn't look like it belonged
there to be sure!
The Microsoft situation seems to be completely different but I doubt
that there's any unknown data being transferred there either. I mean -
what's the point when soon all those Windows 97 users start paying
their bills over the Microsoft network, Microsoft will be able to get
information much more valuable than how many copies of Doom are on your
hard drive! ;-)
//
// Benjamin Scherrey
// Proteus Technologies, Inc.
// (404) 454-1013v (404) 986-9876f
//
------------------------------
From: LaneL@aol.com
Date: 05 Jul 1995 13:06:15 -0400
Subject: Per-call blocking exclusion
I have never used per-call blocking before today, but I decided to try
it. According to Bell Atlantic's instructions, I punched in *67, but
instead of 3 beeps and a dial tone, I got a busy signal on both my
lines. I called the phone company and after much confusion on their
part, they determined that I must have a "residential centrex" system.
In fact what I have is called a "Business Variety Package," which
includes things like Call Hold, Automatic Transfer, Call Forwarding,
etc. After several calls to the BA business office, it was determined
that per-call blocking is precluded when you have BVP. BA could offer
me no logical reason why this was so, and there is certainly no
indication of the preclusion in the phone book description of the
service. In fact, the BA people I spoke to seemed rather perplexed by
it themselves and promised to look into it.
I wonder if anyone else has encounted this problem or has any insight
into why it is happening.
--
Lane Lenard
------------------------------
From: disposable <dean@lifeform.demon.co.uk>
Date: 05 Jul 95 12:05:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Encryption Laws
Organization: Experimental Jet Set, Trash and No Star
david creffield <oje@porky.demon.co.uk> writes: Is there anyone who
knows about encryption laws in Britain, and about official
anxieties here regarding encryption.
AFAIK [moderator: As far as I know?], there are no restrictions on the
use of PGP. I haven't heard of any equivalent of the US ITAR laws
which ban the exporting of crypto systems.
Is there any ban, or move to ban, systems such as PGP?
Not as yet. If the US gets around to the banning of crypto (as France
has) then the UK may follow suit. This is pure speculation however.
What's the current state of play in the US and elsewhere on these
issues?
The only laws restriciting use of PGP inside the US are
copyright/patent laws. There are two flavours of PGP now. One which
is US friendly and does not infringe copyright and one which is
rest-of-world friendly, (PGP 2.6.2i) which does infringe US copyright.
This 'i' version is not supported by Phil Zimmerman, and it uses the
original library that was used in earlier PGP versions.
I've never thought of using such systems myself and can only guess
why people might want to use them. Should they have a right to use
them?
Absolutely. It would be my ideal that everybody uses them as a matter
of course. Your email passes through many systems to reach its
destination, and it can be read at any of them. I believe we should
use PGP like we use envelopes for snail-mail.
If Di and her friend had scrambled their phone calls, they might
have saved themselves a lot of aggro, nesspar?
Exactly, Di should have used PGP, had her keyrings handy, and hey
presto, no eavesdropping... 8)
--
Cheers. Dean.
$ submit usual$disclaimer o
-- o _____ _
PRIVACY IS A RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE ! PGP IS FREE NET PRIVACY. o /o \_/ |
Learn about PGP: http://vinca.cnidr.org/software/pgp/pgp.html o) _ |
PGP KeyID:1024/95e81db5 94/08/07. Fingerprint available. `-----' `-'
------------------------------
From: X92TAYLOR27@wmich.edu
Date: 06 Jul 1995 17:15:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Prevent Censorship on the Net
Organization: Western Michigan University
Prevent censorship on the net by signing the petition to stop the Exon
Communications Decency Act Bill. You can set your web browser to
http://www.cdt.org and access the petition. Speak up now or forever be
condemened "Sunday School" talk and expression over the net.
If you have any questions visit the web site first. I am not the page
provider.
--
THANKS,
PHILL
------------------------------
From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva)
Date: 07 Jul 1995 14:23:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Bitten & Branded
Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI
From: janhuss@netpoint.net (richard w spisak jr) RWSPISAK doesn't
seem to know what he's talking about: His account has been used my
someone so sophisicated that they have crawled through the internet
to strike at the intergrity of his online transaction. What account
information has been made accessible to this thief by this action?
This is not true. This attack was made theough AOL. There is no access
from the Internet to these AOL chat rooms by people without AOL
accounts.
He was not AWARE of the "SATAN-Unix-Hack" that provides a backdoor
to any network communications. Where is the warning label ? What
files
Neither am I. No such hack exists. SATAN is a tool that might show up a
potential vulnerability on specific systems. It has no effect on AOL
and little effect on any network.
--
Peter da Silva (NIC: PJD2) `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Har du kramat din varg idag?"
------------------------------
From: Urs Gattiker <Gattiker@CETUS.MNGT.ULETH.CA>
Date: 08 Jul 1995 07:52:55 -0700
Subject: Help for Funding
Dear Editor (if you see this?)
I hope you can distribute this call for help. Thank you Urs
[moderator: I have no idea who this group is, where they are or what
they want/should be given. The ideas are interesting and we might
want to look them over. Presented in only that light, not as a paid
political advertisement :=)]
Research Program on Privacy, Caller-ID, Direct Marketing
and the Information Highway
_Help for Funding Needed_
Currently, our research team is preparing the second phase of this
international research project that concentrates on the above issues.
In particular, we plan to collect data from individuals to answer
the questions listed below.
1) Do caller-id and direct marketing efforts that use the
information highway invade an individual's privacy? If so, how?
2) What data-gathering activities and distribution systems are
perceived by individuals as fair information practices?
3) How should business use telecommunication technologies (e.g.,
caller ID, World-Wide-Web) and data-bases to market their
products/services and, at the same time, respect individuals' desire
or right for privacy?
4) Should regulatory efforts try to influence the direction of the
issues outlined in questions 1, 2 and 3? If so, how should
regulatory agencies do this and effectively balance the interests of
both business and private citizens?
5) How may these developments affect IS policy and strategy in
various organization settings?
We are trying to gather the data from several countries (i.e.,
Australia, Canada, USA, European Union and South Africa). The data
we are currently collecting should provide interested parties with
information about people's perceptions regarding if, why and what
regulations are needed for privacy, call management services and the
information highway. We are positive that this type of information
would be very beneficial to the public and governments as well as
firms' marketing efforts. Moreover, the project will provide
information about how firms should manage their IS strategy to take
advantage of new developments, while protecting consumers' privacy
effectively.
At this stage we need some help to secure funding for this project.
We would appreciate any help you can give us. For additional
information about the program please point your browser to:
http://www.mngt.uleth.ca/deprtmnt/tech/techn.htm
or drop a line to:
Gattiker@cetus.mngt.uleth.ca
_Thanks for your help_ Cordially, Urs (the bear)
WWW\Privnews.fn1
------------------------------
From: WLRGSH@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Date: 06 Jul 1995 17:36:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Privacy Conference Announcement
CALL FOR PAPERS for a Conference on Technological Assaults on
Privacy, April 18-20, 1996 at the Rochester Institute of Technol-
ogy, Rochester, New York. We are interested in a wide variety of
issues regarding privacy that have arisen from recent technologi-
cal advances--the capacity to eavesdrop, the debate regarding the
Clipperchip, the capacity to create profiles of individuals for
marketing purposes, and so on. Our concern is that we have a
wide-ranging look at the state of assaults on privacy currently,
in all its manifestations in our lives.
The Conference will be interdisciplinary. Participants will have
30 minutes to give their presentation, with comments and discus-
sion for another 30 to 40 minutes. Papers will be available for
the audience.
Papers should be single-spaced, suitable for xeroxing. Please
send a copy of your paper to Prof. Wade Robison, Department of
Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
14623. Drafts should be postmarked by February 1, 1996. For
additional information, contact Prof. Robison by e-mail at
privacy@rit.edu, by FAX at (716) 475-7120, or by phone at (716)
475-6643. If you are interested in commenting or chairing a
session, you should contact Prof. Robison.
------------------------------
From: 49erfan@nmia.com (Michael Chastain)
Date: 07 Jul 1995 01:30:16 GMT
Subject: Exon Coats Amendment [Long]
Organization: New Mexico Internet Access
This stemms from a research paper of mine. I think it covers the Exon
amendment pretty well. It's just a hair on the dry side, but well
worth the read. A good part of my research stemmed from links on the
Center for Democracy and Technologies home page.
http://www.cdt.org/
If you have any comments or questions, e-mail me at 49erfan@nmia.com.
Thanks and enjoy. =)
(HTML hotlinked version coming soon...I hope!)
P.S. Maybe we could just get rid of Nebraska entirely. ;)
CommStockery
Fear and Censorship in a Digital Age
Comstockery is "censorship or vigorous condemnation of literary and
artistic artworks for alleged obscenity" (RH 280). On his trip to
Washington, he toted a great cloth bag filled with obscenity and smut,
and set up a "chamber of horrors" in the vice-president's office. This
material should not be available to the general public, he proposed,
in
order to protect the most impressionable members of society. Comstock
was successful in his crusade, and Congress passed the Law to Suppress
Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of
Immoral
Use. Without consideration for the artistic value of works, Comstock
would eventually be able to claim destruction of almost 160 tons of
allegedly obscene literature and 3,984,063 obscene pictures (Corn-
Revere). Many believe censorship of such magnitude is in our past.
On 14 June 1995, the Exon Coats Communications Decency Act amendment
passed congress by a vote 84 to 16. The critical parts of this
amendment
would make it illegal to: "knowingly make, create, or solicit, and
initiate the transmission of any comment, request, suggestion,
proposal,
image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious,
filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass
another person.", "make available any obscene communication in any
form
including any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image,
regardless
of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or
initiated
the communications," or "knowingly within the United States or in
foreign communications with the United States by means of
telecommunications device makes or makes available any indecent
comment,
request, suggestion, proposal, image to any person under 18 years of
age" (S.314). This amendment was proffered as a way to "side with
women
endangered by rape and violence, to side with children threatened by
abuse, to side with families concerned about the innocence of their
children and the decency of our culture" (Coats Sen. Debate).
Exon introduced this bill in response to concerns that "pornography on
the computer superhighway has become so prevalent and accessible to
children that it necessitates congressional action" (Christian
Coalition
qtd. Exon Sen. Debate). Undeniably, pornography is available on the
Net.
James Gleick of New York Times magazine writes, "If you have time on
your hands, if you're comfortable with computing, and if you have an
unflagging curiosity about sex_in other words, if you're a
teen-ager_you
may think you've suddenly landed in pornography heaven" (Gleick). The
availability of such pornography in a medium where nobody checks for
an
ID is disturbing. Only the most depraved of us would suggest it is not
a
worthy goal to work to protect our children from this material.
There has been some distortion, however, about how easy this material
is
to find on the information superhighway. Senator Exon states that
"porn
pirates who post...pictures of violence, rape, bestiality, torture,
excretory functions, group sex, and other forms of hard and soft core
pornography [have] invaded our homes" (Exon Sen. Debate). Studies have
shown the greatest majority of material is scanned from print sources
commonly available, and requires mastering "fairly daunting computer
science" to decode and view the pictures (Elmer-Dewitt 40).
Considering
this research, a child sneaking a Playboy from his father's night
stand
would be a more apt analogy than porn pirates invading our home.
In examining the legality of the amendment, one must first be familiar
with the legal precedents involved. The Supreme Court standard for
obscenity, which is not viewed as protected speech, was derived from
Miller v. California (1973). The result of that case was a three part
test for determining obscenity, which asks:
1. would "the average person, applying contemporary community
standards" find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to
the prurient interest?;
2. does the work depict or describe, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable
state law?; and,
3. does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific?
(Cavazos 95)
The contemporary community standards' clause plays an important part.
The court recognized that people in Mississippi might not have the
same
standards as people in New York. But what are we referring to when we
speak of an on-line community? In cases to date obscenity has been
judged by the community in which the material was requested. This
allows
the most conservative communities in the US to dictate what is and is
not obscene; exactly the kind of national standard the Supreme Court
was
trying to avoid. Distribution of obscene material by any means is
illegal under current law.
The FCC has defined indecent speech as "language or material that, in
context, depicts or describes in terms patently offensive as measured
by
contemporary community standards for broadcast medium, sexual or
excretory activities or organs''_including the so-called seven dirty
words (CDT position paper). The Supreme Court has ruled that indecent
speech may only be censored when there is a compelling government
interest to abridge protected speech (Pacifica v FCC); and is
accomplished in the least restrictive means possible (Sable v
California). Protection of minors has been ruled a compelling
government
interested. With information posted to the Internet however, there is
no
way of knowing in advance if a minor will have access to the posted
information, or if it might "annoy" someone. This effectively bans all
indecent speech. These restrictions would make it illegal to discuss
passages from Joyce's Ulysses or Newt Gingrich's novel 1945, tell
someone off, or write steamy e-mail to a loved one on the Net. All
would
be punishable by up to $100,000 and/or two years in jail. The
availability of less restrictive means clearly makes these constraints
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held that it will not tolerate
vague, open-ended restrictions on speech_not even for the benefit of
minors_and that the government cannot "reduce the adult
population...to
reading only what is fit for children" (Corn-Revere).
The Department of Justice finds serious flaws in the legislation,
which
they outline in a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). They state
that the amendment "would significantly thwart enforcement of existing
laws regarding obscenity and child pornography, create several ways
for
distributors and packagers of obscenity and child pornography to avoid
criminal liability, and threaten important First Amendment and privacy
rights...Moreover, this provision would have the unintended
consequences
of jeopardizing law enforcement's authority to conduct lawful, court-
ordered wiretaps and would prevent system administrators from
protecting
their systems when they are under attack by computer hackers" (DOJ).
The
American Family Association urges the "administration could make
substantial progress in protecting children in particular from both
obscenity and child pornography by using existing law to prosecute
illegal pornographers who use the Internet if it had the will to do
so,"
and "the pro-family movement in America will uniformly oppose your
bill...unless significant changes are made prior to a vote on the
Senate
floor" (Truman). The amendment furthermore preempts all existing and
future state laws that might provide stronger protection for children
(DOJ).
The Communications Decency Act amendment as proposed stands on
extremely
questionable legal ground, but one must also wonder how they intend to
enforce the amendment. The Internet is an international network of
computers dedicated to sharing information. On the Internet, a
computer
in Germany looks identical to a computer in Georgia. It is relatively
simple to stop the flow of indecent books and magazines from being
imported into the country. Tracking terabytes of information through
the
skein of the Internet is several orders of magnitude more difficult.
The
Electronics Communications Privacy Act, which makes it illegal to
intercept or disclose private communications, makes this even more
difficult (Cavazos 17). We cannot expect any international consensus
on
the issue either, as "other countries on the Internet...are probably
no
more interested in having their messages screened by US censors than
Americans would be in having theirs screened by...the government of
Saudi Arabia" (Elmer-Dewitt 45). The only way the Communications
Decency
Act amendment will be effective in stopping international distribution
is if it leads foreign information providers to deny US access
outright.
There is another major difference between censoring traditional media
and the Internet. "Anyone with an Internet account can distribute
files
to the whole world_files users can then download in their own home"
(Phelps 77). The ease of posting files anonymously further complicates
the problem. "Some of the most famous areas of decadence can be found
in
the thousands of newsgroups_the electronic bulletin boards where users
post articles or files for one another to read" (Phelps 74). "The
actual
technology of these newsgroups is hard to fathom at first. They are
utterly decentralized. Every message begins on one person's computer
and
propagates outward in waves, like a chain letter that could eventually
reach every mailbox in the world. Legislators would like to cut off a
group like alt.sex.bondage.particle-physics at the source, or at it's
home_but it has no source and no home, or rather, it has as many homes
as there are computers carrying newsgroups" (Gleick). There are
currently over 60,000 newsgroups with contributors from all over the
world. No one has proposed a solution to the difficulty of censoring
such a media. John Gilmore noted "the Net interprets censorship as
damage and routes around it" (qtd. Elmer-Dewitt 45). Phelps adds,
"Today's Internet grew out of a Department of Defense project designed
to preserve communications even if parts of the system were destroyed.
It works." (Phelps 75) The international aspects and resistance to
censorship of the Internet make it extremely dubious that any
legislative solutions can be effective.
An alternative to the Exon amendment is to empower users to protect
themselves and their children (Leahy Sen. Debate). There are several
developing solutions to give this level of control to parents,
schools,
and others to block out unwanted indecent material. The first category
is software control designed to block out such unwanted materials. One
of the first of these products is SurfWatch: Self described on their
Web
site, "SurfWatch is a breakthrough software product which helps you
deal
with the flood of sexual material on the Internet. By allowing you to
be
responsible for blocking what is being received at any individual
computer, children and others have less chance of accidentally or
deliberately being exposed to unwanted material" (Surfwatch). Internet
service providers are also beginning to take note of the desire for
family sensitive Internet service. A prime example is Siecom in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. Siecom supplies 20 elementary and secondary schools
with restricted one-way access to USENET discussion groups through the
Internet. The company does not make available the newsgroups on USENET
which may be inappropriate for children (Feingold Sen. Debate). The
major on-line services such as America Online, CompuServe, and Prodigy
are also offering increasingly sophisticated controls to block
inappropriate material on the Internet. "That means the opportunity
exists to solve at least part of the problem through the marketplace
today, not through governmental prohibitions. None of the technical
safeguards available...are perfect, but the nice thing is they do not
violate the first amendment" (Feingold Sen. Debate). There is an old-
fashioned way to protect your children on the Internet as
well_Parental
supervision. Parents who would not allow their children to venture
into
the physical world without supervision, freely turn them loose on to
the
Internet. Ultimate responsibility must always fall on the parents.
Pornography will always exist on the Net, in spite of legislative and
software attempts to eliminate it.
How did this amendment pass the Senate with such overwhelming
questions
facing the legality of this bill and how to enforce it? Exon used
tactics that would have made his precursor, Anthony Comstock, proud.
On
the day of the vote, he carried into the senate his "blue book," the
modern equivalent of Comstock's "great cloth bag". In this book, he
had
examples of the "the most disgusting, repulsive pornography...copied
off
the free Internet only last week" (Exon Sen. Debate). A """"huddle" of
Senators wanting to see the material surrounded Exon. Exon entreated
that "every day the Congress delays in dealing with this problem the
pornographers, pedophiles and predators secure a much stronger
foothold
in what will be a universal service network" (Exon Sen. debate). "In
the
nationally televised vote, few Senators wanted to cast a...vote that
might later be characterized as pro-pornography" (Elmer-Dewitt 42).
The implications if this amendment is passed are staggering. The
stakes
are much higher than the right to download lascivious pictures: This
legislation will have a chilling effect on free speech all over the
world. It will take the largest library in the world and transform it
into a children's reading room. The Internet has grown "as remarkably
as
it has, primarily because it has not had a whole lot of people
restricting it, regulating it, and touching it and saying, do not do
that or do this or the other thing" (Leahy Sen. debate). This
legislation has been written by people who do not even begin to
understand the Internet. Senator Exon admits he cannot even set the
clock on his VCR stating "I have a blinking twelve I do not know how
to
get rid of" (Exon Sen. Debate). This lack of technical savvy does not
prevent him from proposing legislation for the Internet. Legislation
that Newt Gingrich states is "very badly thought out and not a very
productive amendment [and will] if anything...put the debate back a
step." (Gingrich). Legislation the American Family Association
cautions
would "would weaken current federal law regarding the prosecution of
illegal pornography" (Trueman). Legislation the Department of Justice
urges "would significantly thwart enforcement of existing laws
regarding
obscenity and child pornography and...impose criminal sanctions on the
transmission of constitutionally protected speech" (DOJ). Publicity
received on this issue demands legislation be passed. For those of us
fond of free speech and constitutional rights, we can only hope it is
not the Exon Coats amendment.
Works Cited
United States . Senators Exon, Coats, Feingold, Leahy et. al. Senate
debate on
Exon Coats Communications Decency Act. 14 June 1995. Available gopher:
gopher://gopher.panix.com:70/0/vtw/exon/legislation/senate-debate
Progress Report Discussion with Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Bob
Walker (R-PA), and
Progress and Freedom Foundation Chairman Jay Keyworth. National
Empowerment
Television. 20 June 1995. Available WWW:
http://www.cdt.org/policy/freespeech/ging_oppose.html
Corn-Revere, Robert "New Age Comstockery: Exon vs the Internet"
Editorial. Cato Institute
WWW Site 28 June 1995. Available WWW:
http://www.cato.org/main/pa232.html
United States. Sen. Jim Exon (D. NE) "Communications Decency
Ammendment (S.314)" [Text
of bill] Proposed 2 Feb. 1995. Available gopher:
gopher://gopher.panix.com:70/0/vtw/exon/legislation/s314.final
Trueman, Patrick (American Family Association President). Letter to
Senator Pressler. 26 April
1995. Available WWW:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Exon_bill/afa_pressler_042695.letter
Department of Justice. Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy. 3 May 1995.
Availably WWW:
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Issues/Censorship/Exon_bill/doj_leahy_cda_050395..letter
Center for Democracy and Technology "CDT ANALYSIS OF REVISED EXON
INDECENCY
LEGISLATION" Available WWW: http://www.cdt.org/policy/322analysis.html
Center for Democracy and Technology "Current status of the
Communications Decency Act"
Current status of the CDA Newsletter 30 June. Available
e-mail:info@cdt.org
Surfwatch Home Page. Available WWW: http://www.surfwatch.com/
Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. "On a Screen Near You: Cyberporn" Time 3 July
1995: 38-45.
Phelps, Alan. "Online Slime" PC Novice July 1995: 74-77.
Huttig, J.W. "Putting Porn in its Place?" PC Novice July 1995: 78-79.
Cassel, Paul. "Cyber Democracy" ComputerScene July 1995: 14-15.
Gleick, James. "This is Sex?" New York Times Magazine 11 June, 1995 .
Cavazos, Edward, and Gavino Morin. Cyber-Space and the Law Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1995.
Random House Webster's Unabridged College Dictionary New York: Random
House, 1991.
Cross Fire Hosted Michael Kinsley and John Sununu. With Ralph Reed
(Christian Coalition)
and Nadine Strossen (ACLU). CNN. New York. 4 July 1995.
------------------------------
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 V7 #002
******************************
.