Date: Sun, 15 Oct 95 10:28:29 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#030
Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 15 Oct 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 030
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Knowing Where you Browse?
Re: Netscape Logging Use of Its Product
Photocopying of Drivers License
Re: Junk Sales Calls
Re: Where Caller ID Is Headed
Corporate Information
Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Re: Need help with Harassing Creditors
GE Capital Offer of Personal Information
RE: Caller ID
Electronic Road Taxation in Singapore
Announcement; Alert Mailing List
Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/01/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Peter Leppik)
Date: 11 Oct 1995 15:26:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Knowing Where you Browse?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Bill Hensley <bhensley@oceo.trw.com> wrote: For what it's worth, a
very recent issue of Communications Week (I think) had an interview
with the head of Netscape. It was one of those Q and A pieces.
One of the questions concerned the expiration of Netscape on a
user's machine such that the browser would *only* access URLs in
the mcom.com domain. He said that they (Netscape) knew every time
one of their browsers was activated, and that they collected tens
of millions of hits via this monitoring every day. I'll try to get
the specifics of the article (I'm at home today, the paper is at
work) and post them.
The default homepage for the Netscape browser is Netscape's homepage.
This should be obvious to anyone who uses it, because the first page
Netcape loads when you run it is http://home.netscape.com/ .
You can easily change the default home page un the preferences. I have
mine set to Yahoo....
There's nothing particularly sinister in this behavior, since the
browser has to load SOMETHING as a default....it might as well be an
advertisement for the company that wrote the browser.
--
Peter Leppik leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Lost in the Information Supercollider
http://seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu/
------------------------------
From: khera@kciLink.com (Vivek Khera)
Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:10:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Netscape Logging Use of Its Product
Organization: Khera Communications, Inc., Rockville, MD
Bill Hensley <bhensley@oceo.trw.com> writes: I finally got around
to looking up the interview that talks about this. It's in
_Communications Week_, 25 Sep 95, pg 73, an interview with Jim
Clark, Netscape Chairman. Quoted without permission:
My read on that quote is that they've worked out *how* to do it, not
that they *are* doing it. It doesn't seem likely that they get a
message every time you fire it up and every time you shut it down;
probably only when you visit their site.
--
Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera@kciLink.com Rockville, MD +1-301-258-8292
PGP/RIPEM/MIME spoken here http://www.kciLink.com/home/khera/
------------------------------
From: chris@ivanova.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
Date: 11 Oct 95 18:15:08 PDT
Subject: Photocopying of Drivers License
Does anyone know about the legality of photocopying a driver's
license?
Today I won a CD boxed set from a local radio station. I went down
there to pick it up, and they refused to let me have it unless I
allowed them to photocopy my driver's license. They said that it was to
prove to the record label that the set was, in fact, given away.
I was under the impression that that was prohibited by federal law. Am
I incorrect?
To complete the story, I allowed them to do so, after placing a piece
of tape over my signature. I figure, that's what most places use to
verify my signature on a check, I don't want anyone having a copy of
it! (Then again, they could get my signature anywhere and create a fake
if they wanted to).
Perhaps I'm being a bit paranoid, but something doesn't seem right to
me...
--
(C) Copyright, 1995 Christopher Ambler, Director, Punknet Internet Cooperative,
San Luis Obispo, California
NOTICE: Unsolicited commercial email may be treated under 47 USC 227 (b)(1)(C)
[moderator: The above copyright notice was probably included in
error. I am interested in just how to handle submissions that contain
broad copyright restrictions.]
------------------------------
From: haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Bill)
Date: 12 Oct 1995 02:08:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Junk Sales Calls
Organization: The University of Chicago
Prvt Ctzn <prvtctzn@aol.com> wrote: {deletia} Statistically, 25% of
all residential phones are unlisted, with some areas (like Las
Vegas) having an `unlisted rate' of 75%. Here in the Chicago
metro area, it's 40% unlisted. Caller ID allows telcos to sell you
the service of being unlisted, then sell junk callers the service
of getting your unlisted number, and as a result, increase the
number of junk calls that would otherwise not have been made...
Thus increasing the telco's income a third way.
Here's a scheme which would solve the problem, from the point of view
of those who use caller ID to screen calls *and* from the point of view
of those who don't want their unlisted number to fall into the hands of
advertisers:
1) Instead of making "*67" an option for blocking your line from
transmitting its ID when you make a call, make NOT transmitting ID be
the default behavior in all cases, and provide a code like "*67", which
you must dial at the start of a call if you DO want to transmit your
phone number to the person receiving the call. Alternately, make
automatic transmission of your phone number a "service" which you must
specifically request, and otherwise assume you don't want the receiver
to know your phone number.
2) Let phone companies sell, as an option with their "Caller ID"
service, the option of having Caller-ID-blocked calls automatically
rerouted to a message saying that you do not accept Caller-ID-blocked
calls. You can achieve the same thing with an answering-machine
message, but some people will for whatever reason not have or not want
to bother with an answering machine message.
The needs of people avoiding harassing phone calls via Caller ID would
be met, and the privacy of the average telephone customer would not be
needlessly destroyed. Anyone want to start a pool on the odds of phone
companies ever voluntarily offering such a scheme?
--
Bill (haz1@midway.uchicago.edu)
------------------------------
From: wbe@psr.com (Winston Edmond)
Date: 14 Oct 1995 18:56:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Where Caller ID Is Headed
Organization: Panther Software and Research
It's becoming increasingly clear -- Caller ID to a business phone is
logically separate from Caller ID to an individual/residence phone. In
general, people seem to agree that individuals should have the right to
know who is calling them (with some exceptions), but don't want the
service to become a new way of compiling information about them when
they call businesses.
I don't expect it to happen any time soon (if ever), but what's needed
is a "Differential Caller ID" option, where the default is "blocked" to
business phones but "unblocked" when calling residential phones. At
the moment, the only way to get that effect is manually.
When the only options are "yes" and "no" and in the two most common
cases, one case argues for "yes" and the other for "no", the battle for
which is best can go on forever with no one completely happy with the
outcome.
------------------------------
From: Erik@harry.lloyd.com
Date: 12 Oct 1995 05:49:49 GMT
Subject: Corporate Information
Organization: <Sippers Anonymous>
Sorry if this is a repeat, but I have been having some real problems
with my news reader. I saw a posting on another group about accessing
data bases to obtain corporate information. I was wondering just what
kind of databases might be accessable and what kind of information
might be available. I would particularly be interested in determining
who is on the boards of directors, major shareholders and corporate
earnings. Thoughts?
--
Erik Holst
erikh@spider.lloyd.com
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn)
Date: 12 Oct 1995 11:41:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Dennis G. Rears wrote, (3) The term 'telephone solicitation' means
the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of
encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property,
goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such
term does not include a call or message (A) to any person with that
person's prior express invitation or permission, (B) to any person
with whom the caller has an established business relationship, or
(C) by a tax exempt nonprofit organization.
execption (B) applies in this case.
Wrong Dennis.
Your looking at the wrong definitions.
May I suggest a delightful sec. 47 CFR 64.1200 (f)(5) for a hearty
glimpse of "Unsolicited Advertisement".
And for the main course, why not try a hot bowl of (f)(2) "telephone
facsimile machines".
Then you may finish off your education with (f)(4) "established
business relationship" (ebr), topped with a Q&A issued by the FCC on
September 17, 1992.concerning the TCPA which specifically addresses
EBR's, and states that an ebr may be severed, for the purpose of future
solicitation calls, by asking a firm to stop soliciting. Note:, I
asked AOL not to send me any junk e-mail of which it was the
principal.
They are now in violation.
Why is this so hard to get? It's simple. Maybe I should ask people to
read and UNDERSTAND the law.
David Kennedy writes: I will gladly eat my own electrons if you
would be kind enough to cite the law on which you seem so intent
on having enforced.
Well Dave... Have an electron.... and read 47 CFR 64.1200 (e)(3) .
prohibiting unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines
(f)(5) defining what an `unsolicited advertisement' is (f)(2)
defining what a `telephone facsimile machine' is
As for the definition of an `established business relationsahip'
(f)(4), that's a bit harder to convince those who are not as steeped in
the issue as myself. Suffice it to say that the FCC states that
established business relationships may be terminated `for the purpose
solicitations' by telling the solicitor to stop it.
Hey, did you ever try electron stew with old printer ribbon, and
photons on the side? mmmm mm! Eat up!
Gary McGath, in his response to my ref. posting, seems intent on trying
to misunderstand my point. He even goes so far as to compare the
receipt of e-mail containing an unsolicited advertisement, to a service
contract with AOL.
Com'on Gary...
- You state, "You seem to be implying that sending E-mail to a person
without his consent, violates his `right of privacy' ".
- My response: no, I am not saying that... but you did a reasonable job
of warping my point. My point is that, my right of privacy includes my
right to be left alone by those I seek to avoid. I seek to avoid
people who see me as nothing more than a `source of revenue'. And, in
the case of unsolicited advertisements transmitted by E-mail, I have
the opportunity (granted by federal law) to ask such e-mailers to stop
bothering me... and re-educate those that refuse to comply.
As for your warp of the instant law concerning governmental
inappropriate restrictions on free speech... I've got to agree with
you... I consider parts of the TCPA to be `clearly unconstitutional'.
Yet the law in its entirety does offer some gems... one of which is the
junk fax/e-mail section. But that section gives the recipient of the
communication the right to allow or disallow unsolicited ads..
L. Bednar wrote:: Do you want AOL to *read* your mail and determine
its content? How will they know it's unsolicited advertisements?
Dear L.., ..... No,
What AOL did was send me their own junk E-Mail. I don't want them to
do anything concerning e-mail from others... just stop sending me their
own junk e-mail (which, once I ask them to stop, and they continue, is
a violation of law).
Let's see... can I say this another way to assure penetration? Let's
try this.... AOL advertised "an AOL" service to me, via e-mail, after
I told AOL not to do so!.
Bob Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc.
1-800-CUT-JUNK
------------------------------
From: berczuk@space.mit.edu (Steve Berczuk)
Date: 12 Oct 1995 19:21:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
David M Kennedy <David_M_Kennedy@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil> writes:
Where you will find a law that makes no mention of electronic
mail. This law, recently enforced in at least one court case,
restricts some unsolicited telephone calls, including some
facsimile transmissions. However electronic mail is not mentioned
in the statute and, absent your citing a law or a case, you are
stretching this statute too far.
Not knowing the case law, I am not sure that I agree that the absense
of the words "email" or "computer communications equipment" make this
law irrelevant..
it defines :
(2) The term 'telephone facsimile machine' means equipment which has
the capacity
(A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an
electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular
telephone line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both)
from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone
line onto paper.
much of which can be done with a computer/email.. note that the
"communications decency act" defines telecommunications as: " the
transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user's choosing, including voice, data, image,
graphics, and video, without change in the form or content of the
information, as sent and received, with or without benefit of any
closed transmission medium."
(ie, no mention of computers or email or usenet for that matter) yet
the everyone is talking about implications for the internet... does
anyone have any idea about what the case law is on this before we
speculate any more?
--
Steve Berczuk -berczuk@mit.edu | MIT Center for Space Research
Phone: (617)253-3840/Fax: (617)253-0861 | 37-561; 77 Massachusetts Avenue
URL: http://space.mit.edu/~berczuk/ | Cambridge MA 02139
** finger berczuk@space.mit.edu for PGP public key **
------------------------------
From: glr@ripco.com (Glen L. Roberts)
Date: 13 Oct 1995 19:51:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Need help with Harassing Creditors
Organization: Full Disclosure
misterz@ix.netcom.com (Mark Zilberman) says: I would appreciate any
assistance. My parents are going through a wrenching bankruptcy in
FL.
If they have filed bankruptcy and are being harass... a motion for
contempt of court should stop them in their tracks... Once they got
notice of the filing, they should have stopped.
If they have not actually filed yet... get it filed and the creditors
must deal with the court and not you.
They are not young. They are getting a deluge of calls from
credittors. This past week they (the credittors) started calling
neighbors. I am not in a postition to help my parents financially
but I will do all that I can. I would like to know the full range
of options regarding this matter. Specifically, what would be the
legal limits that apply to these credittors? Additionally, what are
the legal/procedural remedies that one might employ to keep the
hounds at bay (to alleviate some of the stress)?
Bankrupcty will stop them cold.
Finally, is anyone familiar with the "Debt Collection Practices
Act": what is it, where can I get a copy (ideally on the Net)?
The Debt Collection Practices Act (get a xerox at the library),
provides that of you tell them NOT TO contact you in WRITING, they must
stop. You must tell them in WRITING.
------------------------------
From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mod@world.std.com>
Date: 14 Oct 1995 18:27:03 -0400
Subject: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information
My mortgage is held by GE Capital Mortgage Services. (Yah, I've heard
about their record and reputation, but that's properly the subject of
another discussion.) I recently received an offer from them whereby
I'd pay $5 a month for the "privilege" of getting allegedly current
reports on our credit, driving, Social Security and medical histories,
including the ability to correct errors and discrepancies. The offer
is supposedly revocable after three months with full refund of the $15
paid up to that point.
Obviously, a company reputed to be as predatory, opportunistic,
meddlesome, unprincipled and right-wing (is that last part redundant?)
as GE wouldn't make an offer like this out of a desire to make the
world a better place, so I'm wondering: what's the catch? Even in the
offer letter they make inconsistent statements as to the services that
will be available to me during the trial period, saying in different
places that I will be entitled to just a credit report, or a credit
report plus the items mentioned above - it's unclear. Can it be that
the $5 a month is really all they're after? What are the risks in my
subscribing to this service?
--
Michael O'Donnell mod@std.com
------------------------------
From: Lynne Gregg <lynne.gregg@attws.com>
Date: 12 Oct 95 12:59:00 PDT
Subject: RE: Caller ID
In reply to Robert Ellis Smith: Lynne Gregg writes, "Yes, Caller
ID is effective at thwarting harassing callers." Where's the
evidence of this? I keep hearing this claim by phone companies but
have never seen any documentation.
I've had dozens of consumers tell me that they specifically bought
residential Caller ID service to stop harassing phone calls. I have
been told by these folks that after installing Caller ID (and telling
the harasser that they knew who they were with Caller ID installed) the
calls stopped. Some of these folks mentioned that they had children
in the house and the harassing calls probably were coming from other
kids. Caller ID is handy in stopping these types of calls and in
screening out the telemarketers or other unwanted calls. Sure, some
consumers choose to screen with answering machines. Others have
demonstrated that they like Caller ID (and would like it more if telcos
delivered all the numbers and other consumers didn't block).
I'm sensitive to the privacy issue: some folks don't want their
telephone or any of their numbers disclosed. I personally refrain
from making harassing phone calls and thus, don't particularly care
whether my number is displayed on someone's Caller ID box or not.
When I call someone, it's intentional and if they happen to have Caller
ID, I DO want them to know it's me calling. If I buy Caller ID, I'd
sure want to know who was calling - or the caller's number in the event
that I wanted to call them back later.
doesn't an answering machine do this b etter? With Caller ID, you
still have to stop what you are doing and go to your phone unit,
then you have to have had memorized the incoming calling number.
Not necessarily. Terminal manufacturers like AT&T and Nortel offer
phones with spoken Caller ID. If I preprogram in Mom's number with a
voice tag, when the phone rings, I will hear the voice tag played, "
'Mom' calling". So I don't have to run to the phone (just be within
earshot). Answering machines can be used for call screening, too, but
they reply on the willingness of the caller to state who they are.
There are STILL some folks (like my father-in-law and next door
neighbor) who REFUSE to talk to answering machines. With Caller ID,
I'd know it was Dad or my neighbor who called and could phone them back
at my convenience.
What do you think of this sales pitch from Amerite ch? "You know
exactly who's calling . . . Caller ID actually spells out the names
of callers . . . You'll have a record of both the names and numbers
of callers." Caller ID doesn't do that at all; it tells you only
the number (or name) of TH PERSON SUB SCRIBING TO THE CALLING
PHONE, not the caller.
Good point. The assumption here is that if you see "FRANK SMITH"
appear on your Caller ID box, Frank or someone in his household is
calling for you. But, this is a good point that highlights a
limitation of
Caller ID service. If that caller was phoning you from a PBX
extension or payphone, you wouldn't know EXACTLY who was calling. I
don't think there is anything EXACT about Caller ID services at this
stage. On many telco marketing materials, you may see plenty of
disclaimers highlighting these present limitations.
"With Caller ID, . . . the problem of malicious callers or just
'pranksters' practically disappears"? Isn't that deceptive?
Within five years has the problem of harassing phone calls
"practically disa ppeared"?
Yes, as I've said, many consumers have specifically stated they bought
Caller ID to eliminate annoying or harassing phone calls. It does the
trick.
I talk with many consumers of Caller ID services and in general, they
like the service. The only thing they'd like is to see MORE NUMBERS.
This requires that telcos freely exchange phone numbers and that
callers allow the presentation of their numbers.
Finally, let me tell you about how some consumers use Caller ID and why
it can be important TO DISCLOSE numbers on calls to those who have
Caller ID. In some states where Caller ID is prevalent, Caller ID
subscribers have instructed their children to not answer calls from
blocked numbers. Also, some public and privacy agencies (i.e., child
care providers) have adopted practices of not answering calls from
blocked numbers. This practice presented a bit of a problem for a
telephone company that was in process of a network upgrade that could
allowed Calling Party Number to be passed. To protect customers in
advance of a formal notice announcing the change and blocking options,
the company applied Per Line Blocking to all accounts as a default.
The company then received many calls from customers who could not reach
family at home or child care providers because of this practice of not
answering blocked numbers.
It's always hard to please everyone, but when it comes to Caller ID, I
believe that current legislation (including the FCC Ruling) should
satisfy all parties. Consumers have the option to buy the service or
not; block on a per call or per line basis or not at all. It seems to
me that the debate is over.
--
Regards,
Lynne
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 1995 09:08:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Electronic Road Taxation in Singapore
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from PRIVACY Forum Digest Friday, 13 September 1995 Volume 04 :
Issue 22 Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A.
From: agre@laforia.ibp.fr
(AGRE Phil 44.27.71.39 Professeur invite d'A Collinot)
Date: 12 Oct 1995 09:49:39 +0100
Subject: electronic road taxation in Singapore
The International Herald Tribune reports that the government of
Singapore has awarded a S$197 million (US$140 million) contract to
Philips Singapore, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Miyoshi Electronics,
and its own Singapore Technologies group to build the first phase of an
electronic system for automatic collection of taxes ("tolls") aimed at
regulating demand for the country's road capacity. The full reference
is:
Michael Richardson, Singapore moves toward electronic tolls for
vehicles, International Herald Tribune, 10 October 1995, page 4.
Such systems have raised significant civil liberties concerns because,
unless care is taken in their design, they can lead to the creation of
electronic records of drivers' movements. The article does not comment
on the civil liberties aspects of the Singapore system or on the
Singapore government's highly controversial record on privacy and other
civil liberties issues. It does say that the "smart cards", which
"will be slotted into small holders mounted inside the windshield",
will be debit cards from which "charges will be deducted from credit
stored in the cards" by means of interactions with "electronic scanners
mounted on gantries leading to congested areas and busy highways". It
does not say how compliance with the system will be enforced.
Nonetheless, the system does create one clearly ominous precedent:
these cards will be "installed on *all* of Singapore's 650,000 motor
vehicles" (emphasis added). This kind of coercion is needed, for all
practical purposes, to implement an electronic road-use taxation
system, also known by the somewhat misleading term "congestion
pricing". Transportation officials in the United States have
repeatedly asserted that such systems in this country will be
"voluntary", yet moves toward congestion pricing are under way in
several parts of the country. It is not at all clear how these two
trends will be reconciled -- unless, of course, submitting to
electronic monitoring of one's road travel is "voluntary" in just the
same sense that driving a car at all is voluntary. In any event, the
developments in Singapore redouble the urgent need to develop,
implement, and standardize technologies for anonymous electronic toll
collection systems.
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 1995 09:08:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Announcement; Alert Mailing List
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from PRIVACY Forum Digest Friday, 13 September 1995 Volume 04 :
Issue 22 Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A.
From: Christopher Klaus <cklaus@iss.net>
Date: 09 Oct 1995 16:13:20 +1494730 (PDT)
Subject: Announcement: Alert Mailing List
Announcing a new security mailing list - The Alert.
The Alert will be covering the following topics:
- Security Product Announcements
- Updates to Security Products
- New Vulnerabilities found
- New Security Frequently Asked Question files.
- New Intruder Techniques and Awareness
To join, send e-mail to request-alert@iss.net and, in the text of your
message (not the subject line), write:
subscribe alert
To remove, send e-mail to request-alert@iss.net and, in the text of
your message (not the subject line), write:
unsubscribe alert
This is a moderated list in the effort to keep the noise to a minimal
and provide quality security information.
If your site is interested in network security, we put out several
FAQes (Frequently Asked Question) that cover the following main areas
of topic:
Vendor Contacts
- Who is the security contacts at IBM, HP, Dec, Motorola, etc.
- Web page at: http://iss.net/iss/vendor.html
Patches
- List of all security related patches catergorized by OS type.
- Web page at: http://iss.net/iss/patch.html
Compromise
- Check list of things to do if your machines are compromised.
- Web page at: http://iss.net/iss/compromise.html
Anonymous FTP Security
- How to correctly set up FTP and check for vulnerabilities.
- Web page at: http://iss.net/iss/anonftp.html
Sniffers
- What they are. How they work. How to detect them. And solutions.
- Web page: http://iss.net/iss/sniff.html
Security Mailing Lists
- A comprehensive list of security mailing lists.
- Web page: http://iss.net/iss/maillist.html
If possible, it might be a good idea for you to add links to the above
web pages on your own Web server and point people who need to know some
of the network security issues to the web page. It is possible to
point to all of the FAQ pages at:
http://iss.net/iss/faq.html
--
Christopher William Klaus Voice: (770)441-2531. Fax: (770)441-2431
Internet Security Systems, Inc. "Internet Scanner lets you find
2000 Miller Court West, Norcross, GA 30071 your network security holes
Web: http://iss.net/ Email: cklaus@iss.net before the hackers do."
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 11 Aug 1995 09:39:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/01/95]
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.
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
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 #030
******************************
.