Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 07:06:04 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#031
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 18 Oct 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 031
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Re: Junk Faxes [end of discussion]
Re: Junk Sales Calls
Re: Junk Sales Calls
Re: Junk Sales Calls
Copyright Notice
Re: Copyright Notice
Re: Copyright Notice
Re: Copyright Notice
Re: Knowing Where you Browse?
Re: Knowing Where you Browse?
Removing Digital Image From NH Records
Re: Photocopying of Drivers License
Access to Account Balances and Limits
Re: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information
Avrahami Press Release
Your Net Activities for Sale
Internet Law Review
Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/01/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dean Ridgway <ridgwad@PEAK.ORG>
Date: 15 Oct 1995 13:09:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Do you want AOL to *read* your mail and determine its content? How
will they know it's unsolicited advertisements?
Whats your point? AOL *ALREADY* routinely monitors EMail (see recent
news item about AOL turning in names of subscribers to the FBI when
they engaged in child pervert EMail discussions).
Prodigy has been criticized for taking this one step furthur, they
actively *CENSOR* EMail (or did at one time, I don't know if they still
do).
--
/\-/\ Dean Ridgway | Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
( - - ) InterNet ridgwad@peak.org | I took the one less traveled by,
=\_v_/= FidoNet 1:357/1.103 | And that has made all the difference.
CIS 73225,512 | "The Road Not Taken" - Robert Frost.
http://www.peak.org/~ridgwad/
PGP mail encouraged, finger for key: 28C577F3 2A5655AFD792B0FB 9BA31E6AB4683126
------------------------------
From: gmcgath@condes.MV.COM (Gary McGath)
Date: 16 Oct 1995 11:27:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Organization: Conceptual Design
prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) wrote: 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.
Since Prvt Ctzn doesn't quote the passage where I allegedly compared
receipt of E-mail to a contract, I can only say I have no idea what
this means.
- 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.
Two separate points here: First, the use of euphemisms is bothersome.
When you are asking the government to do something for you, you are
talking about *force*, not "re-education." Of course, this particular
euphemism has a long history.
Second, you seem to be making a different statement from the one
implied by the subject of this thread; and from all appearances, you
originated that subject line. You are now stating not that junk faxes
are illegal per se, but that their continued sending in spite of a
request to cease is illegal. That's a more tenable position and implies
a less intrusive law. If you insist on using a confusing and
sensationalistic subject line, please don't blame others for "warping"
your intent.
But as others have pointed out, when you're in an ongoing business
relationship with a company (and one which is not a common carrier, so
an analogy to the phone company wouldn't apply), the law does not
appear to apply. In any case, this situation implies you have the
simplest of solutions available *without* resorting to governmental
force: stop dealing with AOL. If they continued to send you advertising
against your request when you weren't engaging in ongoing business with
them, I would agree entirely that you'd be right in finding an
appropriate law to bring down on their heads.
But as you've described the situation, you want the government to
intervene in the content of a business relationship to which both sides
have consented. Once you've agreed to the principle which this implies,
this means you've given up the right to privacy in favor of getting
what you want in a particular case. And once you've given that up, what
makes you think it's you and not the lobbyists for AOL and CompuServe
that the government is going to listen to?
--
Gary McGath
gmcgath@condes.mv.com
http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath
------------------------------
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <drears@Pica.Army.Mil>
Date: 17 Oct 95 11:58:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) writes: May I suggest a delightful
sec. 47 CFR 64.1200 (f)(5) for a hearty glimpse of "Unsolicited
Advertisement".
No, I don't have the time look up all the arcane definitions that are
in various statutes.
Why is this so hard to get? It's simple. Maybe I should ask people
to read and UNDERSTAND the law.
Put up or shut!!!! We disagree about what the law states. When you
get a judgement in your favour that was contested I will public admit I
was wrong on the finer points of the law. Until then...
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
Dave, don't eat yet those electrons yet, No telephone line was used
by AOL to send the message to him. They used one account to email to
anopther account. The phone line was not use until he called to look
at his mail, hence the law doesn't apply.
Hey, did you ever try electron stew with old printer ribbon, and
photons on the side? mmmm mm! Eat up!
Until you get a judgement it's you just blowing hot air.
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).
If you really don't want them sending you junk, get the HELL of their
service.
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!.
Ah, that's too bad.
--
dennis
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 1995 06:00:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes [end of discussion]
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
As moderator I am calling for an end of this string. All who have
feelings and ideas here have spoken their piece and it is now time to
move on.
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest
Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu
| Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu
levine@cs.uwm.edu | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Chris Burris <cburris@CapAccess.org>
Date: 15 Oct 1995 13:39:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Junk Sales Calls
Bill (haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu) wrote: 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.
For the record, such as service already exists in Maryland (Bell
Atlantic), and is available to subscribers of Caller ID for minimal or
no charge.
I am interested in this new Call-Name ID service. Does anyone know the
specific coverage.
--
Chris Burris
Violation Communications
http://reznor.ml.org/chris/
------------------------------
From: wbe@psr.com (Winston Edmond)
Date: 16 Oct 1995 20:11:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Junk Sales Calls
Organization: Panther Software and Research
haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Bill) wrote: Here's a scheme which would
solve the problem, ... Anyone want to start a pool on the odds of
phone companies ever voluntarily offering such a scheme?
I can't speak to the "voluntarily" part, since I don't know what hand
regulators had in things, but the "odds" are 100 to 0. You've just
described Per Line Blocking and anonymous call blocking, both of which
are available in some areas.
--WBE
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn)
Date: 16 Oct 1995 18:46:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Junk Sales Calls
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
During Congressional hearings Ameritech's (Illinois Bell's) president
(Richard Brown) pointedly fought against being required to freeley give
their customers a `per line' blocking option. Whatever the specious
resons he gave (I have a video tape of the farce), the fact is that...
When per line blocking is allowed, most consumers opt for it, thus
diminishing the marketability of Caller ID to others. Indeed, the
California Public Utilities Commission requires all telcos operating in
the state to offer free per-line blocking. So.... no telephone
utilities in California offered Caller ID service..
--
Bob Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc.
800-CUT-JUNK
P.S. We sell a device that will send the "*67" block signal
automatically, every time a caller pick up his phone, prior to his
dialing. For more infor e-mail or call..
------------------------------
From: chris@ivanova.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
Date: 15 Oct 95 13:26:30 PDT
Subject: Copyright Notice
Do I take it that the copyright notice in my .signature caused some
concern?
It is my understanding that by submitting the article to the mailing
list, where it is obvious that it will be redistributed over the
mailing list, I am granting right to copy to the mailing list.
In case this isn't the case, I'll just do it here:
I hereby grant the Computer Privacy Digest full rights to all articles
submitted by me, copyrighted by me or otherwise, unless otherwise
stated or revoked via email.
Would that do it?
--
(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)
------------------------------
From: "Patrick A. Townson" <ptownson@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 1995 07:33:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Copyright Notice
You questioned if Chris Ambler's 'copyright notice' was in error, and
the answer is no. He sends stuff to me from time to time and always
includes it on each article.
Usually what I do is not run his stuff. If it is something I really
feel is good or of interest, then I go ahead and run it and leave his
copyright intact, but if the article is marginal or only a little of
interest or not all that good then I dump it and just write him back
saying 'sorry, will not publish anything on which the author rather
than the Digest holds the copyright' or I may write back and say,
'sorry I do not publish anything which has the copyright conditions
imposed on it which you included.'
It is not like I am lacking for stuff to publish, and I doubt that you
are either.
You asked what to do about it, and I am telling you how I handle things
from the same person.
--
Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Editor
------------------------------
From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills)
Date: 16 Oct 1995 07:46:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Copyright Notice
If I were you I'd bounce them back to the authors.
Why should you take any risk at all. Sometime somewhere
when you least expect it, ther'll be a troublemaker.
--
Dick Mills +1(518)395-5154
http://www.albany.net/~dmills
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 1995 06:00:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Copyright Notice
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Copyright is a reservation to yourself of the right to make copies.
Submitting a copyrighted posting to an electronic newsgroup is an
oxymoron as it causes the copying of the document very widely and
quickly causes the author to lose control over just what he has
officially reserved.
It is not a privacy issue but is, for most of us, a desire to keep our
authorship of our work intact and should probably be changed to a
notice that "electronic copying of this posting is permitted with this
notice intact but distribution for profit is forbidden" kind of message.
I am not afraid of being sued but my electronic flesh crawls when
someone tells me to distribute information widely at the same time as
they are refusing me permission to copy.
I guess I should move my Professorship over to the Department of
Pedantic Studies :-)
--
moderator
------------------------------
From: Bryan Pfaffenberger <bp@virginia.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 1995 16:41:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Knowing Where you Browse?
I operate a Web server (Mac HTTP) on my office Power Macintosh, mostly
for students to access material for my classes, but every once in a
while there's an outside access (for what, I cannot imagine). Mac-HTTP
lists the domain name of the incoming request, but that's it-or so I
thought until a Prodigy user logged on. Apparently, Prodigy logs you
on with a pretty complete e-mail address-I haven't tried contacting
this user, but the information supplied seemed to be sufficient to
enable me to do so.
--
Bryan Pfaffenberger
Division of Technology, Culture, and Communication
University of Virginia
http://bpmac.seas.virginia.edu/
------------------------------
From: JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown)
Date: 17 Oct 1995 00:37:25 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Knowing Where you Browse?
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs
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.
leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu says... 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.
Netscape does have to have an initial homepage defined, but it does not
require it to be loaded. My Netscape comes up with the default in the
"Goto" box but without actually loading it. Thus, I don't incur the
wait - I don't have a homepage that I want up regularly.
--
Jeff Brown
JF_Brown@pnl.gov
------------------------------
From: gmcgath@condes.MV.COM (Gary McGath)
Date: 16 Oct 1995 11:35:44 GMT
Subject: Removing Digital Image From NH Records
Organization: Conceptual Design
New Hampshire puts a digital image of each driver's license photograph
into a data base. It's unclear what uses it has for this data base at
present, given a lack of sophisticated access methods, but the state
has trotted out the standard "deadbeat dads" argument, which implies
that all people (including women!) are suspected of being
non-supporting fathers until proven innocent.
You can have this image removed from the data base by submitting the
form: "Application for Waiver to remove digital image from department
records." This is available from the Department of Safety, James H.
Hayes Bldg., 10 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03305.
There may be analogous procedures in other states. When New Hampshire
is putting drivers' pictures in a data base, it's a certainty that the
rest of the country is well ahead of us.
--
Gary McGath
gmcgath@condes.mv.com
http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath
------------------------------
From: an274807@anon.penet.fi (fig)
Date: 17 Oct 1995 19:46:49 -0800
Subject: Re: Photocopying of Drivers License
Organization: Me?
chris@ivanova.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) wrote: Does anyone know
about the legality of photocopying a driver's license?
Whether it is right or not is up to debate. If they allowed you to
tape over signature and address (and your state does not use SSN as a
drivers license number), then it probably would be ok with me
considering:
I strongly suspect that the reason they do it is accounting. There
have been so many scams regarding 'give-aways', 'contests', game shows,
... that these operations routinely are audited much more
frequently/severely than your typical operation (by audited, I mean
both IRS and private/CPA type auditing).
For example, the people giving the radio station the CD want to make
sure it doesn't end up w/ the general managers son/daughter.
I believe there are also some strong laws in this respect, but of that
I am not sure. If so, I wonder what the possibility is that those laws
are in direct conflict with privacy laws. It's very hard for me to
believe that there aren't conflicting laws somewhere in all those
volumes.
------------------------------
From: JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown)
Date: 17 Oct 1995 00:41:43 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Access to Account Balances and Limits
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs
I called 1-800-DISCOVER to ask about a disputed purchase, and was given
the option in an electronic menu to get my account balance and limit.
I hadn't known this existed, so I tried it. It asked for my account
number and my zip code. At that point an Account Manager answered who
told me that normally the information would have been looked up but
that their computers were in the process of updating. I stated concern
about the ease with which private data was given out. The person
responded that account numbers are not generally known.
--
Jeff Brown
JF_Brown@pnl.gov
------------------------------
From: JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown)
Date: 17 Oct 1995 17:51:14 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs
mod@world.std.com says... My mortgage is held by GE Capital
Mortgage Services. ...snip... 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. ...snip... What are the risks in my subscribing to
this service?
1) What information do they request from you?
2) Do the reports come directly to you or through them? (i.e.,
who gets to see the information on them)
3) You could get all the information yourself, but the $5 you
pay them might be worth saving you the time. Your choice.
--
Jeff Brown
JF_Brown@pnl.gov
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@allmalt.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 95 15:00:05 -0500
Subject: Avrahami Press Release
Taken from http://www.epic.org/privacy/junk_mail/Press_release.html
Press Release
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: Ram Avrahami, 1001 N. Randolph/#110, Arlington, VA 22201.
703/908-9125 (tel), 703/908-0186 (fax)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SOLUTION TO JUNK MAIL?
Arlington, Aug. 21, 1995 -- "The Arlington County General District
Court set a trial date for the case of an Arlington resident who is
challenging the right of a magazine to sell or rent his name to another
publication without his express written consent.
Ram Avrahami of 1001 N. Randolph street, Arlington, Virginia, filed a
motion against "US News & World Report" for selling his name, without
prior written permission, to the Smithsonian Institution which sent him
an unrequested mail soliciation for its "Smithsonian Magazine."
Avrahami claims that USN&WR has benefited commercially from his name,
thus violating Section 8.01-40 of the Virgnia Code which protects every
person from having his/her name being used for commercial purpose
without consent. While Section 8.01-40 is more known for protecting
celebrities from misappropriating their name, Avrahami claims in his
suit that the selling of magazine subscriber lists also, in effect,
misappropriates his name. The Arlington man also accuses USN&WR of
"conversion," that is, taking control of his name or property and using
it for its own purposes without prior consent.
Judge Jospeh Gwaltney of the Arlington COunty General District Court
set a trial date for November 27th, 1995 (Civil Action No. 95-7479).
In-house counsel for USN&WR, present in court, agreed to this trial
date.
Avrahami said he hoped the motion would help "set up a more equitable
and efficient interaction between consumer and corporations in the
information age." If successful, the suit should also help reduce the
amount of junk mail, he added, since much of this mailing is based on
lists that are sold withou consumers' permission.
Ram Avrahami is represented by the Law Offices of Jonathan C. Dailey in
Arlington, Virgnia (telephone 703-351-5097, fax 703-351-9292).
------------------------------
From: "David D. Levine" <davidl@SSD.intel.com>
Date: 16 Oct 95 17:21:59 -0700
Subject: Your Net Activities for Sale
------- Forwarded Message 1
From: Steven Hackstadt <hacks@cs.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Your Net Activities for Sale (fwd)
======================================================================
[3] Your Net Activities for Sale (and what you can do)
======================================================================
The Marketry company of Bellvue, Washington is now selling email
addresses of Internet users obtained from Newsgroup postings. From
the company's press release:
"These are email address of individuals who are actively using
the Internet to obtain and transfer information. They have
demonstrated a substantial interest in specific area of information
on the Internet. They are regularly accessing information in their
interest areas from newsgroups, Internet chats and websites. . . .
The file is anticipated to grow at the rate of 250,000 E Mail
addresses per month, all with Interest selections."
What are the interest areas currently available? "Adult, Computer,
Sports, Science, Education, News, Investor, Games, Entertainment
Religion, Pets." The release notes that "additional interests areas
will be added, please inquire." Activities of US and non-US Net users
will be included in the Marketry product.
The Washington Post reported that the president of Markertry, Norm
Swent, would not disclose who the actual owner of the list is. "That
really is confidential information," Swent said, "and we are obviously
bound by confidentiality agreements with the list owner."
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
(a) Sit back, let your newsgroup postings get swept up by the data
scavengers and watch the junk email pile high on your system, or
(b) Send email to Marketry and tell them to STOP SELLING PERSONAL
DATA GATHERED FROM THE NET. Send email to: listpeople@marketry.com
and tell your friends to send email. And tell your friends'
friends.
It's your name. It's your mailbox. Think about it.
------- End of Forwarded Message 1
I responded to this news as follows:
Date: 16 Oct 95 16:05:06 -0700
From: "David D. Levine" <davidl@ssd.intel.com>
To: listpeople@marketry.com
Subject: Please remove my name from your mailing lists
I understand that you are gathering e-mail addresses from Usenet
postings for use in commercial e-mail solicitations. Please remove my
name from your mailing lists.
I realize that at the current time you are under no obligation to do
so. However, I believe that maintainers of postal (paper) mailing
lists *are* required to remove the names of customers who so request.
Keep in mind that your actions and attitudes now will help determine
the laws that are written to govern your industry later.
- - David D. Levine, Intel Scalable Systems Division == davidl@ssd.intel.com
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
You may wish to do the same.
--
David
------------------------------
From: support@thinck.com (E. Vlietinck)
Date: 17 Oct 1995 18:45:21 +0100
Subject: Internet Law Review
Dear Sirs, Ladies,
Thinck Associates are looking for contributors to the Internet Law Review.
Internet Law review.
-------------------
The Internet Law Review is a new monthly review focused on the
Internet. A broad range of editorials will cover everything from doing business
on or via the Internet to the ins and outs of criminal behaviour on the
I-Net and how this may affect legal issues in various countries. It is the
intent of the publishers to make this review the reference regarding legal
issues dealing with the Internet.
Besides Internet-related legal issues, we are looking to publish articles
on computer law, computer security if and when related to legal issues, and
legal cases regarding IT.
Therefore we are looking for academics and professional lawyers with a
proven record in IT-law, who want to write high-quality editorials for the
Review.
Articles are restricted to 20 pages maximum. The author should also provide
a summary to include in the final layout.
The writer's resume will be mentioned at the end of the article with his or
her photograph, if so desired. The review will be distributed in hardcopy
or as an Acrobat PDF-file. Therefore, any photographs should be in digital
format, scanned at high resolution. For the time being --because we are a
very small firm and because we are starting our business-- this will be the
only remuneration contributors will get. If the Review becomes the success
we anticipate, every author will be contacted with a suggestion about a
decent remuneration.
Correspondence with the authors will be by Internet e-mail only. Articles
must be sent in the state the author wants it printed, together with the
author's full resume --and photo-- as an attached document to
support@thinck.com.
Please take into account that the workstations we use are Mac only. Your
attached document should therefore be in text only format or in Word for
Mac 5.1 or 6.0.1 format. The photos you send with your articles should be
GIF-files. The same applies to any artwork you wish to include in your
editorial.
If we accept your text, only grammatical or spelling errors will be
corrected, thus guaranteeing you that the content of the article remains
unchanged.
Some of the topics of interest are:
* Advertising on the Internet: what is allowed and what is not?
* Contracting by e-mail, legal implications.
* Intruders in private networks: where do local police, FBI, Europol and
Interpol stand?
* Does the Internet intrude your privacy?
* Contractual law with regards to ISP's, Web-sites.
* etc., etc.
______________________
IIF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN WRITING FOR OUR REVIEW, SEND E-MAIL TO
support@thinck.com.
(END TEXT)
Director: Erik Vlietinck, PhD in Law
erikv@thinck.com
Thinck Associates
http://www.thinck.com
------------------------------
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 #031
******************************
.