Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 14:52:03 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#033
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 25 Oct 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 033
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Email Addresses for Sale by Direct Marketing Agency
Re: Usenet Posters' Profiles Available to Anyone with WWW Browser
Author Profiles at Deja News
Marketry Inc. Resigns as E-mail List Broker
The Information Rights Act of 1996
Re: State Phone Policies Survey
Re: Call Blocking
Re: Call Blocking
Regulating re-use of Caller ID Information
Re: Copyright Notice
Inappropriate Access to Absentee Ballot Lists?
Bell Atlantic VISA
Re: Can you Sue if Credit is Denied for Lack of SSN?
Exon Bill in US Congress
This Weeks Free Online Privacy Article--Swiss Accounts
Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/18/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn)
Date: 23 Oct 1995 06:51:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Email Addresses for Sale by Direct Marketing Agency
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
richmsr@niia.net (rich markwart) wrote Email Addresses for Sale by
Direct Marketing Agency According to DM(Direct Marketing) News
10-16-95, Marketry, Inc. of Bellevue, WA offerred a list of 250,000
Internet addresses to attendees of the 1995 Direct Marketing
Association (DMA) convention in Dallas. The list of e-mail
addresses was gathered from newsgroups, chat groups and Web sites.
The list is available for rental at $50/1,000 names. Marketry is a
list rental agency. In violation of DMA ethics rules, the owner of
the list was not revealed. The spokesperson admited that users did
not realize that their addresses were being captured, compiled and
sold. The Direct Marketing Association can be reached at
212-768-7277 or 212-790-1400.
If you complain to the DMA concerning this `direct marketing' outrage,
don't hold your breath waiting for the DMA to do anything about it.
Even if Marketry is a DMA member, I can assure from past experiences,
the DMA will do little to nothing.
Keep in mind, the DM News reported the DMA's president (Jonah Gitlitz)
to have boasted, "THE GOAL OF THE DMA IS TO DISCOVER AND TO THWART
POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT REGULATION.... AND WE HAVE DONE IT."
Indeed, a DMA member, `Field Publications', was fined $175,000 by the
FTC when one of its divisions was found to be making telemarketing
offers in a `less than ethical manner'. But the most bizarre thing
about this was that, at about the same time, Field Publication's' CEO
was appointed to the DMA's Executive Board of Directors, whie the DMA's
Ethics Director was on the Steering Committee of the Alliance Against
Fraud in Telemarketing.
There are other examples of the DMA's imperical inaction concerning
violations of its ethical guidelines, but I won't get into them here.
What's important is that you remember, most all of this `ethical' crap
that the DMA feeds to us and our legislators is public relations
fluff. I don't get a sense that the DMA believes it, so why should you
believe it... or rely on it.
You want proof? When you call them to complain, ask the DMA to respond
in writing, with what they will do, should do, or have done concerning
this Marketry matter. I only wish I could be proved wrong.
--
Robert Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK
------------------------------
From: ehunt@bga.com (Eric Hunt)
Date: 23 Oct 1995 15:25:09 -0600
Subject: Re: Usenet Posters' Profiles Available to Anyone with WWW Browser
Organization: Lil' Ole' Me
dzubint@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Thomas Dzubin) wrote: You can
"click" on the poster of the article and the dejanews server will
give you an "Author profile" which lists how many articles you
I went to their feedback page and firmly but politely requested they
remove my two active UseNet posting accounts from their database. I
also informed them I would not bring out the lawyers but I would become
very active elsewhere in UseNet to bring pressure on them to remove
this service.
All of the points you raised are extremely valid and I'll definately be
thinking twice about posting in some of the more left-wing and socially
marginal groups from now on.
--
Eric Hunt __ ehunt@bga.com (preferred)
Austin, TX \/ hunt@metrowerks.com
------------------------------
From: Eric Hunt <hunt@austin.metrowerks.com>
Date: 24 Oct 1995 10:07:30 -0500
Subject: Author Profiles at Deja News
Upon learning from this discussion group of the Author Profiles
available to anyone with a web client at Deja News
(http://www.dejanews.com), I investigated. Sure enough, they had their
database engine compile a summary of all the newsgroups I had posted
to. At that point, I used their mailto: form to politely but firmly
request that they remove me from their database, as I felt it was an
invasion of my privacy.
I received a response from George Demosthenes Nickas, Customer Liaison
(demos@dejanews.com) that basically said "OK, we'll remove you, but
didn't you realize that by posting to UseNet you opened yourself up to
something just like this. We have no sympathy."
I received another response this morning from Steve Madere,
madere@home.dejanews.com (I deleted his original, so I don't know his
title) that was even more to the point, and he quoted numerous
net.guide documents and the banner from the tin newsreader, where they
all remind you that you should be aware of the implications of posting
to possibly controversial newsgroups.
What follows is my reply to George from yesterday. I simply re-sent this
same reply to Steve as well.
I'd welcome any comments public or private on my arguments. Is the
reality of UseNet completely different from the banners and net.guide
documents, or am I being completely silly for assuming there was any
expectation of privacy when posting to obscure newsgroups?
Sent: 10/23/95 4:18 PM
To: George Demosthenes Nickas, demos@home.dejanews.com
I'd like to make a few points, however. Posting to UseNet is a
world-wide *publishing* endeavor
You are not providing a responsible service. The potential for
discrimination and harassment, as well as targetted direct marketing
is now infinitely easier with your service.
By virtue of its entirely unmanageable size, UseNet was essentially a
"private" place. Just as you can move to New York City and do *lots*
of things that absolutely no one will notice, you could post to weird
and potentially sensitive areas on UseNet and no one would be the
wiser.
Now, you've turned UseNet into that small town where everyone knows
everyone else's business. It's now infinitely easier to find out all
kinds of information about people they normally wouldn't want the
whole world knowing.
This service will allow employers to possibly discriminate against
their employees by investigating *easily and efficiently* what areas
of UseNet they inhabit. It will give the dregs of society an easy
place to find targets for unwilling victims who just happen to share
an interest. It will give direct marketers an even easier foothold
into the sound-biting and oppressive commercialization of the
Internet.
Again, my point is this: there was an expectation of privacy with
UseNet before your service.
I don't even have that much of a problem with being able to get lists
of posts a user makes. The scary part is the Author Profile that
provides the Executive Summary of where a particular user frequents
in UseNet.
These same arguments are being used against the US Government's plans
to consolidate all their citizen databases into one vast searchable
archive. It allows every single detail of everyone's life to be put
up for public display. I have to reject your claim that I should be
responsible for my posting actions. Discrimination and oppression
exist today and your service does nothing but make "safe spaces" for
minorities less safe and more open to people who are targeting the
inhabitants of those safe spaces.
Please pass my response to the appropriate people internally at Deja
News.
--
Eric Hunt
Austin, TX
------------------------------
From: privacy@interramp.com (Privacy Newsletter)
Date: 24 Oct 1995 19:58:08 GMT
Subject: Marketry Inc. Resigns as E-mail List Broker
Organization: Privacy Newsletter
On Monday, October 23, I spoke to Norman Swent, President of Marketry,
Inc., who indicated that his company has dropped the recent attention
grabbing Internet user e-mail list.
In a press release dated October 17, 1995 (the day after the infamous
DM News article formally hit the streets), Marketry had the following
to say:
"Norman Swent, President, Marketry, Inc., today announced
Marketry's resignation as manager of the E-Mail Interest Selector
list. While this is viewed as an exciting new potential for
marketing purposes, the amount of effort required to gain
acceptance for it will take some time. Marketry's resources are
better spent further developing their core business rather than
pioneering this effort."
My personal take of this resignation is that Marketry is not prepared
to take the heat at this time. A great deal of consumer backlash has
taken place in the past week, and whoever exploits this market
opportunity will have to "face the music" from consumer advocates.
I'm sure that Marketry's resignation of this account will by no means
slow down the emergence of this new list product. For some time, the
editors here at Privacy Newsletter have been warning the public that
its participation in Usenet conferences could have dire and unforeseen
consequences. Whether you post messages to comp.society.privacy,
alt.homosexual, or rec.drugs.psychedelic, you should assume by default
that someone "out there" is compiling a list of your affiliations.
We actively seek your personal experiences to share with our readers
and encourage you to tell us your story. As a matter of policy, we will
shield your identity. As we are preparing an e-mail privacy platform to
submit to the DMA and other organizations, your input would be
appreciated.
--
John Featherman
Editor
Privacy Newsletter
PO Box 8206
Philadelphia PA 19101-8206
Phone/fax: 215-533-7373
E-mail: privacy@interramp.com
------------------------------
From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills)
Date: 23 Oct 1995 08:20:40 -0400
Subject: The Information Rights Act of 1996
Thomas Dzubin wrote: ...one of the items is called "Deja News"
which will basically search through the dejanews Usenet archives
for a certain search string. ...snip... This has a great
potential as a marketing tool...or as a harrasment tool....or even
as a job screening tool? Will someone in the future not hire me
because I post to rec.whatever? Pretty scary potential.
Mr. Dzubin expresses a theme frequently heard in the various privacy
forums. I paraphrase it as, "I'm surprised to find that seemingly
unrelated bits of information about me can be so easily gathered and
used to build a profile of me. It ought to be forbidden."
If enough people in enough places echo this desire, they may get their
wish. A law could be passed restricting the gathering and correlation
of information. On the surface, it might sound like consumer
protection, but it could also backfire and become a real threat to
freedom.
Before asking for something, we ought to be sure what we want. So
here's a challenge to the net community.
If we had a "Information Rights Act of 1996", what would you like it to
say?
Please try to focus on a plane higher than just credit cards, phone
numbers, and TV cameras. These things are important, but too transient
to put into civil rights law. Technology changes awfully fast.
A law which might stand for a hundred years or more has to talk about
information, principles, parties and rights in very clear, yet generic
language. It also has to be applicable, fair, and practical, to
government, commerce and individuals.
--
Dick Mills +1(518)395-5154
http://www.albany.net/~dmills
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn)
Date: 23 Oct 1995 07:03:55 -0400
Subject: Re: State Phone Policies Survey
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Illinois, Chicago metro are, is covered by Ameritech. Charges are as
follows:
To stay out of the telephone book = $0.97/month
To stay out of the book and Directory Assistance = $1.45/month
To get the names and phone number of those
paying Ameritech up to $17.40 / year to
keep thier numbers private = $9.00 month
Caller I D)
To get Illinois' governor to appoint who you want
to the Illinois Commerce Commission so
you can get away with this incredible (yet
common) industry practice = approximately $120,000 a year
[that's what Ameritech's (they like
to call it their Employee's) Political
Action Committee gave in campaign
contributions in 1990]
Robert Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK
------------------------------
From: WELKER@a1.vsdec.nl.nuwc.navy.mil
Date: 23 Oct 1995 10:22:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Call Blocking
I can find no rationale for permitting a common carrier to force
citizens to pay extra not to have their privacy violated. The
telephone is a vital public service, explicitly required in many
jobs and a de facto requirement of most others. Access to
emergency services depends on access to telephone services. Thus,
we're not talking about a subscription list being sold by a private
company. You don't have any choice but to deal with the local
phone company if you want telephone service.
The default behavior of the telephone company is to publish your number
becuase most people want their numbers listed. Since the phone company
has to do something special to "turn off" your listing, the cost of the
additional labor can be passed on to you, not to mention cost of lost
revenue from not being able to sell your name, which would otherwise
show up on everybody's phone bill (a fact that the phone company will
surely have reminded the UTC of).
Access to emergency services need not be obtained via phone, you can
still physically go directly to the public safety building in your
community (or whatever). Having a phone line is a privilege that you
pay for, not a right. The fact that a "natural monopoly" exists does
not make it less of a privilege. Same goes for electricity, gas, and
trash pickup -- you only have it as an entitlement if the government is
providing it. Even if your zoning requires you to have electricity and
trash removal, you can buy your own generator and haul your own garbage
to a landfill -- and you can get a cellular phone and keep it in your
house instead of paying for a standard line, too.
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein)
Date: 23 Oct 1995 15:21:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Call Blocking
Organization: mostly unorganized
Aaron Zaugg <relief@indirect.com> writes: This anonymous call
blocking problem everyone is talking about can be immediately
solved by purchasing a Caller ID box (not from phone co.) which has
that ability built in. I paid about 79$ for one from a computer
(junk mail) catalog. I think the place was called PCZone. If your
local phone company won't sell you the box that will eliminate
blocked calls just find one that will.
Sears (yes Sears) sells a box that does this as well. If you toggle the
"block the blocker" mode, asnybody calling you will get a 'this phone
does not accept blocked calls' msg.
Note that unlike getting the service from telco, this box -will- have
your phone do a single ring (whcih may or may not be useful) and the
person calling you will get charged.
--
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com)
------------------------------
From: Peter B White <pbwhite@latrobe.edu.au>
Date: 24 Oct 1995 18:54:51 +1000
Subject: Regulating re-use of Caller ID Information
Does anyone know of regulations which limit the re-use of information
gained from Caller ID? For example are there any jurisdictions which
limit the compilation of mailing lists or recontacting callers? Any
leads appreciated.
--
Peter B. White, Director,
La Trobe University Online Media Program,
Department of Media Studies, La Trobe University, Bundoora,
Victoria 3083, Australia. email: pbwhite@latrobe.edu.au
phone: +61 3 9479 2785 fax: +61 3 9817 5875
WWW http://teloz.latrobe.edu.au
------------------------------
From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva)
Date: 24 Oct 1995 22:08:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Copyright Notice
Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI
Prof. L. P. Levine <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> wrote: Copyright is a
reservation to yourself of the right to make copies.
The right to make copies is automatically reserved to the author. You
don't have to assert it to retain copyright.
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.
When you submit a document to a newsgroup, you are requesting that
copies be made under the normal Usenet distribution mechanisms.
Copyright in the document and responsibility for its contents remains
with the author, oherwise nobody could afford the liability involved in
carrying Usenet!
To claim that one is giving up that copyright by posting, would be to
claim that George Lucas (or Paramount, or whoever holds it these days)
gave up the copyright to Star Wars when it was broadcast on TV.
The situation is very closely analogous, except that the author has
proportionately more control (it's generally not considered acceptable
to run an edited newsfeed, but TV stations edit programs out of their
broadcast schedule, insert local commercials, and so on all the time)
in the case of news!
A mailing list, with a smaller audience and more tightly controlled
distribution, is even less of a conflict.
I see no difficulty in messages containing simple copyright notices.
They are not asserting any rights they do not automaticaly have anyway,
and do not invalidate the compilation copyright on the list as a whole
held by the moderator. Complicated distribution restrictions (may not
be distributed via MSN, or AOL, or whatever) are a different matter, of
course...
--
Peter da Silva (NIC: PJD2) `-_-' 1601 Industrial Boulevard
Bailey Network Management 'U` Sugar Land, TX 77487-5013
+1 713 274 5180 "Har du kramat din varg idag?" USA
Bailey pays for my technical expertise. My opinions probably scare them
------------------------------
From: clearnts@coho.halcyon.com (Steve Habib Rose)
Date: 25 Oct 1995 03:38:34 GMT
Subject: Inappropriate Access to Absentee Ballot Lists?
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services
I live in Seattle, Washington. I just got a mailing from a candidate
named Richard B. Sanders encouraging me to:
"Mark your absentee ballot today..."
I found this, shall we say, interesting, considering I also happened to
get an absentee ballot this same day. This mailing was clearly
addressed:
"Attention Absentee Voter"
and my next door neighbor, who had not ordered an absentee ballot,
didn't get the same mailing.
Among my many questions:
1. Is it legal to distribute to political campaigns the list of people
who have asked for absentee ballots?
2. Should it be?
3. In what format is this information supplied, and to whom? Is it
provided on disk, for convenience? Or "just" on easily scanned
printouts? Is there a cost for this "public service"?
4. Is it common knowledge that absentee ballot lists are made available
in this fashion?
I find it especially chilling that Mr. Sanders is a candidate for THE
SUPREME COURT of Washington. This is the open behavior of a "citizen
lawyer" who in the same mailing is supposed to be:
FOR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS "Richard Sanders is a figher who will never
lose sight of one of the Court's most important roles -- to stand
for citizen rights against the excessive power of government."
-- District Court Judge Mike Padden,
Spokane.
I'd sure hate to see the invasions of privacy that would happen if a
candidate wasn't so supportive of citizen rights :-(
--
Steve Rose
------------------------------
From: Peter Marshall <rocque@eskimo.com>
Date: 23 Oct 1995 10:21:56 -0700
Subject: Bell Atlantic VISA
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 23 Oct 1995 10:57:13 -0500
From: Paul L. Moses <theseus@dgs.dgsys.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <telecomreg@relay.doit.wisc.edu>
Subject: Bell Atlantic VISA
On Saturday I got junk mail offering me the Bell Atlantic VISA card.
- no annual fee
- 7.9% (introductory) APR for the first 6 months
- credit line of 4k
- and "UNLIMITED CASH BACK toward your Bell Atlantic phone calls
and services!"
And there's optional travel insurance too.
This means BA has data on
- who the customer calls
- what the customer buys
- where the customer travels
Let's rerun that earlier discussion about phone company monitoring of
customers and privacy, eh?
------------------------------
From: straurig@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com (Scott Traurig)
Date: 23 Oct 1995 14:22:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Can you Sue if Credit is Denied for Lack of SSN?
Organization: Lockheed Martin M & S, Sunnyvale, CA
straurig@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com (Scott Traurig) wrote: Can you
sue a financial institution that denies you credit solely on the
basis that you refused to supply a social security number? All
other information would be happily provided, e.g. bank balances and
account numbers, etc.
Thanks to all who replied to me.
A few people misunderstood the question. They thought the bank was
paying *me* interest, and needed my SSN for tax reporting purposes, as
opposed to a credit account where I pay the *bank* interest.
At any rate, the general consensus was, no, I could not sue for this
reason, as companies can do business with whomever they like, aside
from such issues as race, religion, etc.
Thanks again for the responses.
--
Scott Traurig
straurig@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com
------------------------------
From: g4vegeta@cdf.toronto.edu (Me)
Date: 23 Oct 1995 21:49:33 -0400
Subject: Exon Bill in US Congress
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Does anyone know when the US congress is going to vote on James Exon's
Communications Decency Act (or if they've already voted)? I'm doing a
critique on it and I wondering if a decision has been made yet.
--
Steven.
------------------------------
From: invis@ix.netcom.com (Duane Pitlock)
Date: 23 Oct 1995 19:03:20 GMT
Subject: This Weeks Free Online Privacy Article--Swiss Accounts
Organization: Netcom
This weeks Free Online Privacy Article can be accessed by emailing
Privacy-Article@Mailback.com Do not put anything in the SUBJECT or
BODY of your message.
The Article will automatically be sent to your computer.
Thank you for your interest.
[moderator: I followed through and got a 200+ line message that
began:
FROM: "Financial Privacy News" May 1995 edition.
NOTE: Used with special permission from the publisher.
NOTICE: You may forward this article to others non-commercially only
in its entirety. Internationally Copyrighted material.
---------------> Swiss Accounts, The Bare Facts <----------------
Switzerland has long been considered the paradise of the "Havens", well
known for its controversial banking system, which has long offered a
variety of opinions both in favor and against. But in reality very few
understand the truth about banking in Swiss Banks, because they often
get hung up on first impressions.
It is no secret that Switzerland possesses in our modern world an attrac-
tion, based upon its principles of CONFIDENTILAITY and ...]
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 1995 13:55:25 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/18/95]
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.
[new: Ordinary copyrighted material should not be submitted. If a]
[copyright owner wishes to make material available for electronic]
[distribution then a message such as "Copyright 1988 John Doe.]
[Permission to distribute free electronic copies is hereby granted but]
[printed copy or copy distributed for financial gain is forbidden" would]
[be appropriate.]
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 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.
Web browsers 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 | Web: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V7 #033
******************************
.