Date: Thu, 09 Nov 95 13:30:23 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#040
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 09 Nov 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 040
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Can you Sue if Credit is Denied for Lack of SSN?
Re: Copyright Notice
Re: GovAccess.183.snoops
Re: GovAccess.183.snoops
Re: Phone Number Privacy
Re: Arrest Records and Employment
Re: Copying Driver's Licenses
Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious Right from Shutting Down the Net
Re: Health Privacy Legislation
ACLU Cyber-Liberties and Privacy
Re: Uncolicited email Advertising
Newspaper's Opinion
Universities Censor Student Internet Use
Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/18/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jcr@mcs.com (John C. Rivard)
Date: 07 Nov 1995 14:46:42 -0600
Subject: Re: Can you Sue if Credit is Denied for Lack of SSN?
Organization: very little
JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown) wrote: I once had this problem. I
talked it over with the Credit Manager. It came down to this: if
they could verify my creditworthiness without the number, they
would grant credit, otherwise not. They were able to by using my
name and address, and so did grant credit.
Not to be a fly in the ointment, but when they pulled your TRW with
your name and address, your SSN appeared big and bold at the top of the
screen. The question is, did they then add it to your bank records?
--
John C. Rivard <jcr@mcs.com>
Opinions expressed yadda yadda--you know the drill
------------------------------
From: jcr@mcs.com (John C. Rivard)
Date: 07 Nov 1995 15:26:12 -0600
Subject: Re: Copyright Notice
Organization: very little
les@Steam.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) wrote: My understanding of the
copyright law is different -- that the copyright belongs to the
person who first puts "copyrightable" material in a permanent form,
such as a paper copy or a magnetic recording. Simply posting an
article on Usenet does not meet this standard.
I'm sorry, but your understanding is not correct. You are confusing
authorship with the fact that copyright law requires a physical work.
There is a fundamental distinction in copyright law that you cannot
copyright an IDEA, but you can copyright the ESPRESSION of that idea.
That is why it is a stated in US copyright law that the copyright is
"automatically" created when an author first records the work in a
"fixed, readable" form. The law specifically states that this form can
be machine readable (a phonograph record or a computer disk, for
example).
(I should also note that this was a change in the previous copyright
law, which was centered around publishing the work, not fixing it.)
The fact that, in the case of UseNet, the magnetic computer disk that
"fixes" the work of the author may not actually belong to the author,
does NOT mean the disk's owner gets to sieze the copyright--copyright
law states that the copyright generally belongs to the author (an
exception is work for hire, which is irrelevant here). If I type up a
screenplay at Kinko's, and the first time it is saved or laser-printed
is on Kinko's disk/printer, can Kinko's claim that they own the
copyright? Certainly not!
Copyright is for creative works.
An example from another situation is human speech -- you can't
copyright spoken words, but you can copyright either a printed
version of a speech or a recording of it. (However, I'm not a
lawyer, so don't act without consulting one.)
I wouldn't trying to claim copyright of a recording of someone else's
speech without their permission. They may have written it down first,
or at least jotted down an outline, and may be able to sue you for
copyright infringement.
First, the copyright for this material will belong to the first
entity that makes a recording of it, which will probably not be the
author.
Again, this is just plain wrong--the author created the work, fixed it
in the act of posting to Usenet. Even if you debate whether usenet
meets the "fixed record" requirement of the law, there is certainly no
provision in copyright law that states that the copyright reverts to
someone other than the author simply because they make a recording or
copy of the author's copyrightable material! In addition, I'm sure many
people save copies of their postings to disk or print them. I do.
Second, there is no agreement about what the "normal Usenet
distribution mechanisms" are, so if you take seriously the idea
that Usenet material is copyrighted and you also note that the
copyright holder (whoever that is) has not given explicit
permission to copy, then we are all in violation of the law and
have been for years.
I think it could be argued (and I am not a lawyer, either) that posting
to Usenet gives implicit permission to copy the material. This would be
akin to placing an original love poem in a personal ad in the
newspaper: you don't have to provide an explicit copyright notice
there. I have also heard it argued that the Usenet functions like one
huge copy machine, and the act of posting is like pushing the "Make
copies" button. While I like that image, I think the newspaper analogy
is more accurate
I hope that the Congress and courts will address this issue and
clarify our rights and obligations some time soon. As things
stand, I believe, the status of copyright in electronic media is
rather ambiguous.
I disagree--copyright law is pretty flexible, and of course it is open
to interpretation by the courts. Although some of the issues of
intellectual property in digital media are very intriguing, I think
that there are ways to apply the current law without disrupting the
system too much.
--
John C. Rivard <jcr@mcs.com>
Opinions expressed yadda yadda--you know the drill
------------------------------
From: jwarren@well.com (Jim Warren)
Date: 07 Nov 1995 19:58:53 -0800
Subject: Re: GovAccess.183.snoops
Jim Warren wrote: The FBI has finally published the details of
their half-BILLION-dollar NATIONAL WIRETAP SYSTEM -- a gargantuan
threat to the freedom, privacy and civil liberties of every citizen
in this nation.
Kreme wrote: How does all this relate to Phil Zimmerman's new
project PGPphone (It think that's what it's called). Wouldn't it
effectively castrate the wiretap system?
For several years, the FBI has been pushing legislation, more and more
vigorously, that would outlaw the use of all crypto except that
approved by the government. Russia and (I hear) Australia and France
have already done so.
This year, the Clinton administration (e.g. the recent "Clipper Chip
II" key-escrow proposal) and the FBI have repeatedly urged that such
legislation be expedited -- at everything from the congressional
hearings on the Okla City bombing (FBI Dir. Freeh urged this no less
than three times in his testimony, and committee Chair Arlen Specter -
an ex-prosecutor - overtly agreed with him), to the Arizona train
derailment.
Fortunately, some others (including Gingrich!) have been asking for
evidence that such a prohibition would have made any difference in any
of those cases ... and apparently have received no reply.
--
Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor (jwarren@well.com)
Advocate & columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc.
------------------------------
From: kreme@cerebus.kreme.com (Kreme)
Date: 07 Nov 1995 13:44:36 -0700
Subject: Re: GovAccess.183.snoops
Organization: Nyx, The Spirit of the Night (nyx.net) 871-3324
Jim Warren wrote: The FBI has finally published the details of
their half-BILLION-dollar NATIONAL WIRETAP SYSTEM -- a gargantuan
threat to the freedom, privacy and civil liberties of every citizen
in this nation.
How does all this relate to Phil Zimmerman's new project PGPphone (It
think that's what it's called). Wouldn't it effectively castrate the
wiretap system?
Distrubution of this message by Microsoft, its subsidiaries, or its
software shall constitute a violation of my copyrights. Microsoft may
license copyrights to my messages, for distribution only, for the sum of
$1,000 US per week
--.
| kreme@netcom.com \ 1015 South Gaylord, Denver, CO 80209 #100 |
| PGP Fingerprint \ 1D 5E F7 C8 7E C2 F9 87 0F 86 C9 B0 D2 63 9C B2 |
| [303/722-2009] Vox \ Earl: "I find you absolutely out of your mind." |
| [303/777-2911] Data \ Mutts: "I'm THERE!" |
------------------------------
From: bcn@world.std.com (Barry C Nelson)
Date: 08 Nov 1995 05:31:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Phone Number Privacy
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
>chazl@leonardo.lmt.com writes:
>>bcn@world.std.com (Barry C Nelson) said: ...
>> It would also mean that anyone who picks up your phone can
call the last person who called you just by pressing *69, which may
be an amusing pastime for snoops.
This doesn't seem to me to be a very big issu at all. Am I missing
something?
When you can see the redial button or memory on your telephone you KNOW
that the information is stored there for the taking. When you have no
knowledge of *69, you're information is being placed at risk by your
phone company without you knowing about it.
Imagine you get a late-night phone call from a secret paramour and tell
your spouse that it was a "wrong number." The suspicious spouse can
just press *69 to call back your wrong number, and find out who it was,
or wait for the phone bill and work from there.
I agree that it's somewhat paranoid for those of us with no secrets ;-)
but it could be a shock to someone who finds out the hard way. I also
agree with moderator's note that the biggest risk is to those who have
an urge to keep their unlisted numbers private, yet make toll calls to
people who have *69 features.
--
BCNelson
------------------------------
From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills)
Date: 08 Nov 1995 05:17:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Arrest Records and Employment
nahe@aol.com (Nahe) wrote: I am interested in hearing from anyone
who has had problems in obtaining employment or other benefits as a
result of access to computerized court records which are sold to
background investigation firms and then provided on line to clients
of these firms. This problem is increasing in California as local
courts sell computer tapes containing all previous court filings.
Why do you want the information Nahe? It is not proper to make a
request like that without explaining what you're up to and providing a
way to verify your own name ,address and organization. You could be an
extortionist trying to sucker people into revealing valuable
information.
--
Dick Mills +1(518)395-5154
http://www.albany.net/~dmills
------------------------------
From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu ()
Date: 08 Nov 1995 14:29:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Copying Driver's Licenses
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
Maryjo Bruce (sunshine@netcom.com) wrote: As part of the paperwork
the bank filled out because of my withdrawal, I was asked my for my
employer's name. I said I am unemployed...because I AM
unemployed. Two days later there was an emergency call from the
bank. I was informed that being unemployed was unacceptable. I
HAD to list an employer. I asked how I could do that when I have
no employer. I was passed around to several people, each of whom
insisted that the paperwork would be returned from the bank's
internal affairs division
This sounds like the standard bureaucratic nonsense that you get from
people who are told to fill out the forms completely, "or else." I've
seen it many times and it's just that they don't think about what the
form means or anything. They just don't know what to do if all the
blanks can't be filled in as they expect. Silly, but true.
Somewhere there is probably an auditor that will bitch about
"incomplete" information if the form doesn't have every line filled
in. But, he or she may not object in this case. Unfortunately, the
banks clerical staff does not know that and they are taught to fear the
auditors.
I seriously doubt that this is some form of entrapment as another
poster suggested. Why would the bank want to do that? As the saying
goes, "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by
stupidity." This sounds like typical clerical stupidity, not some plot
to get Maryjo to perjure herself.
--
*****************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center *
*****************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: cbarnard@cs.uchicago.edu (Christopher L. Barnard)
Date: 08 Nov 1995 19:12:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious Right from Shutting Down the Net
Organization: Univ. of Chicago Computer Science Dept.
shabbir@vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar, VTW) writes:
Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax
======================== ============== ==============
R GA Gingrich, Newt 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656
R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For some reason Senator Dole has changed his fax number. I phoned the
voice number above (224-6521) and was told that the Senator's fax
number is now 1-202-228-1245. I still haven't gotten through on that
number, but you at least don't get an intercept operator informing you
that the number has been disconnected.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Christopher L. Barnard O When I was a boy I was told that |
| cbarnard@cs.uchicago.edu / \ anybody could become president. |
| (312) 702-8850 O---O Now I'm beginning to believe it. |
| http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/~cbarnard --Clarence Darrow |
| Cyber Rights Now: Accept No Compromise. |
+----------PGP public key available via finger or PGP keyserver---------+
------------------------------
From: Robert Gellman <rgellman@cais.cais.com>
Date: 08 Nov 1995 14:22:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Health Privacy Legislation
There have been some net postings about newly proposed legislation to
protect the privacy of health records. Some of the postings show a
lack of understanding of the current situation for health records.
These records are largely unprotected by law, and there are few
barriers to use and disclosure.
This situation has been recognized for almost twenty years. In fact,
virtually every study of health record confidentiality has reached
similar conclusions and offered similar recommendations.
In order to help educate those who are interested in this subject, I
intend to post excerpts from some of these studies over the next few
days. You may like or hate the current proposals, but there is no
dispute that they would significantly increase protection for health
records. There can be no dispute that things will continue to get
worse in the absence of new legislation.
From the 1977 report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission:
First, medical records now contain more information and are
available to more users than ever before.
Second, the control medical care providers once exercised over
information in medical records has been greatly diluted as a
consequence of specialization within the medical profession,
population mobility, third-party demands for medical-record
information, and the increasing incidence of malpractice suits.
Third, the comparative insulation of medical records from
collateral uses, normal even a decade ago, cannot be entirely
restored. Indeed, it appears that the importance of
medical-record information to those outside of the medical-care
relationship, and their demands for access to it, will continue to
grow. Moreover, owing to the rising demand for access by third
parties, coupled with the expense of limiting disclosure to that
which is specifically requested by the non-medical user, there
appears to be no natural limit to the potential uses of
medical-record information for purposes quite different from those
for which it was originally collected.
Fourth, as third parties press their demands for access to
medical-record information, the concept of consent to its
disclosure . . . has less and less meaning.
Comment: These conclusions are still valid today and, if anything, the
situation has gotten worse. There are more third parties who obtain
and use identifiable health records today than fifteen years ago. The
longer we wait to pass legislation, the worse things will get in the
future.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Robert Gellman rgellman@cais.com +
+ Privacy and Information Policy Consultant +
+ 431 Fifth Street S.E. +
+ Washington, DC 20003 +
+ 202-543-7923 (phone) 202-547-8287 (fax) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
------------------------------
From: ACLUNATL@aol.com
Date: 08 Nov 1995 17:15:19 -0500
Subject: ACLU Cyber-Liberties and Privacy
[moderator: I have excerpted from this document those items that seem
to be appropriate to the list.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
November 8, 1995
ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE
A bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies
at the state and federal level.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THIS ISSUE:
* State Utility Commissions Consider Online Access and Privacy Issues
* News on Electronic Access to Public Information in Washington State
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* State Utility Commissions Consider Online Access and Privacy Issues
Many state utilities commissions are considering issues that can affect
your online access and privacy rights, from approving caller ID to
defining universal access. Online users are urged to stay informed and
involved in utilities commission decisions in their states that may
affect cyberspace rights. Consumer Project on Technology has put up a
list of information about state utility commissions. The list includes
contact information for all 50 state utility commissions, and also
lists utility consumer advocates in 40 states.
See http://www.essential.org/cpt/isdn/contacts.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* News on Electronic Access to Public Information in Washington State
A Washington State task force has been examining the issue of
electronic access to information maintained by government agencies.
The ACLU of Washington submitted comments commending the task force for
requiring some form of free electronic access, and limiting all fees to
incremental costs. But the task force was criticized for not paying
sufficient attention to privacy, especially increased threats to
privacy presented by accumulation of information on individuals from
diverse sources.
Also in Washington State, King County Superior Court Judge George
Finkle ruled that Geographical Information System databases are public
records and must be made available to the public for nominal copying
fees. (GIS systems are databases that contain information associated
with a physical location, such as the location of utility cables,
public buildings, roads, demographic information, zoning info, or
traffic density.) As in many locations around the country, the City of
Bellevue had attempted to charge far higher fees for GIS databases,
which were created for government use but also have commercial value.
This ruling reaffirms the notion that public information should be
available to all, not just those with deep pockets.
------------------------------
From: haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Bill)
Date: 09 Nov 1995 04:20:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Uncolicited email Advertising
Organization: The University of Hell at Chicago
Gary McGath <gmcgath@condes.MV.COM> wrote: If you regard first-time
unsolicited E-mail as so heinous an assault on your person that you
want to prosecute the person who did it, then you should at least
take some reasonable precautions against letting your E-mail
address be known to strangers. For example, just by posting to a
newsgroup, you're letting many people know your address.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an "unlisted" email address;
if you wish to receive legitimate responses to your posted comments,
then it is also possible for someone to use that address to send you
junk mail. Even using an anonymous-remailer does not shield you-- if
you read replies to your posts, you will also find junk email.
The mania of today is that if somebody does something which we
don't like, we look for a law to keep him from doing it. This has
resulted in a society in which we are all criminals in more ways
than we can know. Have we reached the point where people can't
deal with annoyance except by calling the cops?
There's a big difference between one person doing something that annoys
only yourself, and dozens (soon to be hundreds, at current rates of
growth) of people doing something that annoys not only yourself, but
also many other people. This may be the first junk email Philip Duclos
has received, but I guarantee it won't be the last. I'm getting about
one a week, and I know several people who get one almost every day.
Junk email is a common problem, growing in proportion, that needs to be
solved before it achieves the status of junk snail-mail. Deterring
junk email by "calling the cops" is, in my view, a laudable public
service.
If junk (snail) mail could have been fined under the law, back when it
was just getting started, would you have been making similar remarks
about someone who went to the trouble to punish the offenders? Think
about that in the context of the junk-mail industry today: 2/3 of the
mail received at my apartment (by 5 different people) is junk mail, and
none of us are mail-order users.
--
Bill (haz1@midway.uchicago.edu)
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 09 Nov 1995 10:55:09 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Newspaper's Opinion
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
In The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on 11/8/95 the main editorial
of this middle of the road paper was titled:
LET FBI JUSTIFY NEED FOR NEW WIRETAP POWERS
In it they point out phrases like:
"The FBI and other government agencies have an ugly history of
abusing their power to eavesdrop on telephone conversations and
other electronic communications. That's why Congress needs to think
at least twice before passing legislation that would give the FBI
even more such power."
and
"Under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI tapped the telephones not only of
criminals, but of thousands of religious and civil rights lead-
ers, politicians, students, professors and many others."
and
"The nation is now more wary of abuses of government power than it
was 20 or more years ago, and the current FBI director, Louis J.
Freeh, is an honorable man. But his successors may not be."
and ends with
"Yet no one in the bureau or anyone else has shown that the FBI
needs this power to fight crime, or that the agency can be relied
on to use such power wisely.Before Congress allows this plan to go
forward, it needs to ask for, and get, reliable assurances on these
matters from Freeh and others."
Does anyone else have good examples of other local voices worried about
privacy in our community? Examples of voices on the other side would
also be called for. It might be interesting to see them posted here.
(Be careful not to give a complete quote unless you have permission,
just the pertinent parts.)
--
Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu
Professor, Computer Science Office 1-414-229-5170
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Fax 1-414-229-6958
Box 784, Milwaukee, WI 53201
PGP Public Key: finger llevine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 06 Nov 1995 15:10:06 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Universities Censor Student Internet Use
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from Computer underground Digest Sun Nov 5, 1995 7:87 ISSN
1004-042X
File 6--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update
----------------------------------------------------------------
October 25, 1995
ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE
A bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies at the state
and federal level.
----------------------------------------------------------------
STATE PAGE (Legislation/Agency/Court Cases/Issues)
In a knee-jerk reaction to the cyber-porn scare, many universities
around the country have begun to enact policies to regulate student
Internet use. The ACLU believes that university censorship of student
Internet usage is inconsistent with the principles of academic
freedom. In addition, state universities are required as state
institutions to uphold the free speech guarantees of the First
Amendment. The Internet flourished for years as primarily an academic
-- and uncensored -- domain. Colleges should not now cave in to the
Luddites by enacting restrictive computer usage policies.
Here are a few examples of university computer usage policies that
tread on cyber-liberties:
* After a year-long battle that made national news, Carnegie Mellon
University is expected this November to approve a policy to censor
certain Usenet newsgroups on Andrew, their flagship computing system.
Their decision to censor is based on fear that the university could be
held criminally liable under state obscenity and harmful to minors laws
for providing access to newsgroups that "might be" obscene. The
administration refused to accept the suggestion of both the CMU Faculty
Senate and the ACLU that the computer network be categorized as a
library, which would entitle the network to an exemption from the
Pennsylvania obscenity statute.
* The University of Minnesota will not allow students to have
"offensive" content on their web sites, or even to create links to
"offensive" content elsewhere on the Internet. They have also adopted
the double standard of commercial services like America Online and
Prodigy -- despite U of Minn's explicit content control, student web
pages must include a disclaimer that the university takes "no
responsibility" for anything on the pages.
* At George Mason University, the "Responsible Use of Computing"
policy begins with the following statement: "The following rules are
not complete; just because an action is not explicitly proscribed does
not necessarily mean that it is acceptable." (One could hardly imagine
a better example of ambiguity with the potential to chill protected
speech.) The policy creates a Security Review Panel that investigates
reports of "offensive" computer behavior. As could be predicted, the
backlog of cases before this panel is already quite long. (The head of
the Security Review Panel is none other than Dr. Peter Denning, husband
of Dr. Dorothy Denning, infamous proponent of the Clipper Chip.)
On the bright side, students and faculty groups continue to hotly
oppose these policies when they arise, and have been instrumental in
shaping Internet usage policies to be less inhibitive of free speech
and privacy rights. The following online resources will be useful to
students and faculty faced with a draconian Internet usage policy:
* Report on Computers at Harvard, by the Civil Liberties Union of
Harvard: _Very_ comprehensive and useful report on students' computer
usage rights on Harvard's network. Included are five general
principles for computer use, an application of the general principles
to specific aspects of computer use, and a discussion of areas where
Harvard should take immediate action to secure students' rights on the
network. Available at
gopher://fas-gopher.harvard.edu:70/00/.studorgs/.cluh/.computer_report
* Web Site on CMU Censorship Proposal: Thorough history and database
of documents on Carnegie Mellon University's battle over online
censorship. Also includes information on CMU's Coalition for Academic
Freedom of Expression (CAFE). See
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/kcf/www/censor/
* ACLU letter and legal analysis to CMU: send a message to
infoaclu@aclu.org with "Letter to CMU" in the subject line.
The ACLU will continue to monitor university polices that restrict
online free speech and privacy rights. The ACLU urges all students and
faculty to actively work for university computer usage policies that
protect their rights. To inform the ACLU of a computer usage policy at
your school that may violate cyber-liberties, contact Ann Beeson, ACLU,
beeson@aclu.org.
To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a
message to infoaclu@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties
Update" in the subject line of your message. To terminate
your subscription, send a message to infoaclu@aclu.org with
"unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties Update" in the subject line.
For general information about the ACLU, write to
infoaclu@aclu.org.
------------------------------
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 #040
******************************
.