Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 19:04:48 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#043
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 20 Nov 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 043
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Telemarketing
Re: Telemarketing
Re: Telemarketing
Re: Telemarketing
Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
How to Prevent Unsolicited Mail
Re: Company Network email Reading by Network Ad/Sup?
Re: Cont. Saga with Bank/DL/Unemployment
Re: Copyright Notice
Re: Copyright Notice
Public Perceptions on Privacy
"Privacy Times" (Newsletter)?
Private Property References Please
Chip-Card Sources Anyone?
SSN for CA DL renewal
Health Privacy Legislation - Part IV
Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/18/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: glr@ripco.com (Glen L. Roberts)
Date: 19 Nov 1995 16:44:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Telemarketing
Organization: Full Disclosure
anonymous <levine@cs.uwm.edu> wrote: I've been looking for creative
solutions to the nuisance problem of telemarketing. One solution
to unwanted telemarketing is the creation of a "don't call me" list
wherein people can designate that they don't wish to be
telemarketed. Then, rather than rely on local or state law
enforcement to prosecute offenders, allow the individual the
ability to prosecute the offender through small claims court. Any
reactions to this idea? Thanks.
That is already in effect... BUT you have to tell each company to put
you on their do not call list! There is no master list. I believe the
civil penalty is $500.
I just act excited about the offer and then tell them to hold on while
i get my credit card and set the phone down. When it started beeping, I
hang up.
I have noticed that moving to Oil City PA from Suburban Chicago, the
number of telemarketing calls have dropped dramatically... maybe the
demographics for the area (very low property values) don't attract as
many telemarketers...
------
Glen L. Roberts, Host Full Disclosure Live
Privacy, Surveillance, Technology and Government!
Tech Talk Network, WWCR Shortwave: 5065 khz. 8pm est/Sundays.
Real Audio: 7 days/week, 24 hrs a day:
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/glr.html
------
------------------------------
From: Robert Jacobson <cyberoid@u.washington.edu>
Date: 17 Nov 1995 22:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing
Commercial speech has never enjoyed the same full protections as
personal speech or journalistic speech. No one can come into your home
unwelcome nor, under FCC and state regulations, unduly call your phone
or use your fax to deliver unwanted commercial messages. The same rule
should apply to online systems, unless we want to single out this
medium for special abuse.
--
Bob Jacobson
Worldesign Inc.
Seattle
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn)
Date: 18 Nov 1995 20:37:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Telemarketing
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Private Citizen, Inc. will Notify 1400 telemarketing related firms
nationwide that, if the solicit you, they owe you $500.
For more information e-mail prvtctzn@aol.com
--
Robert Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK
------------------------------
From: ladidi442@aol.com (Ladi Di442)
Date: 18 Nov 1995 12:35:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Telemarketing
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
All you need to say when you get the call is "place me on your don't
call list", if you get another call from the same telemarketer, tell
them one more time if they call you, you will sue......new law.
------------------------------
From: tswalton@aol.com (TSWalton)
Date: 18 Nov 1995 18:34:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Jeffrey Mattox <jeff@cher.heurikon.com> wrote: Would this work?
Since most junk mailer routines probably grab the addresses from
the header, what if you used a bogus Reply-To address and then
included your real and correct email address in your signature?
I would suggest that the net begin to charge the spammers a per piece
handling charge......just like the USPS. It would be too costly to spam
if they are not hitting their target audience and would be self
limiting in the long run.
------------------------------
From: haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Bill)
Date: 20 Nov 1995 02:57:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Organization: The University of Hell at Chicago
Jeffrey Mattox <jeff@cher.heurikon.com> wrote: Would this work?
Since most junk mailer routines probably grab the addresses from
the header, what if you used a bogus Reply-To address and then
included your real and correct email address in your signature?
Nice idea, but no cigar. Searching the last few lines of a post for
any string beginning and ending with whitespace and including an "@"
sign is no harder than searching the first few lines for that. All
you'd succeed in doing is breaking the Reply-To-Sender function of most
newsreaders, where your posts are concerned.
--
Bill (haz1@midway.uchicago.edu)
------------------------------
From: eichin@mit.edu
Date: 17 Nov 1995 19:27:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Jeffrey Mattox <jeff@cher.heurikon.com> wrote: Would this work?
Since most junk mailer routines probably grab the addresses from
the header, what if you used a bogus Reply-To address and then
included your real and correct email address in your signature?
The obvious alternative is a compromise: scoring. I've used it in news
readers for years (strn, gnus) and since Gnus-5.x can handle email as
well, you can do the same thing there.
The simplest case, you give positive scores to people you know,
negative scores to known spammers, and set a threshhold for discarding
messages. To get more sophisticated, smaller negative scores for
crossposting too much, positive scores for having your name in the
header (to distinguish personal from list or bulk mail) but negative
for having more than 100 names in the header; even a negative score for
subject lines containing ONLY CAPS or the words "money" and "fast"...
Once you *have* digitial signatures to work from, you still need to
attach reputations to them, and scoring like this is one way of doing
it. (Gnus-5 can read score files over ftp -- so you can get scores from
someone who specializes in such things as spam detection -- or the
alternative, something like "guild" certification for positive
scores...)
------------------------------
From: Robert Gellman <rgellman@cais.cais.com>
Date: 17 Nov 1995 23:41:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: How to Prevent Unsolicited Mail
Do I have a right to forbid certain people or groups to send me
mail? Since I can bar solicitors, et al from my property, it seems
that I should be able to forbid mailers from entering the same
space, and that my home should be free from unwanted intrusion.
The answer is an unequivocal YES. Under federal law (39 USC sec.
3008), you can request the Postal Service to issue an order to a mailer
to refrain from mailing to you and to remove your address from any
mailing list. The purpose of the law is to get your name off mailing
lists of obscene matter. But it is up to you to decide what is
obscene. The Supreme Court has expressly stated that you can use this
law to prevent the mailing of a dry good catalog. The Court stated
that a mailer's right to communicate stops at the mailbox of an
unreceptive addressee. See Rowan v. Post Office Department, 387 US 728
(1970).
This is a wonderfully powerful tool for anyone who want to be off of a
mailing list. Few people know about it, and the Postal Service does
nothing to tell people about it.
If anyone out there has used this law, it would be informative if they
could describe their experience.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ 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: ddg@cci.com (D. Dale Gulledge)
Date: 17 Nov 1995 22:03:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Company Network email Reading by Network Ad/Sup?
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc., D&OS
sanders@pipeline.com (John C. Sanders) writes: Could a LAN
administrator/supervisor have this capability and not know it? Can
anyone cite any articles or other sources of information on this
topic?
Anyone with physical access to a machine has unlimited access to all
unencrypted data on that machine. As long as there is some way to
either reboot that machine with a chosen system disk or physically
remove the hard drives and place them in another machine you can do
it. Once physical security is breached only encryption will protect
your data. So yes, your system administrator can potentially read your
mail.
It is possible, that your unspecified LAN software specifically makes
such access difficult under normal circumstances. However, I doubt
that. And, of course, you have regular backups that could be loaded
elsewhere for leisurely reading, right?
If your data isn't encrypted, your only protection is the good will of
people who have physical access to the system. If you don't trust
them, you have a problem.
--
D. Dale Gulledge, Software Engineer
Directory & Operator Services, Northern Telecom.
Warning: Bicyclist in mirror is moving faster than you think.
------------------------------
From: jcr@mcs.com (John C. Rivard)
Date: 20 Nov 1995 15:42:15 -0600
Subject: Re: Cont. Saga with Bank/DL/Unemployment
Organization: very little
Maryjo Bruce <sunshine@netcom.com> wrote: I have now gotten a
certified letter from the bank where I withdrew over 10K from
savings, regarding the unacceptability of being unemployed. I
^^^^^^^
think I am going to contact a PRO with the IRS about this.
I have been following this discussion with increasing incredulity and
outrage. Since when do you have to provide an a proof of employment to
withdraw YOUR OWN MONEY from a bank? It's not like you are applying for
a loan! The money is YOURS to do with as you please. If they resist
letting you have it, you should be able to charge them with theft.
I would immediately close all accounts with this institution, and take
my business elsewhere. (I know that is not always possible, especially
in your current financial straights).
--
John C. Rivard <jcr@mcs.com>
Opinions expressed yadda yadda--you know the drill
------------------------------
From: halfbree@rapidnet.com
Date: 18 Nov 1995 15:53:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Copyright Notice
Organization: Very Little
michaelm@nairobi.eecs.umich.edu (Michael McClennen) writes: the
intent is that copyright is automatically granted to a work as soon
as it appears in a form such that everyone can agree upon the exact
content. Thus, a verbal utterance *snip* recorded on a magnetic
tape, written down, or typed into a computer, *snip* is an
unambiguous record of the content and thus an automatic copyright
to the author. *snip* The exact ownership of the computer (or the
tape recorder, the pen, etc.) does not enter into the question.
Now that makes sense! However I believe the ownership of the actual
material; ie; tape, paper, book, vidio, or so on would enter into the
question as to who owns the copyright. The original author or owner of
the copyright may have bartered his/her rights to the copy right away
to another.
--
The Halfbreed
------------------------------
From: John Adams <jadams@seahawk.navy.mil>
Date: 20 Nov 1995 16:49:43 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Copyright Notice
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.
One could argue that the person posting the Usenet article is the
"first person to record the post on a magnetic recording" - namely the
poster is the first person to save her or his Usenet article to the
news filesystem.
No. Lucas first put Star Wars in the form of film, which was
copyrighted, so he owns it.
By your arguments, the guy operating the film camera owns the film
since he is the "first person" to make the recording.
--
John Adams, VAX Systems Manager & Network Administrator
ATE Engineering, NADEP Cherry Point at Pensacola Florida
+1.904.452.3912 DSN: 922-3912 jadams@seahawk.navy.mil
Find out about me -- http://www.seahawk.navy.mil/~jadams
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 1995 11:05:47 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Public Perceptions on Privacy
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
A Cartoon by "Beattie" and copyright by Daytona Beach Sunday
News-Journal and Copley News Service (spelling errors mine) was posted
on the editorial page of Friday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It shows
some of the concerns we discuss here. It is an interesting example of
just how far the issue of privacy has penetrated into the public mind.
The cartoon shows a howsewife character talking to a clerk at the
"Phone Center" with normal phones scattered on the shelves. On a front
shelf are two special phones labeled "Garfield Phone" and "Inspector
Clousseau Phone". The customer is captioned as saying "I want to sign
up for Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, and that new service that lets
you know if the FBI is listening."
I am interested in other examples of general public interest in
privacy. Email or posting here will have about the same effect as I
am the moderator :-).
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
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: rpd3743@is2.nyu.edu (Robert P. Day)
Date: 19 Nov 1995 03:39:23 GMT
Subject: "Privacy Times" (Newsletter)?
Organization: New York University
Hello,
Does anyone know where I can get a subscription to the "Privacy Times"
newsletter. I heard a reference to the newsletter on a television
program, but I do not know where it is published. Any info would be
great.
--
Robert
------------------------------
From: bctsmarcos@aol.com (BCTSMARCOS)
Date: 19 Nov 1995 19:08:06 -0500
Subject: Private Property References Please
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
I am looking for references to a court case filing that is based on the
theory that if a company that sells a product or service sells my name
as a result of that tranaction such as subscribing to a magazine that
they have established a value for my name and associated information.
Therefore, it becomes private property and the seller of my information
must make a deal with me to use, rent, lease, or sell my private
property.
If anybody has any information on this issue please forward to me
thanks
BCTSMARCOS,AOL
------------------------------
From: Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke@anu.edu.au>
Date: 20 Nov 1995 10:38:42 GMT
Subject: Chip-Card Sources Anyone?
Organization: Australian National University
G'day All
I'm searching for web-sources (and indeed any other sources) of
material on privacy implications of smart-cards applications in retail
financial services (bus-speak for consumer payments).
I've seen very little in the mainstream places like here, Privacy Forum
and even Cypherpunks.
Any clues, anyone? When I've got the working paper far enough advanced
to make some sense, I'll post the URL here for them what's interested.
Many thanks! Roger
------------------------------
From: Ron Richter <shadow@nosc.mil>
Date: 17 Nov 1995 21:19:10 GMT
Subject: SSN for CA DL renewal
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA
I was wondering if anyone knows what the deal is regarding the Social
Security Number that was required to be disclosed to the Department of
Motor Vehicles for the state of California... I had to disclose mine
when I got my license renewed, but now it seems that all they can do is
have you show some form of verification instead of requiring one to
give it... My impression was like where you write a check somewhere
and they can no longer write your credit card number down on the check,
but can ask and accept the viewing of it as an additional form of ID
for name and signature and possibly, implied creditworthyness...
Any thoughts?
Ron Richter
feel free to cc: my e-mail account too as I dont read this newsgroup
everyday.... shadow@nosc.mil
Thank you in advance.
[moderator: this seems to be a part of a new Federal Law that is aimed
at finding family deserting dads.]
------------------------------
From: Robert Gellman <rgellman@cais.cais.com>
Date: 19 Nov 1995 20:25:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Health Privacy Legislation - Part IV
This is the fourth (and last for now) in a series of postings with
excerpts from studies of health privacy. These studies show uniformly
that health records have inadequate legal protection today. Today's
excerpt focuses on how health records have been (and presumably are
being) abused. The Bennett/Condit bills would make this type of abuse
a federal crime with significant penalties.
From House of Representative Report No. 103-601, Part 5 (1994):
Abuse of Health Information.-- Rules for protecting health
information cannot be limited to evaluating the propriety of uses by
those who are lawfully in possession of the data. Evidence developed
by the Committee in 1979 suggests that surreptitious trafficking in
health information may be common and nationwide. Strong criminal
penalties are needed to deter and punish those who may be tempted to
use health information improperly.
The best documented American example of abuse of health records
comes from Denver, Colorado. Beginning in 1975, the Denver District
Attorney and a grand jury began an investigation of the theft of health
records. They found that for over twenty-five years, a private
investigative reporting company known as Factual Services Bureau, Inc.,
engaged in a nationwide business of obtaining health information
without the consent of the patient.
The company's investigators typically posed as doctors and sought
medical information by telephone from public and private hospitals,
clinics, and doctors' offices, including psychiatrists' offices. The
company paid hospital employees to smuggle out health records. Another
technique involved the use of false pretenses through mail
solicitations. The company was successful in obtaining health records
most of the time, and it even advertised its ability to acquire health
records.
The customers of Factual Services Bureau included over one hundred
of the most prominent insurance companies in the country. In a search
of the Denver office of Factual Services Bureau, the District Attorney
found almost two thousand reports to insurance companies. These
reports frequently included detailed medical information about
individuals that was obtained without the knowledge or consent of the
individuals. No insurance company ever reported this questionable
activity to law enforcement authorities.
In June 1976, the Denver grand jury issued a special report to the
Privacy Protection Study Commission. The report stated that
trafficking in patient records was a nationwide problem:
From the evidence, it is clear that the problem with respect
to the privacy of medical records in this jurisdiction exists in
many cities and jurisdictions across the nation.
In testimony submitted during 1979 hearings, Denver District
Attorney Dale Tooley said:
I find it difficult to believe that there are not or have not
been similar enterprises engaged in this profitable, surreptitious
business.
Additional direct evidence that this type of trafficking in health
information is widespread in this country is hard to find because there
have been no investigations focusing on health records in recent
years. However, evidence of illegal trafficking in other types of
personal information is easy to find. For example, the General
Accounting Office recently reported on misuse of criminal history
information maintained by the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC). GAO found that the NCIC system was vulnerable to misuse, that
misuse occurred throughout the NCIC system, and that some misuse was
intentional. A limited review by GAO found sixty-two examples
involving misuse, including these two:
The California Department of Justice received a complaint
from a person who suspected his employer of obtaining a copy of
his criminal record from the NCIC's [Interstate Identification
Index] file. A search of the state system's audit trail showed
that the record had been accessed by a law enforcement agency in
the eastern United States. Apparently, the employer had hired a
private investigator, located in the eastern United States, to
conduct background searches on prospective employees. The
complainant's criminal history record was allegedly sold to the
private investigator by an officer in a law enforcement agency.
A private investigator paid several city employees to conduct
NCIC record searches. During the service of a search warrant at
the investigator's office in an unrelated fraud matter, state
investigators discovered records indicating that payments had been
made for NCIC records and notified the Colorado Bureau of
Investigation. The ensuing inquiry, with the cooperation of the
district attorney, resulted in the indictment of several
individuals.
These examples are similar to the illegal buying and selling of
personal information uncovered by the Denver grand jury.
Other types of sensitive personal records are also routinely
bought and sold. One recent investigation found a nationwide network
of information brokers who obtained information from the NCIC, the
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the Military
Personnel Records Center, the Social Security Administration, the
telephone companies, and others. The information was provided in
exchange for money by insiders who knew that it was against the law and
policy of their agency or company. There is even evidence of open
solicitation through newspaper advertising of the ability to obtain
records that are legally protected against improper disclosure.
Evidence supporting the notion that there is routine illegal
trafficking in health information also comes from Canada. In 1979, Mr.
Justice Horace Krever, Commissioner of the Royal Commission of Inquiry
into the Confidentiality of Health Records in Ontario, Canada,
testified before the Subcommittee on Government Information and
Individual Rights. The Royal Commission of Inquiry had its origins in
press stories about abuse of confidential health information. Mr.
Justice Krever testified that at the time the inquiry began, no one had
any clear idea of the extent of the violation of confidentiality or
that many violations were in the private casualty insurance sector.
The Royal Commission found that the acquisition of health
information by private investigators without patient consent and
through false pretenses was widespread. During a 14-month period, the
Royal Commission heard from over 500 witnesses, including private
investigative firms, insurance companies, hospitals, and others. For
the years 1976 and 1977, the Royal Commission found that there were
hundreds of attempts made in Ontario to acquire health information from
hospitals and doctors; well over half of the attempts were successful.
Several investigative firms went out of business as a result of the
Royal Commission's work.
So many insurance companies were found to have been using health
information obtained under false pretenses that the Insurance Bureau of
Canada made a general admission to the Royal Commission that its
members had gathered medical information through various sources
without the authorization of the patient. Many members of the
Insurance Bureau of Canada are subsidiaries of American insurance
companies. Some investigative agencies that obtained information under
false pretenses are also subsidiaries of American companies.
Mr. Justice Krever testified that he was "very much surprised" by
the abuses of health information that the Royal Commission uncovered.
He also testified that he suspected that the practices occurred not
only in Ontario but throughout all of North America.
Because of the similarities between the Canadian and American
casualty insurance industry and the private investigation industry,
this Committee inferred in a 1980 report that the same techniques for
acquiring health information that were used in Canada were also used in
the United States. The techniques used by the Factual Services Bureau
were identical to those common in Canada. All of the people involved
in the Denver and Canadian investigations have stated their view that
the practices were common throughout the United States.
Comment: We need stronger laws to establish deterrents to the
surreptitious trafficking in identifiable health information.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ 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: "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 #043
******************************
.