Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 11:13:45 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#046
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 28 Nov 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 046
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
See This Twice [1]
See This Twice [2]
Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious ...
Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious ...
Re: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information
Re: SSN for CA DL renewal
Common Carrier
Re: Mark Twain Bank and DigiCash
Re: Telemarketing
Microsoft and Privacy
Re: Private Property References Please
Solid Clipper/Clipper2/communication Fact Sources Needed
Data Encryption and the Future
Re: Survey on Privacy in Business
Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 28 Nov 1995 10:32:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: See This Twice [1]
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>From the moderator: This message should appear twice in the
comp.society.privacy newsgroup. Beginning very soon now we will be
running a process called PGPMoose which will verify through a Pretty
Good Privacy Signature line that all items in the newsgroup were, in
fact, approved by the moderator. Although this group has not been
subject to the heavy spamming of some other groups moderators of many
moderated newsgroups are beginning a process that will add to the
header lines of postings an additional line, called the X-Auth line
that consists of a coded form of a signature generated from the content
of the posting and the PGP private key beloging to the moderator.
That new line looks something like this:
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.society.privacy
iQBFAwUBMLsKUTNf3+97dK2NAQFf/gGAoJInaZbP/XQ9Cjx/T0
uaSAFBwKk79iSQUV6UkVe4k0Yzrx7rQJSFUf8ScOvQha+T
=bx24
(You may or may not be able to see this line, depending on your
newsreading software.) Of the two postings of this note, the first has
the X-Auth line and the second does not. My concern is that you, the
reader, can properly see newsgroup messages with this new feature
added.
I therefore request that, if you see only one posting of this message
or if posting #1 is garbled, you let me know. An attempt to post your
response will work well, I will filter such responses out. If there is
no serious problem here we will be using the PGPMoose process on a
regular basis. I will then post a fuller report on what the PGPMoose
actually does, who wrote it, and its security aspects.
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
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: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 28 Nov 1995 10:32:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: See This Twice [2]
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>From the moderator: This message should appear twice in the
comp.society.privacy newsgroup. Beginning very soon now we will be
running a process called PGPMoose which will verify through a Pretty
Good Privacy Signature line that all items in the newsgroup were, in
fact, approved by the moderator. Although this group has not been
subject to the heavy spamming of some other groups moderators of many
moderated newsgroups are beginning a process that will add to the
header lines of postings an additional line, called the X-Auth line
that consists of a coded form of a signature generated from the content
of the posting and the PGP private key beloging to the moderator.
That new line looks something like this:
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.society.privacy
iQBFAwUBMLsKUTNf3+97dK2NAQFf/gGAoJInaZbP/XQ9Cjx/T0
uaSAFBwKk79iSQUV6UkVe4k0Yzrx7rQJSFUf8ScOvQha+T
=bx24
(You may or may not be able to see this line, depending on your
newsreading software.) Of the two postings of this note, the first has
the X-Auth line and the second does not. My concern is that you, the
reader, can properly see newsgroup messages with this new feature
added.
I therefore request that, if you see only one posting of this message
or if posting #1 is garbled, you let me know. An attempt to post your
response will work well, I will filter such responses out. If there is
no serious problem here we will be using the PGPMoose process on a
regular basis. I will then post a fuller report on what the PGPMoose
actually does, who wrote it, and its security aspects.
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
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: shabbir@vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar, VTW)
Date: 26 Nov 1995 13:48:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious ...
Thanks for taking the time to comment on VTW's alert. Let me clarify
some points. Note that taking the time to read the legislation would
assist anyone examining this issue to conclude that the threat is very
real.
Paul Robinson writes:
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT The
Religious Right has proposed shutting down speech on the net
more tightly than ever before. Their activities could succeed,
resulting in
To me, it seems, this sort of hysteria and fear-mongering serves no
useful purpose, since it apparently ignores reality.
1. There has never been an (anti) abortion law passed since _Row
v. Wade_ that went into effect until a substantial amount of time
after it was passed. Why? Because the courts would suspend the
effect of the law until the issue was tried in court, seeing that
the law would clearly be in contravention to that case.
I've spoken with the folks at the ACLU who are following these bills.
They say it's not necessarily true that such a bill can be tested
immediately. (also known as being found "unconsitutional on its face")
Most of the Internet Service Providers I've spoken to are not afraid of
being arrested and sent to jail. That, they can handle. They're more
afraid of having their equipment seized and being dragged into a long
legal battle which they don't have the money for.
In that case, it doesn't help you any if you're right.
2. What does this have to do with the above proposed law? While
the courts have generally taken the stand that most laws passed by
congress are constitutionally valid, when it comes to restrictions
on speech and press, the courts have generally taken the exact
opposite stand, that a restriction on speech is generally invalid
lacking a foundation that there is some damn good reason to allow
such a restriction. This would take a considerable amount of
time.
There's actually a long history of encroachments against expression.
(This is a long discussion which I won't go into here..)
3. Most laws which are created in Congress never even get very
far. Mostly these laws are written for bargaining points, or for
political capital, since someone can say they are attempting to be
"tough on..." something the voters don't like, even if the law
never gets out of committee.
I would be more concerned if this was regulation to be passed which
was to appear in the {Federal Register}. Most of that _does_ get
passed, and, because of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1949,
_has_ the force and effect of law in most cases.
This is, exactly, what the law enables. One of the proposals being
negotiated right now would give the FCC the power to determine what is
"decent" and "indecent" speech in cyberspace. They would then be able
to make these decisions through administrative regulations.
Putting the FCC in charge of defining speech standards in cyberspace is
generally viewed as a bad thing.
4. I suspect those who are reporting the law are misstating what
it actually says, either accidentally or on purpose. During
protests over the motion picture "The Last Temptation of Christ,"
people were protesting over some issues that they claimed were
degraded or defamed by the movie. My brother, who saw the film,
said that some of the things that they complained about weren't
even in the film.
I am not saying the law isn't providing exactly what the original
poster alleges that it does. I am just wondering what their biases
are.
VTW's bias is in support of free speech. Interactive media has the
unique qualities of significant user control. This means that many of
the traditional arguments for "indecency standards" (such as those in
broadcast media) should not be applied.
I thought our point of view very clear.
5. Why is it that it is presumed to be some organization or group
called the "religious right" that wants this sort of law passed? I
guess because it is "Politically Correct" to bash on that group.
Or perhaps the poster didn't think "Skinhead Neo-Nazis" or
"Fascists" was a strong enough term this week.
The most extreme of the current proposals to censor the net was
presented in a letter to Congress by many, including: Edwin Meese III,
Ralph Reed - Christian Coalition, Donald E. Wildmon - American Family
Association, Phyllis Shafly - Eagle Forum, Beverly LaHaye - Concerned
Women for America, and Reverend Louis P. Sheldon - Traditional Values
Coalition.
When people refer to the "Religious Right" they are often talking about
people in the above groups. The letter they sent to Congress can be
found at URL:http://www.vtw.org/archive/5NOV95_213243.html.
6. Common Carrier law has an incredibly long history - hundreds of
years - the rules go back to the creation of the term in the
1400s. I find it highly unlikely that the entire system of common
carrier law, which includes lack of liability for content, is going
to be trashed.
To hold a system operator such as AOL or Compuserve liable for the
material transmitted over their facilities when they have no
knowledge or awareness of this content means that AT&T could be
held liable for messages in voice-mail using their "store and
forward" system which is available by dialing *123 when placing a
telephone call that doesn't complete.
This would be ridiculous, and it would overrule hundreds of years
of settled case-law as well as make a mess.
Internet Service Providers and Bulletin Boards are not considered
common carriers, and therefore don't enjoy the same protection as
telephone service providers.
7. Further, it would not just be applicable to Prodigy, or MCI, if
it applies to those who transport "message traffic" or electronic
material, then it is applicable to Federal Express and UPS, too!
(A CD-ROM, a diskette or a book with the above probably qualify
too, if the law is written as sloppily as the writer apparently
claims it is.)
The law treats different media differently. To equivocate Internet
traffic and Federal Express is obtuse.
8. In short, first this bill must be passed by both houses of
congress, then signed by the President, then survive the inevitably
certain court challenges, then, and only then - assuming there
hasn't been significant public outcry to have the law repealed - is
there anything to worry about, if there is at all, that is.
The "bad legislation" has been passed by both houses of Congress. It's
currently in conference, and if it survives, it will almost surely be
signed by the President, since it's attached to the Telecommunications
Deregulation bill.
At that point, it's too late. All it takes nowadays to shut down an
Internet Service Provider or Bulletin Board (or a small email/Web
publisher) is to arrest them and seize their equipment. The threat of
legal fees and the inability to perform their business will weaken any
willpower they might have had to withstand a four year court battle.
9. This also presumes people don't implement new ways to go around
the law, such as using gateways in other countries, using ftp sites
to allow people to take material, using mailing lists through
remailers, and other things. Unless the sender can be identified,
and traced to somewhere in the U.S., there is no means to enforce
the law no matter how strict it is.
Note that the Justice Department has already carried out child porn
stings with the assistance of a Dutch bulletin board to catch people in
the US.
While those who produce child pornography are criminals, imagine if the
Justice Department were given the charge to extend their investigations
to people that provided or downloaded "indecenct content", as the
legislation proposes.
10. There are lots of ridiculous laws on the books that, if
enforced at face, would effectively grind society to a halt:
There are many laws on the books that are not enforced at face, but
still have the effect of imposing their will on society. You only need
one or two well-publicized ISP raids to gain the desired effect.
12. I would seriously doubt that the bill, if it even becomes law,
would mean much of anything, anyway, there is too much material
being transmitted to have such a law be effective. It would most
likely become just another law that is only enforced if someone
complains, or plainly is ignored and isn't enforced at all, like
the one that makes consentual oral sex between husband and wife in
the privacy of the bedroom of their home, if in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, a felony punishable by imprisonment exceeding three
years.
This is an inappropriate analogy. Under the proposed laws, the person
who notifies law enforcement of someone providing "indecent" content is
not necessarily themselves subject to prosecution.
--
Shabbir
------------------------------
From: david_boshears@il.us.swissbank.com (David Boshears)
Date: 26 Nov 1995 22:43:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious ...
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division
Paul Robinson <paul@TDR.COM> writes CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS
COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT [snip] To me, it seems, this sort of
hysteria and fear-mongering serves no useful purpose, since it
apparently ignores reality. [snip points 1 thru 4, "laws don't
necessarily become enforced"]
Paul, The reality that it seems you claim is ignored, is that "stupid"
laws are not enforced. This is mostly true, and you alluded to it in
your description of Virginia sodomy laws in point 12. That being,
these laws are *sometimes* enforced, as you put it: "if someone
complains." That is the real danger here! Yet another chance for the
state to participate in arbitrary judgement of "some" people--those
with little power, those who are easy to "demonize," those for which
there is already a predisposition to cast judgement against. This is
why the law must never exist at all. We cannot become complacent just
because we can (or might be able to) say "it won't affect me." If the
government really has no business making this law, then they shouldn't
be allowed to--telling ourselves that their efforts are ineffective
does not negate that which they have done, instead it prepares us for a
mighty sorry day.
In between points 4 and 5, you make a rhetorical question about
biases. The trouble with leaning on concepts such as "bias" is that it
gives too much credence to the majority opinion. It makes it seem
"right" or "moral" when really it is nothing more than one particular
position. Today that bias has the force of a majority, but in the past
or the future, it may have seemed or may yet seem to be a "bias." You,
me, everyone has a position, so please don't paint the original poster
as some fringe kook and yourself as the "voice of objectivity"--cause
there is no such thing.
I am interested in your point 6. What sources can you give me to look
this up--I've never heard of this before and would like to know more.
It seems odd that there would have been laws protecting paper-message
couriers from the content of said messages--any litigation against a
courier regarding that which was actually delivered would seem almost
obviously frivolous and I can't imagine that a judge would allow it!
=========================================================================
C. David Boshears | My opinions are mine, and
bosh@swissbank.com | mine ALONE!
Swiss Bank Corporation | *You can't have them!*
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn)
Date: 26 Nov 1995 15:30:46 -0500
Subject: Re: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown) wrote: 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?
TRW offers a similar service for $30+ per year. It's called their
Credentials Service. But TRW neglects to tell its Credential Services
subscribers that TRW sells those subscribers to the junk mail and junk
call industry for `direct marketing' victimization.
--
Robert Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK
------------------------------
From: halfbree@rapidnet.com
Date: 27 Nov 1995 03:53:18 GMT
Subject: Re: SSN for CA DL renewal
Organization: Very Little
wayne@localnet.org writes:
The SSN cannot be printed on the drivers license
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Emphasis, Halfbreed's)
when is required ( it can be used if it is requested) and can only be
disclosed for legitmate law enforcement purposes.
*snip*
That is an intresting statement as South Dakota and several other
states use your SSAN as the Drivers License #.
--
The Halfbreed
------------------------------
From: Kevin Kadow <kadow@cig.mot.com>
Date: 27 Nov 1995 10:44:24 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Common Carrier
Paul Robinson <paul@TDR.COM> said: 6. Common Carrier law has an
incredibly long history - hundreds of years - the rules go back to
the creation of the term in the 1400s. I find it highly unlikely
that the entire system of common carrier law, which includes lack
of liability for content, is going to be trashed.
Actually- this is part of the problem. Under current law, service
providers are _not_ protected by the "Common Carrier" laws.
To hold a system operator such as AOL or Compuserve liable for the
material transmitted over their facilities when they have no
knowledge or awareness of this content means that AT&T could be
held liable for messages in voice-mail using their "store and
forward" system which is available by dialing *123 when placing a
telephone call that doesn't complete. This would be ridiculous,
and it would overrule hundreds of years of settled case-law as well
as make a mess.
This never stopped Congress before...
7. Further, it would not just be applicable to Prodigy, or MCI, if
it applies to those who transport "message traffic" or electronic
material, then it is applicable to Federal Express and UPS, too!
(A CD-ROM, a diskette or a book with the above probably qualify
too, if the law is written as sloppily as the writer apparently
claims it is.)
Are FedEx and UPS currently liable for material they carry?
Personally I'm more concerned with the chilling effect on free speech
that would result from restricting content, regardless of who is held
liable.
As I've stated in other forums, the question isn't HOW to make the
Internet safe for children (one proposed goal of this bill) but WHETHER
it should be done at all. The Internet is no longer a publically funded
resource, if the politician's want their own safe and censored network,
let them start one for that purpose.
------------------------------
From: leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Peter Leppik)
Date: 27 Nov 1995 11:59:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Mark Twain Bank and DigiCash
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
(Bradley Ward Allen) wrote: Why is Chaum in the Wired article
(written first) looking for heavy privacy, and then later affirming
the Bank's choice of a system which is "With ecash, however, all
the amounts each person receives are known to their bank" which
indeed seems to me to have a large amount of tracabilty (is it in
that the bank doesn't know where it's coming *from*??), and
"irrefutably identify blackmarketeers, extortionists, and acceptors
of bribes"? Is the irrefutably some sort of proof that cannot be
made-up (i.e. framing someone)?
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but the bank needs to know how much
you withdrew in order to properly debit your account.
As for the other (not so obvious) points....My understanding of the
Digicash scheme is that it allows the bills to be traced if any two of
the three parties (bank, payer, payee) cooperate. So, if someone
extorts money from you, you need merely cooperate with the bank to
trace that cash. Or, if you attempt to buy drugs anonymously, it can
be traced if the other person cooperates with the bank (thus opening
the risk that the other person will turn out to be a cop). Or, both
the payer and payee could cooperate, but that's sort of a null result
(presumably, you already know what bank you use).
On the other hand, if nobody cooperates, then the money is untracable.
So, in theory, if the bank wants to trace the money, they
can't--without convincing one of the other two parties to play along.
Or, if you want to find out who redeems the digicash, you
can't--without convincing the bank to help.
All told, I think digicash strikes an excellent balance between
protecting privacy and protecting the interests of society.
--
Peter Leppik leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Lost in the Information Supercollider
http://seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu/
------------------------------
From: Michael Shreeve <plsed011.mshree01@eds.com>
Date: 27 Nov 1995 22:14:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Telemarketing
Organization: Technical Consulting Continuum
My parents have been going on and on about a deal in Florida, under the
Department of Agriculture. If you give them your name, a startup fee
of $10, and $5 per year, you are off-limits to the lists of the
telemarketers. If you get unsolicited marketing calls, you can
complain, and the company will lose their license. (Sigh, I would
rather have $500 ;-) )
There are certain exemptions for non-profit organizations and others.
I am basing this off memory of conversations a couple months old, just
reminded of by this thread. I _DO_ like the idea though. Wish it were
in my state. Has anyone else heard of this program, and has more
details?
--Michael
Disclaimer: In addition to disclaimer about my memory above, standard
disclaimers apply.
My opinions are my own and free. You get what you pay for.
------------------------------
From: stevew@teleport.com
Date: 27 Nov 1995 23:59:44 GMT
Subject: Microsoft and Privacy
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
Hi all!
Recall the stink about Windows 95 and the ability for Microsoft
personnel to allegedly inspect the contents of someone's hard drive
under the pretense that it is for "technical support" reasons?
I'm curious about the growing size of Microsoft in terms of buying the
intellectual rights to art work, music, and many other forms of media
and how might impact us worker ants in our own daily lives.
Should we be concerned about Microsoft (or any other mega-corp)
ultimately infringing on our rights to privacy?
Just some thoughts...
----------------------------------------------------------
--- Steve Williamson ---
WILLIAMSON IMAGINEERING stevew@teleport.com
Information Technologies and Computer Training Specialists
------------------------------
From: kmcguire@omni.voicenet.com (Kevin McGuire)
Date: 28 Nov 1995 03:01:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Private Property References Please
Organization: Voicenet - Internet Access - (215)674-9290
BCTSMARCOS (bctsmarcos@aol.com) wrote: 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
Business Week, Dec.4, has an article regarding legal action against
junk emailings where they cite the case you may be looking for. I'm
not sure whose names are actually on the suit, but it is U.S. News &
World Report against Ram Avrahami, and was filed in Arlington, VA. Mr.
Avrahami contends that in selling his name & address to the Smithsonian
Institution, USN&WR invaded his privacy because "everyone has a
property interest in his or her identity and that to profit from it
without approval is an illegal invasion of privacy."
--
Kevin S. McGuire | "I wish that every human life might be
Philadelphia, PA | pure, transparent freedom." -- Simone de Beauvoir
------------------------------
From: Froggy <pxs3@po.cwru.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 1995 23:29:00 GMT
Subject: Solid Clipper/Clipper2/communication Fact Sources Needed
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
In preparation for a research paper into the topic of the
government intrusion in the current ways we communicate, I am in need of
solid references that address the following issues :
- The rise and fall of the Clipper Chip proposal
- The current Clipper Chip II proposal
- Wiretapping
- Current/past legislation dealing with the means of our
communication over telecommuncation devices
- Right to privacy laws
- Solutions - Why they haven't worked
- Solutions that might work
This is a serious academic paper and serious replies would be *most*
appreciated. I would also be greatly interested in interviewing an
individual who has first-hand or relevant experience with any of these
topics. Such interview would be easiest for me over the IRC or through
an e-mail question/answer session.
I am currently a freshman at Case Western Reserve University and have
been a member of the Usenet/Internet community since 1991. This paper
will fulfill my English 150 requirements and accuracy, as well as
detail is needed.
Thanks in advance for all help. E-mail responses would be most
appreciated.
--
Paul M. Schneider
pxs3@po.cwru.edu
ce399@cleveland.freenet.edu
paul.schneider@flipflop.org (last resort)
------------------------------
From: tfoucher@orion.oac.uci.edu (Trevor Foucher)
Date: 27 Nov 1995 14:37:30 GMT
Subject: Data Encryption and the Future
Organization: University of California, Irvine
I am doing a research paper on the future and data encryption and was
wondering if anyone wants to share thoughts about this subject.
Specifically, I am wondering how people feel about the following
questions:
Will the government eventually force us to use only "crackable"
encryption?
Even if the government does regulate encryption heavily, is it possible
for the government to prevent people from using the technology despite
laws against such use?
Is data encryption threat enough to the national security that we
should be worried about its development and/or use?
Thank you for your input. Please post replies here or email
them to "tfoucher@orion.oac.uci.edu".
--
Trevor Foucher
------------------------------
From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills)
Date: 27 Nov 1995 06:38:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Survey on Privacy in Business
In CPD 09:46 robrienr@aol.com (ROBRIENR) wrote:
> Please complete survey and E-mail reults to ROBRIENR@aol.com
> SURVEY PRIVACY IN THE WORKPLACE
>
> PERSONAL INFORMATION
> ...snip...
The request containts no identification of the requestor other
than robrienr@aol.com.
Earlier this month I complained about a similar request to CPD
from nahe@aol.com (Nahe) Re:Arrest Records and Employment.
It seems that readers of this forum are being singled out as
particularly gullible marks willing to voluntarily sacrifice
their privacy and give personal information to anyone purporting
to collect it for purposes of privacy advocacy.
ROBRIENR, if I remember right, was the name of a comedic
character and practical jokester on the Dick Van Dyke TV show,
(actually Karl Reiner). The name may be real, but @aol.com
effectively blocks me from checking. ROBRIENR could be my
employer or one of my competitors trying to dig up dirt, or
even me trying to play a joke on you.
Can fellow readers of CPD suggest ways that con artists could
profit from the information disclosed in similar requests?
Is there reason to continue to complain about these survey
requests, or is everyone sufficiently aware already?
--
Dick Mills +1(518)395-5154
http://www.albany.net/~dmills
[moderator: I am interested also in whether or not I should filter
such items out of the stream. The two postings before this one are
cases in point.]
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 1995 14:25:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95]
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 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 #046
******************************
.