Date: Wed, 03 Jan 96 10:32:58 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 V8#002
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 03 Jan 96 Volume 8 : Issue: 002
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Re: Compuserve Censoring USENET
Re: Compuserve Censoring USENET
Re: Compuserve Censoring USENET
Re: Compuserve Censoring USENET [long]
Re: BC Commissioner Upholds Severing of Voter Addresses
Re: Racial Classification
Re: Racial Classification
Re: Racial Classification
Re: Racial Classification
Re: Racial Classification
Re: Racial Classification
Re: The Year We Struggled with On-line Censorship
Cyberspace wiretap leads to arrests
Re: Risks of Checking Accounts
The Computer Law Report #15
Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David M Kennedy <David_M_Kennedy@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil>
Date: 28 Dec 1995 12:58:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
4. If I get no response from this after a few days, then I start
sending a huge file (1 megabyte) every day with an explanation that
I am trying to get someone's attention. This is designed to
eventually fill their disk and makes them look for what filled it.
--snip-- 6. Again, I have never reached this stage, but the next
step is to start sending the huge file every few minutes until
their disk fills. I am not charged by volume for email.
Some Monmouth (NJ) University students have been charged in US Federal
Court for a denial of service attack similar to the one described
above. They are accused of sending some 24,000 mail messages to the
system administrator's account.
IANAL, but I believe the appropriate citation is 18 USC 1030 (a) (5)
(A):
(5)(A) through means of a computer used in interstate commerce or
communications, knowingly causes the transmission of a program,
information, code, or command to a computer or computer system if -
(i) the person causing the transmission intends that such
transmission will -
(II) withhold or deny, or cause the withholding or denial, of
the use of a computer, computer services, system or network,
information, data or program; and
"(G)et someone's attention," may indeed solicit more attention than
desired, and receiving mail from a bad net citizen is no excuse for
becoming one in return IMHO.
--
Dave Kennedy US Army MP, CISSP
volunteer SysOp Natl. Computer Security Assoc
------------------------------
From: kmcguire@omni.voicenet.com (Kevin McGuire)
Date: 29 Dec 1995 03:04:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Organization: Voicenet - Internet Access - (215)674-9290
HARRY R. ERWIN (herwin@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote: I have been receiving
'junk email' from a commercial advertiser,
netnet@access1.soundcity.net. I have politely asked them to put me
on their 'do not contact' list, but I continue to find my mailbox
filled with their stuff. What have people found to be the most
effective recourse?
These folks also spammed me. I tried the various replys to postmaster@
etc., but it all bounced. What did work was 'whois soundcity.net'
which yielded:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound Computer Service (SOUNDCITY-DOM)
509 2nd Street Juniata
Altoona, PA 16601
US
Domain Name: SOUNDCITY.NET
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Dively, Joe (JD764) scsjoe@AOL.COM
814-942-7777
Record last updated on 27-Oct-95.
Record created on 27-Oct-95.
Domain servers in listed order:
WWW.SOUNDCITY.NET 206.31.166.1
NS.MCI.NET 204.70.128.1
I phoned the number listed, spoke to a slightly surprised woman, and
have not heard from them since.
A more anarchic solution might be to call the 800# in some of their ads
from pay phones. Your milage may vary though.
--
Kevin McGuire
.sig? My address book is gone and you want a .sig?
------------------------------
From: Bill McClatchie <wmcclatc@nyx.net>
Date: 01 Jan 1996 12:42:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Nightwolf <N-wolf@cris.com> said: For the first time in my life, I
broke down and mailbombed another Internet E-mail address. What
caused me to take such a step, was [snip] Has anyone else reading
any of these newsgroups received the same pair of advertisements?
If so, then what have you done, or what are you planning to do?
I do three things:
1) I read the two net abuse groups and regularly add sites that either
spam or allow thier customers to do so to my bozo filter to prevent
myself from ever seeing them in my inbox.
For new sites/forged e-mail I do the following.
2) I place the address of such spammers into my procmail bozo filter
and forward to /dev/null.
3) I use whois to find out who supplies the idiots with service and
forward the message to their postmaster.
I also encrypt the entore messsage body and reply to the twits (sending
the encrypted mess back) and tell them I am unsure what the mess is -
but I don't want anything else from them.
--
Bill McClatchie
wmcclatc@nox.cs.du.edu
http://nox.cs.du.edu:8001/~wmcclatc
------------------------------
From: wagnerj@watt.oedison.com (John Wagner)
Date: 28 Dec 1995 19:46:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Compuserve Censoring USENET
Organization: Ohio Edison Company, Akron OH
an280463@anon.penet.fi (Thurston J. Whistlestop) wrote: I use
Compuserve to access the net. Recently (Around December 26) their
USENET server had most of the alt* heirachy removed. I wrote to
them to ask why. My letter and response (Unedited except for my
pseduonym) are attached. What gives?
This really scares the heck out of me. This is the same type of stuff
that is in process here in the US as we speak.
I don't want my kids into this stuff either. In fact, I'm not even
interested in the typical censor targets. But instead of censoring for
the whole country/world based on one person or groups definition of
indecent, why doesn't the CC or somebody commission some freeware that
limits the type of net access available from their computers? There
are already some packages available that do this, but apparently these
aren't good enough for some people. Ok, fine, write your own and give
it away!
--
John Wagner wagnerj@watt.oedison.com
For Encrypted Mail: PGP Public Key Available upon Request
------------------------------
From: bcn@world.std.com (Barry C Nelson)
Date: 29 Dec 1995 17:41:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Compuserve Censoring USENET
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Thurston J. Whistlestop <an280463@anon.penet.fi> wrote: I use
Compuserve to access the net. Recently (Around December 26) their
USENET server had most of the alt* heirachy removed. I wrote to
them to ask why. My letter and response (Unedited except for my
pseduonym) are attached. What gives?
The Boston Globe reported today that CompuServe temporarily suspended
access to "offensive" Usenet groups, including 200 selected by a
"Munich official." German prosecutors said CompuServe must stop
distributing illegal "obscenity" in Germany. Since CompuServe's entire
network is run from servers in Columbus, Ohio, and they "don't possess
any technology where we can block access in Germany and leave it open
in France or anywhere else," CompuServe decided to remove the selected
Usenet groups from its servers Dec 23. No charges have been filed by
German authorities.
One must wonder whether German authorities will be doing the same for
the other major Internet Service Providers, or even academic,
government, or commercial sites which have Usenet access from Germany.
--
BCNelson (not a lawyer)
------------------------------
From: fyoung@oxford.net (F Young)
Date: 01 Jan 96 00:24:09 EST
Subject: Re: Compuserve Censoring USENET
Thurston J. Whistlestop <an280463@anon.penet.fi> wrote: I use
Compuserve to access the net. Recently (Around December 26) their
USENET server had most of the alt* heirachy removed. I wrote to
them to ask why. My letter and response (Unedited except for my
pseduonym) are attached. What gives?
By now, many people in Canada and USA have learn about this incident of
CompuServe blocking access to certain newsgroups. A mailing from the
e-mailing list of the Electronic Frontier Canada stated, contrary to
what CompuServe's response, they were eager to block access to such
newsgroups in anticipation to the pending "Internet Decency Act."
If it is, in fact, the sole decision of CompuServe to block access to
certain newsgroups, it could be a marketing decision. They probably
expect to gain some customers while loosing others. There are,
nonetheless, many independent ISP's which would gladly take in more
business. We don't know for sure what the independent ISP's in Germany
are doing.
On the other hand, any government's attempt to block certain newsgroups
would likely backfire. I would rather have adult materials restricted
to adult newsgroups (like the current situation), rather than blocking
those newsgroups and possibily making those seeking such materials to
post randomnly to the remaining newsgroups. Of course, government have
the power to block access to the Internet, period.
--
Fergus Young
Ontario, Canada
------------------------------
From: Rod Swift <rod@phish.nether.net>
Date: 29 Dec 1995 23:49:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Compuserve Censoring USENET [long]
CBS Radio is reporting that CompuServe has discontinued access to
200 "smutty" newsgroups (CBS' word, not mine) because of Germany's
ban on electronic pornography. CompuServe cannot selectively
discontinue access to them, so they chose to do so globally. I
have no idea which particular newsgroups were discontinued.
The soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi moderators received this list. We
note that the only soc.* sexuality group to be banned was our youth
support group for gay youths. We note that soc.motss, soc.bi,
soc.support.transgendered and soc.women.lesbian-and-bi were *not* cut
off by compuserve, making me at least wonder why we were!:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a list of all the Usenet groups censored by Compuserve
on Friday, December 22, without notice.
This list was provided by an employee of compuserve
alt.binaires.pictures.erotica.teen
alt.binaries.erotic.senior-citizens
alt.binaries.multimedia.erotica
alt.binaries.pictures.black.erotic.females
alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.anime
alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.centerfolds
alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.senior-citizens
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.amateur.d
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.amateur.female
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.amateur.male
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.animals
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.anime
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.art.pin-up
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.balls
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bears
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.black.females
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.black.male
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.blondes
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bondage
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.breasts
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.butts
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.cartoons
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.cheerleaders
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.disney
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female.anal
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.fetish
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.fetish.feet
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.fetish.hair
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.fetish.latex
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.fetish.leather
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.furry
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.gaymen
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.latina
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.midgets
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.oral
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.orientals
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.plushies
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pornstar
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pornstars
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pregnant
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.redheads
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.spanking
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.tasteless
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.d
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.female
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.fuck Teens
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.male Teens
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.terry.agar
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.transvestites
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.uncut
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.urine
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.voyeurism
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young
alt.binaries.pictures.groupsex
alt.binaries.pictures.lesbians
alt.binaries.pictures.lolita.misc
alt.binaries.pictures.nude.celebrities
alt.binaries.sounds.erotica
alt.homosexual
alt.magick.sex
alt.magick.sex.angst
alt.motss.bisexua-l
alt.politics.sex
alt.recovery.addiction.sexual
alt.recovery.sexual-addiction
alt.religion.sexuality
alt.sex
alt.sex.aliens
alt.sex.anal
alt.sex.animals
alt.sex.asphyx
alt.sex.balls
alt.sex.bears
alt.sex.bestiality
alt.sex.bestiality.barney
alt.sex.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape
alt.sex.bondage
alt.sex.bondage.furtoonia
alt.sex.bondage.sco.unix
alt.sex.boredom
alt.sex.boys
alt.sex.breast
alt.sex.brothels
alt.sex.carasso
alt.sex.children
alt.sex.cthulhu
alt.sex.disney
alt.sex.doom.with-sound
alt.sex.dylan
alt.sex.enemas
alt.sex.erotica.market.place
alt.sex.erotica.marketplace
alt.sex.escorts.ads
alt.sex.escorts.ads.d
alt.sex.exhibitionism
alt.sex.extropians
alt.sex.fat
alt.sex.femdom
alt.sex.fencing
alt.sex.fetish.amputee
alt.sex.fetish.diapers
alt.sex.fetish.drew-barrymore
alt.sex.fetish.fa
alt.sex.fetish.fashion
alt.sex.fetish.feet
alt.sex.fetish.hair
alt.sex.fetish.jello
alt.sex.fetish.motorcycles
alt.sex.fetish.orientals
alt.sex.fetish.peterds.momma
alt.sex.fetish.power-rangers.kimberly.tight-spandex
alt.sex.fetish.robots
alt.sex.fetish.scat
alt.sex.fetish.size
alt.sex.fetish.smoking
alt.sex.fetish.sportswear
alt.sex.fetish.startrek
alt.sex.fetish.the-bob
alt.sex.fetish.tickling
alt.sex.fetish.tinygirls
alt.sex.fetish.trent-reznor
alt.sex.fetish.waifs
alt.sex.fetish.watersports
alt.sex.fetish.wet-and-messy
alt.sex.fetish.white-mommas
alt.sex.fetish.wrestling
alt.sex.first-time
alt.sex.fish
alt.sex.furry
alt.sex.gangbang
alt.sex.girl.watchers
alt.sex.girls
alt.sex.guns
alt.sex.hello-kitty
alt.sex.historical
alt.sex.homosexual
alt.sex.incest
alt.sex.intergen
alt.sex.jesus
alt.sex.jp
alt.sex.magazines
alt.sex.marsha-clark
alt.sex.masturbation
alt.sex.midgets
alt.sex.modem-kamikaze
alt.sex.motss
alt.sex.movies
alt.sex.necrophilia
alt.sex.nudels.me.too
alt.sex.oral
alt.sex.orgy
alt.sex.pedophilia
alt.sex.pedophilia.boys
alt.sex.pedophilia.girls
alt.sex.pedophilia.pictures
alt.sex.pedophilia.swaps
alt.sex.pictures
alt.sex.pictures.d
alt.sex.pictures.female
alt.sex.pictures.male
alt.sex.plushies
alt.sex.pre-teens
alt.sex.prostitution
alt.sex.reptiles
alt.sex.safe
alt.sex.services
alt.sex.sgml
alt.sex.sm.fig
alt.sex.snakes
alt.sex.sounds
alt.sex.spanking
alt.sex.stories
alt.sex.stories.d
alt.sex.stories.gay
alt.sex.stories.hetero
alt.sex.stories.moderated
alt.sex.stories.tg
alt.sex.strip-clubs
alt.sex.super-size
alt.sex.swingers
alt.sex.tasteless
alt.sex.telephone
alt.sex.toons
alt.sex.trans
alt.sex.ugly
alt.sex.uncut
alt.sex.video-swap
alt.sex.voxmeet
alt.sex.voyeurism
alt.sex.wanted
alt.sex.wanted.escorts.ads
alt.sex.watersports
alt.sex.weight-gain
alt.sex.wizards
alt.sex.young
alt.sex.zoophile
alt.sexy.bald.captains
alt.stories.erotic
alt.support.disabled.sexuality
alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex
clari.news.crime.sex
clari.news.gays
clari.news.sex
aus.sex
de.talk.sex
es.alt.sexo
fido.ger.sex
fido.sex-ger
fido7.ru-sex
fido7.ru-sex.adv
fido7.russian-sex
finet.sex
fiod7.other.russian.sex
fiod7.ru.sex
gay-net.behinderte
gay-net.btx-ecke
gay-net.coming-out
gay-net.dfue
gay-net.erotic-stories
gay-net.gruppen.general
gay-net.guide.bundesweit
gay-net.guide.weltweit
gay-net.haushalt
gay-net.international
gay-net.kontakte
gay-net.labern
gay-net.lederecke
gay-net.spiele
gay-net.test
rec.arts.erotica
shamash.gayjews
slo.sex
soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi
t-netz.sex
t-netz.sex-stories
tw.bbs.sci.sex
ucb.erotica.sensual
uw.alt.sex.beastiality
uw.alt.sex.bestiality
uw.alt.sex.bondage
uw.alt.sex.stories
uw.alt.sex.stories.d
zer.t-netz.sex
------------------------------
From: "Mario M. Butter" <mbutter@tower.clark.net>
Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:21:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: BC Commissioner Upholds Severing of Voter Addresses
bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning)
Canada has a much less efficient electoral process than countries
such as the US which have a single piece of legislation for all
levels of government and a single electoral process.
The US has different laws in each state; indeed one state (Louisiana)
has laws modeled after the French legal system rather than English
common law. In some states, the voter registration lists are public
information.
--
Mario M. Butter |GAT d++$ H>++ s:+ !g !p au+ a? w+++ v++(-) C++
mbutter@tower.clark.net |UL++++$ P+>++++ L++>++++ 3 N+++ E--- K-- W---
gaummb@fnma.com |M-- V-- -po+ Y+ t++ 5++ jx R++ G' tv+++ b+++ !D
#include <std_disclaimer.h>|B-- e* u*@ h---- f* r+++ !n y** GeekCode v2.1
------------------------------
From: les@Steam.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Date: 29 Dec 1995 08:49:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Racial Classification
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Gary McGath writes: An issue which I haven't seen discussed much on
this forum is how to deal with requests to categorize oneself
racially. Twice in the past two years I've been faced with such
requests.
My choice of racial classification is "mongrel," which I believe is the
most accurate answer for all of us. Some years ago I got sufficiently
annoyed by this nonsensical question to write an article about it --
see "Can computers cope with human races?" in Communications of the
ACM, February 1989.
--
Les Earnest (les@cs.stanford.edu) Phone: 415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305 Fax: 415 941-3934
------------------------------
From: Graham Smith <gks@acm.org>
Date: 31 Dec 1995 01:55:42 +0000
Subject: Re: Racial Classification
Organization: Kildwick Smith (Consulting Engineers)
Gary_McGath (gmcgath@mv.MV.COM) writes: A little more recently, I
received a questionnaire from a company in Georgia for which I'd
done some consulting services. This one didn't directly ask for my
race, but rather asked if I was a "minority-owned business." This
time, I sent back an angry refusal to answer the questionnaire at
all.
Surely the answer that your shareholders would wish to hear is that
your company is a majority-owned business?
--
Graham Smith (gks@acm.org) :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To experience a Laufschrift applet take a look at the new Kildwick
Smith (Consulting Engineers) site "http://www.compulink.co.uk/~ks"
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: David Beiter <0006351762@mcimail.com>
Date: 31 Dec 95 22:23 EST
Subject: Re: Racial Classification
gmcgath@mv.MV.COM (Gary McGath) asked: An issue which I haven't
seen discussed much on this forum is how to deal with requests to
categorize oneself racially. Twice in the past two years I've been
faced with such requests.
When given the choice, I mark
SEX YES
RACE NO
If that doesn't work then I try
OTHER
then I try
NATIVE AMERICAN
and claim to be Mohegan. I defy you to prove otherwise.
Actually, I tend to stay away from places where they have any interest
in my racial background. It has been 20 years sine I had a mortgage,
so I don't remember much about what was on the application.
And I certainly would not consult for any company who had any interest
in knowing the racial composition of the owners of my company. I just
don't do business with that sort of [excretive deleted], except at
gunpoint.
--
David P Beiter <byter@mcimail.com>,
___ ((
_.-| | _-~-_ ||
{ | | (o o(_)___ _) )
"-.|___| _.( Y ) \. `O /
.--'-`-. _((_ `^-' /__< \
.+|______|__.-||__)`-'(((/ ((_d
On the Internet, no one need know that you are really a dawg.
------------------------------
From: JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown)
Date: 02 Jan 1996 23:59:53 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Racial Classification
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs
gmcgath@mv.MV.COM says... An issue which I haven't seen discussed
much on this forum is how to deal with requests to categorize
oneself racially. Twice in the past two years I've been faced with
such requests.
Actually, I think that both of those requests were motivated by Federal
laws or regulations which require 1) non-discrimatory lending; and, 2)
encouragement of minority-owned business. Every lending application
I've seen having that question indicates that supplying the data is
optional. I know that the business category is used to differentiate
between otherwise similar suppliers when a government contractor is
making a decision of which supplier to select.
It seems well-meaning, which doesn't mean you should provide the
information.
--
Jeff Brown
JF_Brown@Pnl.gov
------------------------------
From: "Mario M. Butter" <mbutter@tower.clark.net>
Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:29:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Racial Classification
gmcgath@mv.MV.COM (Gary McGath) writes: An issue which I haven't
seen discussed much on this forum is how to deal with requests to
categorize oneself racially. Twice in the past two years I've been
faced with such requests.
These are mandated by Federal Law to track the company's compliance
with Affirmative Action laws. The company is not `racially
categorizing' you, the government is.
--
Mario M. Butter |GAT d++$ H>++ s:+ !g !p au+ a? w+++ v++(-) C++
mbutter@tower.clark.net |UL++++$ P+>++++ L++>++++ 3 N+++ E--- K-- W---
gaummb@fnma.com |M-- V-- -po+ Y+ t++ 5++ jx R++ G' tv+++ b+++ !D
#include <std_disclaimer.h>|B-- e* u*@ h---- f* r+++ !n y** GeekCode v2.1
------------------------------
From: gkastane@scsn.net (George Kastanes)
Date: 29 Dec 1995 17:09:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Racial Classification
gmcgath@mv.MV.COM (Gary McGath) writes concerning his objections to be
racially categorized. What is overlooked here I think are two factors.
First, the constant and irriating tendency of the bureaucratic mind to
know everything about everyone, and more important, the motivating
factor that allows - no - encourages businesses to solicit this kind of
information. There is little we can do about the government "urge" to
collect information. We can however eliminate some of the motivation.
The organizations that Mr. McGrath refers to are both in a position to
be rewarded if they can demonstrate an acceptable level of involvement
with minorities. Mortgage companies in particular are under a lot of
pressure for failing to adhere to equal opportunity lending; many
contractors are burdened with minority set aside rules that tend to
filter down.
The point is that both entities are subtly coerced through economic
motivation to invade privacy for the purpose of gathering statistical
data. If we eliminate the concern - i.e. stop worrying about numbers
and percentages of minorities vs. non minorites, a lot of this prying
will go away.
------------------------------
From: gkastane@scsn.net (George Kastanes)
Date: 02 Jan 1996 17:41:53 -0500
Subject: Re: The Year We Struggled with On-line Censorship
Greg DesElms wrote a very interesting essay on the issue of computer
censorship and the internet. I must however point out that Greg is
sadly resorting to allowing the same concessions which he alerts us to
as being dangerous when applied at a different level. The real issue is
whether the internet or any media should be subject to censorship at
all under any circumstances. Greg asserts that there must be a way to
protect children from " premature exposure to prurient materials which
could not possibly be of any rational educational value to them". Why
is this a concern to the contents of a medium which is addressed to
adults? The thrust here should be to give parents and educators the
tools, via filtering software etc., to limit what the children are able
to be exposed to - not to regulate the entire medium even to the extent
of existing laws. We have laws that preclude dissemination of
pornography based on community standards. That entire concept is in and
of itself patently absurd. Again, we are saying because the majority in
a given community finds something objectionable, it should be available
to no one. I am as opposed to child pornography and explitation of
children as anyone, but at the same time, once the issue of censorship
becomes one of degree, then the entire battle is lost and you might as
well accept an Orwelian scenario. It makes little logical difference
between saying child pornography is illegal, solely because of its
content, than it does to say "prurient materials with no educational
value" is illegal than to say uttering the word "breasts" is illegal.
It is merely a question of degree and timing.
The key is to allow people to be responsible for their own conduct and
behavior. If you do not elect to view or read blatnant pornography, you
have the option not to read or view it. If you have elected to bring
children into this world, you (not the rest of us) have undertaken the
responsibility to raise them and determine what it is they can and
cannot see and read. I find in highly self-centered and arrogant on the
part of some parents (and I too am a parent) to expect - no demand -
that the media that their children may have access to due to
technological develoments be purified so that they themselves can
escape the obligation and burden of determining that their children may
have access to.
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 02 Jan 1996 15:03:39 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Cyberspace wiretap leads to arrests
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Tuesday 2 January 1996
Volume 17 : Issue 59 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND
RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) ACM Committee on Computers and Public
Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator
From: David Kennedy <76702.3557@compuserve.com>
Date: 31 Dec 95 04:46:21 EST
Subject: 1st Net Wiretap (& CompuServe too)
Compiled from various wire services extracted from CompuServe's
Executive News Service:
Cyberspace wiretap leads to arrests UPI Northeastern US
29/12/95 14:46
By TRACEY L. MILLER
NEW YORK, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- The G-men have started bugging
cyberspace. The U.S. Secret Service announced Friday that a
court-sanctioned wiretap on the Internet has led to the arrests of
three people who allegedly advertised the sale of illegal
electronic surveillance devices through the on-line service,
CompuServe. "These arrests offer a glimpse into what crime and law
enforcement will look like in the 21st century," Brooklyn U.S.
Attorney Zachary Carter said at a Manhattan news conference.
"Criminals are adjusting to new means of communications in the same
way we are."
o Bernard Bowitz a German national, his estranged wife, Rachel, and
Gregory Brooks of Seattle were arrested.
o Seizures included a cellular phone cloning equipment: a "Lifetime
Phone" capable of storing 99 stolen Mobile Identification Numbers (MIN)
and Electronic Serial Number (ESN) combinations; a "Celltracker" that
also allows the caller to eavesdrop on any nearby cellular
conversation, and an "ESN Reader", which allows the user to steal the
MIN/ESN combinations. Also seized laptop computers, scanners, covert
transmitters and receivers hundreds of cellular phones and a satellite
cellphone. Some covert transmitters were disguised as a three-pronged
wall socket and a fountain pen.
o AT&T Wireless Services Security noticed Bowitz's ads on CompuServe.
They verified what he was offering and tipped the US Secret Service
(USSS) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Bowitz also advertised
openly on a World Wide Web site.
The Department of Justice and the U.S. district court gave
investigators authorization to monitor the trio's outgoing and
incoming CompuServe E-mail messages, the first time permission for
such a wiretap over the Internet has ever been granted. "This
authorization was critical, since Bernhard and Rachel Bowitz, and
Gregory Brooks, perhaps believing that Internet communications were
immune from interception, spoke relatively openly in their E-mail
communications," said Brian Gimlett, who heads the Secret Service's
New York Field Office.
o Operation has been ongoing for several months and ran from New York
City to Seattle, Las Vegas and Hong Kong.
o Bowitz communicated with an undercover DEA agent by e-mail and met
him several times for buys. Bowitz also was laundering US$225K
believed to have come from drug trafficking.
"The significance of this case should not be minimized," said
Gimlett. "This case has substantially impeded the spread of
technology that would undercut law enforcement's ability to conduct
effective electronic surveillance, endanger the telecommunications
and international business community and intrude upon the public's
right to privacy."
o All three charged with wire fraud, the manufacture and sale of
illegal intercepting devices, and conspiracy. Bernhard Bowitz, alone,
was charged with money laundering. Bowitz is in the grey-bar hotel
pending US$500K bail. His wife is out and about on bond in Las Vegas.
Brooks was arrested in New York and is free pending his arraignment
next month.
o Joint investigation included AT&T and the New York Electronic Crime
Task Force. The task force includes USSS, DEA and the New York Police
Department.
"The Internet has become the new battleground for law enforcement
to fight crime," said Gimlett.
Dave Kennedy [US Army MP] [CISSP] Volunteer SysOp National Computer
Security Association Forum on CompuServe
------------------------------
From: "Mario M. Butter" <mbutter@tower.clark.net>
Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:24:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Risks of Checking Accounts
Diann <71600.621@CompuServe.COM> writes: However, I've noticed that
many places which want account numbers get all bent out of shape if
they don't get it. I almost screwed up my car insurance payment by
forgetting to write the insurance account number on the memo line;
this dispite the fact the silly thing was listed on the sheet of
paper from the insurance company that I sent back with my check.
I've found that most companies, if sent a check that does *not* include
an account number will have someone (I guess some sort of
`pre-processing' employee) write the account number in the memo field.
I have never included the account information on my checks, but they
almost always have them when I get the checks back.
--
Mario M. Butter |GAT d++$ H>++ s:+ !g !p au+ a? w+++ v++(-) C++
mbutter@tower.clark.net |UL++++$ P+>++++ L++>++++ 3 N+++ E--- K-- W---
gaummb@fnma.com |M-- V-- -po+ Y+ t++ 5++ jx R++ G' tv+++ b+++ !D
#include <std_disclaimer.h>|B-- e* u*@ h---- f* r+++ !n y** GeekCode v2.1
------------------------------
From: Galkin@aol.com
Date: 02 Jan 1996 12:58:13 -0500
Subject: The Computer Law Report #15
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
THE COMPUTER LAW REPORT
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
December 28, 1995 [#15]
prepared by William S. Galkin, Esq. <galkin@aol.com>
=====================================
GENERAL INFO: The Computer Law Report is distributed (usually) weekly for
free and is prepared by William S. Galkin, Esq. The Report is designed
specifically for the non-lawyer. To subscribe, send e-mail to galkin@aol.com.
All information contained in The Computer Law Report is for the benefit of
the recipients, and should not be relied on or considered as legal advice.
Copyright 1995 by William S. Galkin.
=====================================
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY RIGHTS: THE WORKPLACE
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
[This is the second of a series of articles discussing privacy rights
in the digital age.]
With the rise of technology there arose a fear of surveillance.
However, George Orwell's 1984 passed us by without noticeable big
brother control, and the national concern over espionage diminished
with the demise of the U.S.S.R.
These past threats were concerns over the use of technology by
governments that had sufficient resources to use the technology for
sinister purposes. The new threat is not technology in the hands of
government, it is technology alone. What once required massive
manpower, now requires merely a personal computer. Technology has made
the power to monitor others widely available, whether to governments,
private enterprise or individuals. This article discusses some of the
laws applicable to the monitoring of employees in the private
workplace.
An employee, by the very nature of the employment relationship, must be
subject to some level of monitoring by the employer. However, this
monitoring has limits. Courts have held that it is a tortuous
invasion of privacy for an employer to monitor employee telephone
conversions. Similarly, mail carried through the U.S. postal service is
granted a high level of protection.
However, much employee communication now takes place over private and
public networks via e-mail, or voice mail. These forms of communication
are very different from telephone calls and letters. For example, after
transmission and receipt, these communications are stored for an
indefinite period of time on equipment under the exclusive control of
the employer. Additionally, these communications can be examined
without the knowledge of the communicators. As is often the case, the
law has difficulty keeping pace with the issues raised by fast changing
technology.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act -
In the federal sphere, only the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
of 1986 (ECPA) directly prohibits the interception of e-mail
transmissions. The ECPA prohibits the interception by (1) unauthorized
individuals or (2) individuals working for a government entity, acting
without a proper warrant. The ECPA is mostly concerned with the
unauthorized access by employees or corporate competitors trying to
find out valuable information. However, while there is no specific
prohibition in the ECPA for an employer to monitor the e-mail of
employees, the ECPA does not specifically exempt employers.
The ECPA has several exceptions to the application of the prohibition
of interception of electronic communications. The three most relevant
to the workplace are (1) where one party consents, (2) where the
provider of the communication service can monitor communications, and
(3) where the monitoring is done in the ordinary course of business.
The first exception, consent, can be implied or actual. Several courts
have placed a fairly high standard for establishing implied consent.
For example one court held that "knowledge of the capability of
monitoring alone cannot be considered implied consent." Accordingly,
for an employer to ensure the presence of actual consent, it should
prepare, with advice of counsel, a carefully worded e-mail Policy
Statement which explains the scope of employer monitoring. This Policy
Statement should be signed by the employees. One example of how this
Policy Statement needs to be carefully written is that if it states
that personal communications will be monitored only to determine
whether there is business content in the communications, then this
would probably not amount to consent to review the full text of
personal communications. Additionally, notice that communications might
be monitored may have a significantly different legal affect than a
notice stating that communications will be monitored.
The second exemption is that the ECPA exempts from liability the person
or entity providing the communication service. Where this service is
provided by the employer, the ECPA has been interpreted as permitting
the employers broad discretion to read and disclose the contents of
e-mail communications, without the employee's consent. However,
employers should not rely on this exception, because it might not apply
in all cases, such as to incoming (as opposed to internal e-mail) if
the e-mail service is provided by a common carrier (e.g., America
Online or MCI mail, which are not provided by the employer).
Under the third exception, courts will analyze whether the content of
the interception was business or personal and allow the interception of
only business-content communications.
State laws -
State tort laws are often viewed as the primary sources of protection
for privacy of electronic communications. The most common tort that
would apply is the tort of invasion of privacy. This tort occurs where
"one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the
solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is
subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the
intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."
This tort does not require that personal information be actually
acquired, disclosed or used. However, the intrusion must be intentional
and highly offensive to a reasonable person. Additionally, there must
be a reasonable expectation of privacy by the employee.
Employees often believe that their communications are private because
they have a password which they can select and change independently or
because they are communicating through outside common carriers. Cases
have often turned upon whether this belief was reasonable given the
fact that the employer had the ability all along to access the files,
though the employees were not aware of this. In determining the
outcome, courts will weigh the reasonableness of the employee's
expectation of privacy against the business interest of the employer in
monitoring the communication. However, it is important to emphasize
that in the final analysis courts have traditionally held that
legitimate business interests permit employers to intercept
communications.
Additionally, state constitutions might provide some protection. A
number of state constitutions provide a specific right of privacy. But,
only California has specifically determined that its constitution
provides a cause of action against nongovernmental entities. However,
even in California, the courts will give significant weight to the
business interests of the employer.
Conclusion -
As discussed, much of the law of privacy in the workplace turns on the
reasonable expectation of privacy. When evaluating different
situations, it is important to keep in mind that the law in this area
is a moving target, as recently expressed by Professor David Post of
Georgetown University Law Center (in The American Lawyer, October 1995)
"until we have all spent more time in this new electronic environment,
who can say what our expectations really are --let alone whether they
are reasonable?"
In the workplace, federal and state laws provide some protection to
employee communications. However, this protection is quite limited.
Until the law develops further, employers should prepare carefully
drafted Policy Statements that explain how the employer intends to
monitor employee communications. And employees, even in the absence of
such Policy Statements, would be well advised to consider their
communications available and accessible to the employer. Also, where
privacy is an issue, employees and employers can create a more
productive work environment if they work together to jointly develop a
Policy Statement that balances the legitimate interests of both the
employer and the employees.
------------------------------
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 V8 #002
******************************
.