Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 14:37:13 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#011
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 01 Feb 96 Volume 8 : Issue: 011
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: One Person's War on Junk Mail
Re: One Person's War on Junk Mail
Re: One Person's War on Junk Mail
Re: One Person's War on Junk Mail
CCTV Codes of Use
Re: AOL search warrants and email retention
Re: AOL search warrants and email retention
Re: Voyeur's delight
Re: Lotus [IBM] Blinks
Re: Some Thoughts on Privacy in General
Computer policy from American Library Association
Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning)
Date: 31 Jan 1996 09:07:29 GMT
Subject: Re: One Person's War on Junk Mail
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
References: <comp-privacy8.9.4@cs.uwm.edu>
Beth Givens <bgivens@pwa.acusd.edu> reports: A San Diego man, Bob
Beken, recently won an interesting suit in Small Claims Court
against Computer City involving unwanted mail solicitations.
Perhaps this case, along with the Avrahami case, will serve as wake
up calls to the direct marketing industry. Consumers want and
deserve to be able to control what enters their mailboxes. Your
thoughts??
F Young (fyoung@oxford.net) writes: I've never been through a time
when I got so upset about junk mail that I would go through the
trouble of writing a "contract" such as that of Mr. Beken, or suit
the marketer in court. Personally, I'm more upset on fax
advertising or the long and windy unsolicited e-mail as it cost me
money to receive them. Long e-mails could also potentially fill up
my mailbox and cause important messages to get bounced. [...]
Although I can't wait for someone to try that in Canada and set a
precedence ...
It has been done, about 2 years ago.
An Ontario woman won a judgement against "Columbia House". They didn't
sign any sort of contract, they just refused to stop sending her crap
mail, claiming that they "could not" remove former suckers from their
crap mailing lists.
To my way of thinking this illustrates perfectly how direct marketing
is often hard to distiguish from a deliberate scam. The victims of the
ripoff are the companies paying direct marketing "experts" to mail crap
to people they know for a fact will never buy. When this scam is
operated internally in an enterprise the pay off seems to be bigger
budgets/more responsiblity/more income for the direct marketing
directors and managers. When it it done by an outside specialty firm it
seems more like an actionable ripoff.
The original title may be misleading.
Is this really about junk mail?
The title may be obscuring the fact that the underlying issue is that
personal information about people, such as their names, addresses, and
the fact that they have enough interest in particular areas to
subscribe to magazines specializing in them, is being passed around
without their knowledge or consent.
That is the issue that makes 'a war on junk mail' a relevant topic for
this forum.
The former moderator of this group seemed to think that stuffing crap
mail back into return envelopes is a lof of work. I don't get much crap
mail and hardly any repeats after I educate the perps about the
provincial credit reporting act. The last one who repeated despite
promising a judge to "take me off his list" had an interesting time
explaining to another judge that what he had really meant was that he
would flag my address as one that they wouldn't sent any more crap to,
but the flagging software was buggy. I was able to use this specific
example to go back to the public body he got data from, no questions
asked, and get them to adopt an interim policy that information seekers
would have to sign a contract prohibiting this kind of use. Legislative
changes have wiped out even that contractually limited access.
I have to sort paper into glossy, non glossy and newsprint, with no
window envelopes, before the local curbside recyclers will take it
instead of leaving it with a "not acceptable" sticker. It really takes
much less time and trouble to simply stuff it into a return envelope
and drop it in the mail box I walk past every day. I do this regularly
with anonymous crap mail that arrives. It is often a mix of paper types
and I don't want to waste time sorting it for recycling.
We have weight/volume limits and over limit penalties for garbage
collection. These even apply to commercial pickups if they use the
municipal landfill. If I was getting as much crap mail as most people
seem to get and "circular filed" it I'd probably go over the limit
every pickup. -- notice: by sending advertising/solicitations to this
account you will be indicating your consent to paying me $70/hour for a
minimum of 2 hours for my time spent dealing with it
------------------------------
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <drears@Pica.Army.Mil>
Date: 31 Jan 96 11:02:00 EST
Subject: Re: One Person's War on Junk Mail
Chris Kocur <ckocur@jcpenney.com> writes:
>It all depends on your situation. My email doesn't cost extra and I
>don't leave my fax online, so those don't bother me as much. But I have
>had important and wanted mail (bills, magazines, letters) returned as
>undeliverable because junk mail had filled up my mail box.
You need to have a talk with your postmaster. This is against postal
regulations. If you mailbox is filled, a card requesting you to pick up
excess mail should be placed in your mailbox. It never should be
returned as undeliverable.
dennis
------------------------------
From: Jon Miller <jonmillr@csn.net>
Date: 31 Jan 1996 13:41:15 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: One Person's War on Junk Mail
Subsidized junk mail clearly is an afront to environmental and privacy
issues. If the government insists on allowing marketers to spend our
money to mail to us mail we don't want, we should be allowed to remove
our name from lists.
However, personally I find telemarketers calls (in the evening
particularly) to be more of an unwarranted intrusion and of unknow
environmental effect (power, e.g.) as well as a potential drain on
otherwise productive time.
I have found the worst intrusion to be 2:00 A.M. mass marketing faxes
to my home/business phone (which does not have a fax on it)! This may
be a federal offense, but it was easier to just get the telephone
company to intervene by calling in advance and arranging a *57
intercept. Phone company service in this instance appeared very
amenable.
--
jon miller
martin & mehaffy, llc
boulder, co
------------------------------
From: michael@piglet.amscons.com (Michael Bryan)
Date: 31 Jan 1996 21:17:22 -0800
Subject: Re: One Person's War on Junk Mail
Organization: none
References: <comp-privacy8.9.4@cs.uwm.edu> <comp-privacy8.10.3@cs.uwm.edu>
Chris Kocur <ckocur@jcpenney.com> wrote: It all depends on your
situation. My email doesn't cost extra and I don't leave my fax
online, so those don't bother me as much. But I have had important
and wanted mail (bills, magazines, letters) returned as
undeliverable because junk mail had filled up my mail box.
Or my personal pet peeve, the fact that the junk mail can sometimes
obscure your important mail. The worst type are the advertising
supplements that many neighborhoods get on a weekly basis. (We
actually get two per week here in San Jose, one from Advo, one from
Potpourri.) These are small newspaper-like things with lots of glossy
coupons, and loose single-page inserts. If you get a couple of these
in your mailbox, it's quite easy for real mail to get stuck among the
inserts, and you have to carefully sort through it all to make sure you
don't throw out something important with the junk.
I tried getting the individual companies to stop sending these to me.
So after a six-week delay, they stopped sending the addressed postcards
that always accompany these. But my postal carrier continued to stick
the inserts into my mailbox anyway! It took several calls to the post
office, and several notes to my carrier, to finally get these things
stopped. But I've only seen one in two years now, and I'm a lot
happier when I go to my mailbox these days.
Well, except for FHP. Somehow, at the ripe age of 32, I got on their
list of "elderly" recipients of Medicare, so I have been getting weekly
mailings from them for well over a year now. Every time, I call the
800 number that is listed, and demand to be taken off their list. If a
postage paid mailer is included, I send it back with everything
scratched out, and a large note scrawled across it, demanding to be
taken off their list. They just keep coming, and coming, and
coming...
It's become personal now. If I ever get them to stop, it will be a
miracle. I'm about to resort to extreme profanity on the returned
mail, in the hopes that maybe that will work for some reason. (I doubt
it, but I've tried just about everything else.)
------------------------------
From: Max Hunt <M.J.Hunt@lut.ac.uk>
Date: 31 Jan 96 09:30:32 gmt
Subject: CCTV Codes of Use
I am looking for examples of Codes of Coduct for the use of public CCTV
systems or systems in public places. Can anyone advise on sources? I
would be happy to feed back examples.
--
M.J.Hunt@LUT.AC.UK Tel: 01509 222310 Fax: 267477
Computing Services, Loughborough University of Technology
------------------------------
From: Alan Tignanelli <75453.2055@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 31 Jan 1996 16:00:12 GMT
Subject: Re: AOL search warrants and email retention
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
References: <comp-privacy8.10.9@cs.uwm.edu>
I find it disturbing that, according to the St. Petersburg Times,
AOL keeps email for five days before purging. I read this to mean
that contrary to what their customers may expect, AOL intentionally
retains email users have tried to delete.
Ever accidentally delete mail you wanted to keep? I have. The fact
that AOL keeps mail after you delete it is not a secret - there's a
menu option to look at mail you've already ready and discarded. On one
hand, a benefit. On the other, a risk.
--
Alan Tignanelli
------------------------------
From: Chris Kocur <ckocur@jcpenney.com>
Date: 31 Jan 1996 23:02:30 GMT
Subject: Re: AOL search warrants and email retention
Organization: JCPenney
References: <comp-privacy8.10.9@cs.uwm.edu>
Declan McCullagh writes: I find it disturbing that, according to
the St. Petersburg Times, AOL keeps email for five days before
purging. I read this to mean that contrary to what their customers
may expect, AOL intentionally retains email users have tried to
delete.
MDDALLARA@msuvx2.memphis.edu wrote: Disturbing, yes, but not that
recent. I remember reading about AOL's email retention policy a
few months ago, when law enforcement agencies first ran into the
problem of deleted email. Service decided to make full copies of
all mail passing through *their* system and keep those copies for
five days. Every time AOL is in the news, they just reinforce my
conviction that I'd rather be castrated with a cheese grater than
ever use their network.
Actually I believe AOL as usual is being misquoted. What they do is
purge your email 5 days after you read it/send it (30 days if you don't
read it). This happens even if you don't want it deleted. If you want
to keep it longer you have to log it to your local disk. This was a
problem for the police, they wanted stuff older than 5 days. AFAIK if
you delete it before the 5 days, its gone.
Now, there are numerous examples of things that have been 'deleted'
being recoverable. That *may* be the case with AOL. OTOH, most ISP's
use Unix based systems. I wonder what pains they go through to make
sure deleted email is unrecoverable? Most I would guess rely on the
fact that it will eventually be overwritten by new email. With the mail
reader I use on my PC, email isn't really deleted until I 1) compact my
in/out boxes, 2) clear my trash bin, 3) compact the trash. Even that's
not 100% unless I purge my mail file and make sure the space is
overwritten on disk. Oh, and darn, now I have to erase my backup tapes
too.
In some ways I consider AOL email that stays within AOL more private.
Email on the net has no guarantees. Internet email may go through many
systems on its way and none of those systems have any obligation not to
read it, archive it or redirect it and you have no way of telling if
they do. At least with AOL, you know what their motives are - they want
money and to make it they have to keep their customers happy. I have no
idea of the motives of the unknown sysops on the unknown systems my
internet email may cross. But I can guess keeping me happy is not very
high on their list.
--
Regards, Chris
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
I can be do it quick; I can do it well; I can do it cheap -- pick any
two. -- Red Adair
ckocur@jcpenney.com (work), ckocur@plano.net (home)
------------------------------
From: WELKER@a1.VsDeC.nL.nuwc.navy.mil
Date: 31 Jan 1996 11:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Voyeur's delight
<WELKER@a1.VsDeC.nL.nuwc.navy.mil> raised a point in the encryption
debate I never heard before.
While the debate over who should hold the escrowed keys is a
legitimate one, [...]
I can see the cause for concern if this is a real hole, but I can't
see the hole. Can you elaborate? How can someone perpetrate a
fraud by losing a key?
The hazard of which I speak is not fraud, but merely loss of data. If
you are my broker and don't get my encrypted/signed buy/sell order on
time because you lost my public key, or your private key, or if you
later claim not to have been able to validate the transaction, there
could be large amounts of money on the line. A key held in escrow by a
trusted third party thwarts deniability (or requires conspiracy to
compromise the system). The "low-tech" analogy would be having a
document notarized or co-signed -- the notary can attest that he saw
both of us sign it.
I agree about the public part, but you seem to be defending the
Clipper proposal in your article. The Clipper algorithm is not
public. Cheap is not an issue.
Clipper is _an_ implementation of the necessary technology. I make no
claims concerning its acceptability to industry, nor do I necessarily
endorse government key escrow. My assertion is only that key escrow is
"safer" for business purposes from a protection of assets standpoint.
Even if you are the mafia it sometimes helps to have an arbiter.
Secure encryption is not dependent on secrecy. Public algorithms
can be examined to verify that they do not, contain holes back
doors such as a secret master key. The government's refusal to
make Clipper public raises the suspicion that they have done
exactly that, and that the escrow issue is merely a smoke screen.
Secure encryption is dependent on the secrecy of keys, not algorithms.
Other than that, your statement is valid.
Shotgun scanning is not the only risk. Storage is cheap enough to
archive *ALL* the Internet traffic *ALL* the time, in raw
unprocessed form. A terabyte tape reel has already been reported.
That's enough to store 500 million typical email messages on a
single reel. It's not only the government that has the resources
to archive the traffic, private parties do it already. In a decade
or two a typical home PC may have the capacity to archive all the
world's UseNet traffic and web pages. Enemies in hostile countries
can also archive our traffic.
There are about (I think) five terabytes "suspended" in the Internet at
any one time (sorry, forgot the source), a number which will continue
to rise. This traffic is being pumped into the net from thousands of
sources with data rates of 56 kbps or higher. Even if you could store
it all, you still have to intercept and catalog it all. According to
my copy of _Interactive_Week_ (v3n2 29 Jan 96, page 50) you _might_ be
able to capture around 79% of traffic if you compromise AOL,
Compuserve, Prodigy, MS-Net, _and_ all academic servers. Now you've
archived it. What are you gonna do with it? If its all encrypted
(even with a 40 bit key), you still have to locate the messages of
interest and crack them. It would be far cheaper to bug your PC and/or
park a TEMPEST van down the street. If you're worried about archiving,
even military-grade encryption won't conceal a message forever, and the
last sentence should tell you that if the government wants it bad
enough then military grade encryption won't protect you at all.
You are right about the power of serveillance -- you can look up the
Doug Wilder / Chuck Rob bugging fiasco for an example. I certainly am
of the opinion that ISPs should be protected as "common carriers" like
the telcos.
As automated toll collectors and surveillance cameras (including
facial recognition) become on-line "webcams", then video and audio
recordings of all surveiled public areas will become part of the
permanent public archives. Future O.J. trials will never again
have to speculate who was where when.
Not that it would influence the verdict :)
------------------------------
From: stuart@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: 31 Jan 1996 19:20:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Lotus [IBM] Blinks
Organization: University of Waikato
References: <comp-privacy8.9.2@cs.uwm.edu>
WELKER@a1.VsDeC.nL.nuwc.navy.mil writes: While the debate over who
should hold the escrowed keys is a legitimate one, I must point out
that some form of key escrow is essential as a practical matter in
order for electronic documents to be legally binding. I think this
more than anything else is why PGP is not much appreciated by the
business community. We cannot permit electronic commerce wherein
someone can claim "oops, I lost the key...sorry about your $1M".
Check out http://www.viacrypt.com/ - they have a product, which they
call PGP/BE (Pretty Good Privacy, Business Edition) which handles some
of these issues.
[I am in no way related to viacrypt, and have no first hand experiance
with their product(s)]
--
``The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions.''
stuart@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
syeates@cs.waikato.ac.nz
------------------------------
From: craig@killerbee.jsc.nasa.gov (Craig Biggerstaff)
Date: 31 Jan 1996 20:36:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Privacy in General
Organization: NASA/Johnson Space Center
References: <comp-privacy8.9.11@cs.uwm.edu>
Mark Ingram (ingramm@Cognos.COM) wrote: The first point I would
like to make is that there is no real problem with having no
privacy -- unless you are a criminal, of course. I have come
across many cliches and supposed pearls of wisdom that all allude
to this:
This *is* a troll, isn't it?
The problem with fortune-cookie wisdom is that there is a saying for
every point of view -- hence, "Good fences make good neighbors", "A
man's house is his castle", and so on.
The problem with having no privacy is that it is exactly equal to
having no enforceable rights. The only way to eliminate privacy is to
eliminate freedom. This has been demonstrated many times by various
regimes, and is easy to understand. Consider:
The decision to have privacy -- the decision not to make something
visible to others -- is one made *by an individual*. It can only be
revoked through surveillance or force. To argue that there is no
problem with having no privacy is to argue that surveillance and/or
force are acceptable actions.
Surveillance and force are antithetical to the idea of popular
government. So we, as a people, agree to permit these measures only in
clearly defined situations, with clearly defined intentions. If these
conditions are not met, then the entity (public or private) using these
measures is running amok, and is dangerous.
Justice Louis Brandeis put it very well, years ago, when he wrote
something to the effect that "the most valuable of all rights is the
right to be left alone."
--
Craig Biggerstaff
------------------------------
From: "Carl M. Kadie" <kadie@eff.org>
Date: 30 Jan 1996 13:40:05 -0800
Subject: Computer policy from American Library Association
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: NEW: Computer policy from American Library Association
Date: 30 Jan 1996 11:57:56 -0800
According to a mailing list posting, the American Library Association
(ALA) just approved the enclosed statement on applying the Library
Bill of Rights to computers and networks.
The ALA is the largest and oldest library organization. It has
has a century's experience with intellectual freedom issues.
The ALA's web site is http://www.ala.org. I've archived the statement
at ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/computer.ala. Also See
http://www.eff.org/CAF.
- Carl (not even an ALA member)
========================================================
Access to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks:
an Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS
INTRODUCTION
The world is in the midst of an electronic communications
revolution. Based on its constitutional, ethical, and historical
heritage, American librarianship is uniquely positioned to address
the broad range of information issues being raised in this
revolution. In particular, librarians address intellectual freedom
>from a strong ethical base and an abiding commitment to the
preservation of the individual's rights.
Freedom of expression is an inalienable human right and the
foundation for self-government. Freedom of expression encompasses
the freedom of speech and the corollary right to receive
information. These rights extend to minors as well as adults.
Libraries and librarians exist to facilitate the exercise of these
rights by selecting, producing, providing access to, identifying,
retrieving, organizing, providing instruction in the use of, and
preserving recorded expression regardless of the format or
technology.
The American Library Association expresses these basic principles of
librarianship in its CODE OF ETHICS and in the LIBRARY BILL OF
RIGHTS and its Interpretations. These serve to guide librarians and
library governing bodies in addressing issues of intellectual
freedom that arise when the library provides access to electronic
information, services, and networks.
Issues arising from the still-developing technology of
computer-mediated information generation, distribution, and
retrieval need to be approached and regularly reviewed from a
context of constitutional principles and ALA policies so that
fundamental and traditional tenets of librarianship are not swept
away.
Electronic information flows across boundaries and barriers despite
attempts by individuals, governments, and private entities to
channel or control it. Even so, many people, for reasons of
technology, infrastructure, or socio-economic status do not have
access to electronic information.
In making decisions about how to offer access to electronic
information, each library should consider its mission, goals,
objectives, cooperative agreements, and the needs of the entire
community it serves.
The Rights of Users
All library system and network policies, procedures or regulations
relating to electronic resources and services should be
scrutinized for potential violation of user rights.
User policies should be developed according to the policies and
guidelines established by the American Library Association,
including GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING ACCESS TO LIBRARY
MATERIALS, SERVICES AND FACILITIES.
Users should not be restricted or denied access for expressing or
receiving constitutionally protected speech. Users' access should
not be changed without due process, including, but not limited to,
formal notice and a means of appeal.
Although electronic systems may include distinct property rights
and security concerns, such elements may not be employed as a
subterfuge to deny users' access to information. Users have the
right to be free of unreasonable limitations or conditions set by
libraries, librarians, system administrators, vendors, network
service providers, or others. Contracts, agreements, and licenses
entered into by libraries on behalf of their users should not
violate this right. Users also have a right to information,
training and assistance necessary to operate the hardware and
software provided by the library.
Users have both the right of confidentiality and the right of
privacy. The library should uphold these rights by policy,
procedure, and practice. Users should be advised, however, that
because security is technically difficult to achieve, electronic
transactions and files could become public.
The rights of users who are minors shall in no way be abridged.
(See: FREE ACCESS TO LIBRARIES FOR MINORS: AN INTERPRETATION OF
THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS; ACCESS TO RESOURCES AND SERVICES IN
THE SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA PROGRAM; and ACCESS FOR CHILDREN AND
YOUNG PEOPLE TO VIDEOTAPES AND OTHER NONPRINT FORMATS.
EQUITY OF ACCESS
Electronic information, services, and networks provided directly
or indirectly by the library should be equally, readily and
equitably accessible to all library users. American Library
Association policies oppose the charging of user fees for the
provision of information services by all libraries and information
services that receive their major support from public funds (50.3;
53.1.14; 60.1; 61.1). It should be the goal of all libraries to
develop policies concerning access to electronic resources in
light of ECONOMIC BARRIERS TO INFORMATION ACCESS: AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS and GUIDELINES FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND
PROCEDURES AFFECTING ACCESS TO LIBRARY MATERIALS, SERVICES AND
FACILITIES.
INFORMATION RESOURCES AND ACCESS
Providing connections to global information, services, and
networks is not the same as selecting and purchasing material for
a library collection. Determining the accuracy or authenticity of
electronic information may present special problems. Some
information accessed electronically may not meet a library's
selection or collection development policy. It is, therefore,
left to each user to determine what is appropriate. Parents and
legal guardians who are concerned about their children's use of
electronic resources should provide guidance to their own
children.
Libraries and librarians should not deny or limit access to
information available via electronic resources because of its
allegedly controversial content or because of the librarian's
personal beliefs or fear of confrontation. Information retrieved
or utilized electronically should be considered constitutionally
protected unless determined otherwise by a court with appropriate
jurisdiction.
Libraries, acting within their mission and objectives, must
support access to information on all subjects that serve the
needs or interests of each user, regardless of the user's age or
the content of the material. Libraries have an obligation to
provide access to government information available in electronic
format. Libraries and librarians should not deny access to
information solely on the grounds that it is perceived to lack
value.
In order to prevent the loss of information, and to preserve the
cultural record, libraries may need to expand their selection or
collection development policies to ensure preservation, in
appropriate formats, of information obtained electronically.
Electronic resources provide unprecedented opportunities to
expand the scope of information available to users. Libraries
and librarians should provide access to information presenting
all points of view. The provision of access does not imply
sponsorship or endorsement. These principles pertain to
electronic resources no less than they do to the more traditional
sources of information in libraries. (See: Diversity in
Collection Development: an Interpretation of the Library Bill of
Rights)
Adopted by the ALA Council, January 24, 1996.
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 1996 18:45:30 -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 #011
******************************
.