Date: Wed, 07 Feb 96 07:39:29 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#013
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 07 Feb 96 Volume 8 : Issue: 013
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Telecomm Bill Translation
First USA Bank & Telemarketing
Re: Computer policy from American Library Association
AOL Mail Retention
Telecomm Bill and Indecency
Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gmcgath@mv.mv.com (Gary McGath)
Date: 04 Feb 1996 12:26:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Telecomm Bill Translation
Organization: Conceptual Design
References: <comp-privacy8.12.3@cs.uwm.edu>
(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device,
whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten,
or harass any person at the called number or who receives the
communications;
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM> wrote: So, when that bill
collector from Shylock Finance calls, simply tell him that you will
consider any further phone calls to be a clear indication of an
intent to harrass you.
This may already be the case. A few years ago, I naively paid a house
painter in full when there was still a little work to do. That was the
last I saw of him, and I made a number of phone calls demanding
satisfaction. I got a call from the cops telling me that I could take
him to court, but couldn't call him any more.
--
Gary McGath gmcgath@mv.mv.com
http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath
This message void in Germany, China, and other
places where free speech is prohibited by law.
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn)
Date: 04 Feb 1996 18:00:24 -0500
Subject: First USA Bank & Telemarketing
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
If you have notified First USA Bank to put you on their do-not-call
list, and you received two or more telenuisance calls from them within
a subsequest 12 month period, I would like to know about it.
We are assembling a list of people who have been victimized by such
calls.
If you meet the above criteria, it could mean you are due anywhere from
$500 to $1,500 from First USA Bank (pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991).
Please respond by e-mail
--
Robert Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK
------------------------------
From: gmcgath@mv.mv.com (Gary McGath)
Date: 05 Feb 1996 12:41:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Computer policy from American Library Association
Organization: Conceptual Design
References: <comp-privacy8.11.11@cs.uwm.edu>
"Carl M. Kadie" <kadie@eff.org> wrote: 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. ... All library system and network
policies, procedures or regulations relating to electronic
resources and services should be scrutinized for potential
violation of user rights.
This "bill of rights" has considerable potential for violating the
privacy of electronic service providers. The ALA refers to "inalienable
rights," and thus either is guilty of sustained hyperbole or is
suggesting that the principles it enumerates should be legally
enforceable. Its advocacy of scrutiny against violations of these
"rights" is particularly ominous.
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.
"Constitutionally protected speech" means speech which is not actually
illegal. It includes insults, profanity, inappropriate but legal
promotion of one's product, and some forms of deception. The ALA is, in
effect, demanding that service providers allow its users to say
anything for which they can't be taken to court.
In the case of a large organization, "means of appeal" within the
organization is meaningful, but for an individually operated BBS, this
"right" would mean partially surrendering control of one's system to an
outside arbitrator; and concern about the loss of one's property rights
in this case might be deemed merely a "subterfuge."
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.
This implies that contracts are subject to limitations on the basis of
an ill-defined "right." If implemented in law, this would mean that the
courts can decide whether a service provider's policies have
"unreasonable limitations" in them, and compel the provider to change
them.
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.
The first of these points would allow governmental bodies to compel
private libraries to carry material which they provide. The second
effectively makes the selection process as such a "rights" violation,
since any information provider must apply some standard of value in
allocating finite resources.
I want to stress again that the ALA repeatedly ascribes the status of
"rights" to its claims. Much of what it says would be good policy if
offered as recommendations; some I would disagree with in any event.
But a right is a principle for which one has, or should have, legal
recourse. If privacy includes the freedom to deal with people or not as
one chooses, then the ALA's "bill of rights" is a declaration of war on
privacy.
Perhaps the ALA means only to issue recommendations, and is using the
word "rights" only to call attention to itself. But this rhetorical
device, if that is all it is, trivializes the concept, and can promote
a backlash against the concept of rights. Just as inflationary money
drives out good money, inflated rights drive out actual rights.
--
Gary McGath gmcgath@mv.mv.com
http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath
This message void in Germany, China, and other
places where free speech is prohibited by law.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Zaugg <relief@indirect.com>
Date: 05 Feb 1996 12:37:58 -0700 (MST)
Subject: AOL Mail Retention
While this may be skirting the true issue with AOL's mail retention
without user's consent, I wonder if there isn't an easy way around
this.
I do not use AOL, but more than likely a user should be able to edit
their e-mail messages. I doubt that AOL is going to save a back up of
every message you edit. Therefore replacing any mail you want to
delete with a bunch of spaces or any other character you wish should
block anyone's attempts to read such e-mail with a very minimal
inconvienience.
--
Aaron Zaugg
relief@indirect.com
------------------------------
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Date: 04 Feb 1996 21:37:19 -0500
Subject: Telecomm Bill and Indecency
Begin forwarded message:
Date: 02 Feb 1996 17:11:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Neal J. Friedman <njf@commlaw.com>
Subject: Telecomm Bill and Indecency
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Internet Clients
DATE: February 2, 1996
RE: Telecommunications Act Imposes Controls on Indecent and
Obscene Content on the Internet and Online Services
The newly-enacted Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that it is
the policy of the United States to "promote the continued development
of the Internet and other interactive computer services." But, for the
first time, it puts the federal government in the business of
regulating the Internet and online services. The legislation does not
go as far as some had feared, but further than others had hoped.
The statute prohibits the use of interactive computer services to make
or make available an indecent communication to minors. It defines
indecency as: "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or
other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms
patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards,
sexual or excretory activities or organs." This definition has been
upheld in other cases involving the broadcast media. The bill's
supporters expect that it will withstand the inevitable Constitutional
challenge. Indeed, Congress provided that any challenge should first
go to a special three-judge panel and then directly to the Supreme
Court. The Conference Committee Report accompanying the bill argues
that the new indecency prohibition will "pose no significant risk to
the free-wheeling and vibrant nature of discourse or to serious
literary, and artistic works that can be currently found on the
Internet, and which is expected to continue and grow."
The language requires that the communication must be knowing and
specifically exempts online service providers who merely provide access
to the Internet. The Conference Report states that the intent is to
focus on "bad actors and not those whose actions are equivalent to
those of common carriers." This is good news for those service
providers who only host content for others and exercise no control over
the content. But, the legislation goes on to state specifically that
it is not the intent of Congress to treat online services as common
carriers or telecommunications carriers for other purposes. If the
online services were to be considered as common carriers, they would be
insulated from liability for any content on their systems. Thus, the
question of liability of online services for defamation and copyright
and trademark infringement remains unclear.
The legislation also provides a "Good Samaritan" defense for service
providers who have taken "in good faith, reasonable, effective and
appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent
access by minors" to prohibited communications or have restricted
access to indecent content by means of a verified credit card, debit
account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number.
The role of the Federal Communications Commission is restricted under
the new law. The FCC is only permitted to describe measures that are
reasonable, effective and appropriate to restrict access to prohibited
communications, but it cannot give its approval to such measures nor
can it penalize any service provider for failing to use the measures.
The new law also prohibits states from exercising control over content
of online services. States can control content entirely within their
borders so long as the control is not inconsistent with the federal
law. Some state legislatures had, in reaction to publicity over
alleged pornographic and indecent content online, considered bills that
would have put tight restrictions on content.
The full text of the entire Telecommunications Act of 1996,
incorporating the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and the
Conference Report are available on our World Wide Web site:
http://www.commlaw.com.
Sincerely yours,
PEPPER & CORAZZINI, L.L.P.
By:___________________________
Neal J. Friedman
_____________________________________________________________
|Neal J. Friedman | Pepper & Corazzini, LLP |Voice: |
| njf@commlaw.com | 1776 K Street, N.W. | 202-296-0600|
|Telecommunications| Suite 200 |Fax: |
|& Information Law | Washington, D.C. 20006 | 202-296-5572|
| |
| Web Server: http://www.commlaw.com/ |
|____________________________________________________________|
------------------------------
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 #013
******************************
.