Date: Sun, 07 Apr 96 10:46:34 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#030
Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 07 Apr 96 Volume 8 : Issue: 030
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Computer Privacy
Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns
Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns
Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns
Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns
Re: Finding Lost Money
Re: Finding Lost Money
USPS Address Change Plan
Increasingly Intrusive Capability
Re: Individual RTP vs. Corporate FOS
A Bar Copied my Drivers License
AARP Privacy Invasion
Privacy and Computer Technology
Privacy and Computer Technology
DoubleClick: 'We're No Peeping Toms'
CFP96 Audio Sessions AVailable on the Web
Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David J. Crook" <djc@epix.net>
Date: 02 Apr 1996 22:16:11 -0800
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy
Organization: epix.net
References: <comp-privacy8.28.8@cs.uwm.edu> <comp-privacy8.29.2@cs.uwm.edu>
Calls may be monitored; the contents of computer disks and files
may be inspected, with no legal recourse to the employee. Lesson:
Don't discuss or have anything on corporate communications media
that you wouldn't want to wind up on your boss's desk.
Does anyone doubt that we've reached the following point. Anyone
working for any large corporation (and maybe a majority of small corps
& businesses) is naive to not consider that ANYTHING said on a company
telephone, sent in an email on a company computer, mailed in
inter-office correspondence, written/stored on a company computer is
accessible to and commonly accessed by the employer?
That, of course, doesn't make it right or healthy for the individual,
business or American society, BUT it is reality. My policy has become
to not to say anything on any of these modes of communication that
would cause me or my employer (and therefore me) problems if it were
published in a newspaper.
As technology evolves, our society will have to require relegislation
of the right privacy and it's boundaries. Technology (both existing and
upcoming) if left uncontrolled will completely denude everyone of
privacy and any expectation of it.
------------------------------
From: jcr@mcs.com (John C. Rivard)
Date: 03 Apr 1996 10:17:17 -0600
Subject: Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns
Organization: very little
References: <comp-privacy8.28.11@cs.uwm.edu> <comp-privacy8.29.4@cs.uwm.edu>
hrick@gate.net (Rick Harrison) wrote: When you post a message to
Usenet, you are giving implied permission for all Usenet
feed-takers to redistribute messages. [...] I imagine this
principle will eventually be tested in court. Personally I hope
messages posted to Usenet will be proven to be public domain
material unless the authors attach a copyright notice to their
messages.
The current copyright law states that any item fixed is automatically
copyrighted by the author, copyright notice or not. The act
specifically states that copyrighted items do NOT fall into the public
domain unless specifically placed their by the copyright holder. In
other words, the law is opposite to what you propose: Messages posted
to Usenet are proven copyrighted material unless the authors attach a
notice to their messages specifically placing it in the public domain.
The law is quite specific on this matter, and I doubt that it could be
completely reversed to work the opposite way by a simple court ruling.
--
John C. Rivard "Stay off that highway: word is it's not so safe
<jcr@mcs.com> The grasses that hide the green-backs,
http://www.mcs.net/~jcr/ the amber waves of growing grain" --R.E.M.
------------------------------
From: jcr@mcs.com (John C. Rivard)
Date: 03 Apr 1996 10:26:15 -0600
Subject: Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns
Organization: very little
References: <comp-privacy8.28.11@cs.uwm.edu> <comp-privacy8.29.3@cs.uwm.edu>
sgs@access.digex.net (Steve Smith) wrote: As a silly example, Alan
Sherman copyrighted middle C. Anybody who played middle C was
playing his "song". Anybody who played any other note was playing
his song transposed. Needless to say, it never hit the courts.
The courts have an established precedent to guide them on this specific
example called "The Eight-Bar Rule." Essentially, it is a legal rule of
thumb which states that if more than eight measures of a song is
substantially (melodically) identical to a pre-existing copyrighted
work, the new work is considered derivative work, and royalties must be
paid to the copyright holder of the original work. If the "identical"
parts of the song are less than eight bars, it is generally considered
an original (non-infringing) work.
This is not spelled out in the law, it is a gauge that the courts have
established through rulings on cases of (mis)appropriation of music.
Needless to say, a single C note is very unlikely to continue for eight
bars, and this could explain why Alan Sherman never attempted to pursue
infringement in court.
--
John C. Rivard "Stay off that highway: word is it's not so safe
<jcr@mcs.com> The grasses that hide the green-backs,
http://www.mcs.net/~jcr/ the amber waves of growing grain" --R.E.M.
------------------------------
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Date: 03 Apr 96 22:37 EST
Subject: Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
References: <comp-privacy8.28.11@cs.uwm.edu>
andypajta@aol.com (AndyPajta) wrote: If anything I write is
copyrighted as soon as it is "fixed" and I choose to "publish" it
on a newsgroup for other SUBSCRIBERS, ...
Well, maybe.
The idea of a newsgroup "subscriber" is a pretty vague one, defined
only by entries in each user's own configuration files. Not only do
authors of messages have no idea of who'll be reading them, even the
managers of the users' systems don't, and who subscribes to what
changes from minute to minute, with no way for anyone to tell who's
doing what.
Also don't forget that usenet works by flooding, with each node sending
everything to all of its neighbors. If usenet is like a magazine, it's
like a most peculiar one, where you run down the street giving copies
to everyone you pass, and with a message on the front cover saying
"PLEASE GIVE COPIES OF THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW". To claim that
someone is somehow not authorized to give away electronic copies of a
usenet message is just silly. Arguments about commercial use are
equally unpersuasive unless you plan to sue every commercial ISP in the
world.
Finally, remember that copyright is a civil, not a criminal law.
Unless you've registered your copyright, which requires a paper form
and $20, you can only claim actual damages from an infringer. This
means that even were you to take someone like DejaNews to court, what
could you claim? That they gave copies to people who weren't allowed
to have them? Hardly. All they've done that's new is to make an
index, and indices have been around and quite legal for centuries.
Unlike some people I don't believe that sending a usenet message puts
it totally in the public domain. There is a useful distinction between
electronic distribution and other forms. For example, a couple of
years ago Wired magazine took a usenet message of mine, stripped off
the attribution, and published it in the paper version of their
magazine. I think that was wrong. You might even make a case if
someone appropriated your words and passed them off on the net as their
own. But claiming that making a index of usenet messages somehow
infringes? No way.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <paul@TDR.COM>
Date: 05 Apr 1996 11:09:49 EST
Subject: Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA
andypajta@aol.com (AndyPajta), wrote If anything I write is
copyrighted as soon as it is "fixed" and I choose to "publish" it
on a newsgroup for other SUBSCRIBERS, that doesn't give any
individual subscriber (the search engine, in this case), the right
to re-publish it (i.e., to charge advertisers for space on their
web page and allow the viewing of my composition beyond what I
originally intended).
I think you would have a hard time arguing this. The historical
operation of Usenet is to send an article to all sites that collect it,
to allow them to transmit it to recipients, either as bulk downloads
(ala UUCP), as single articles (rn, trn and tin newsreaders), or as
articles transmitted to a further site (NNTP).
Showing an article via the World Wide Web seems to me, to be no
different than a user logging onto a site and using, say, tin to read
that article. I use tin, and it has a rudimentary search feature to
examine posted articles in a newsgroup for certain texts. It can also
search for specific authors and show articles from them.
I believe that the legal doctrine of "fair use" and "implied license"
would apply here: by posting a message on usenet you are permitting its
distribution to other sites that carry it. Also, because disk space
has, until recently, been very expensive so newsgroup articles tended
to be purged rapidly. There is no requirement that this be done,
however; if a place has the disk space to store everything, it would be
permissible for it to do so.
It could be argued that you gave permission for the article to be
placed on the network and thus made available as part of the regular
message traffic to be used in the 'usual and customary' activities of
that traffic, which include the storing of messages for display as
requested.
Would it have made any difference if they had simply offered a telnet
site and allowed people to use, say, tin, rn or any other news reader
to read the articles and simply never expired them?
Would it be considered an infringement to use a web site to display
messages 'live', (i.e. during the first week after it was posted)
instead of using, say, a modem connection, rlogon or telnet to connect
to the host computer? It's merely a different way of displaying the
information, *if it is infringement*, doing so in this manner makes it
no less infringement than doing so by telnet, rlogin, dial-up line via
modem, NNTP delivery or UUCP feed, and *if it is not infringement*,
then the method of delivery does not change the non-infringing display
via a news reader into an infringing one simply because a web server is
used.
Where is the infringement occurring? If it is legitimate for a site to
carry your messages ten minutes or ten days after you posted them, how
does the same action ten months later, without any intervening pause,
become infringement, i.e. they continue keeping all articles available
forever instead of purging them? Why is there a difference?
If a site archived everything on Usenet at the end of each day to
CD-ROM and distributed that, I believe it is no more infringing (and no
less infringing) than copying onto tape or delivering via wire in
real-time.
Nor does the issue of whether a place makes a profit is relevant to the
issue: every Internet Provider that sells Internet access is a
for-profit enterprise and the fact they make money selling access to
Usenet is irrelevant to whether infringement has or has not occurred.
If it is infringement to reproduce something ten months after its
production, it was still infringement to reproduce it ten *minutes*
after.
Further, federal law makes it clear that if someone has legitimate
ownership of a copy of a work, they have every right to dispose of that
copy by resale, or to keep it. If you posted an article that you are
the owner, it would presume that you gave permission for its
distribution. Since any provider can give any of its customers any
number of copies of the article (anyone can read an article multiple
times), I can't see where there is any specific legal reason they can't
keep the copy permanently.
If you sent a letter into USA today, you would own the copyright in
that letter, but I would expect you would have no right to prevent
University Microfilms from copying your letter as part of that issue of
the newspaper, or to prohibit them from making for-profit reproductions
of the film your letter is in. Or if it was in an on-line service, is
there any legal right to prohibit them from including your letter as
one of the items that full-text searches could be done?
I don't think so.
The person who created the article still owns it, and may exploit it as
they see fit, including preventing others from using it beyond fair
use. But there is probably good grounds to argue that those who take a
full feed, in presenting it are doing so as part of fair use, since
they take everything as it comes.
I could therefore argue that anyone receiving a usenet feed has, under
implied license and fair use provisions, every right to archive, index
and reproduce that feed, or parts thereof when requested. Such actions
are part and parcel of the current system for distributing Usenet and
thus should be considered appropriate as "fair use".
I can determine no means to declare such a system as DejaNews is
running and the common, ordinary operation of usenet article storage
and use of newsreaders in a manner that it is possible to differentiate
between the two for purposes of infringement. If what DejaNews is
doing constitutes infringement, then, the actions of *every site in the
world that carries usenet news* is also infringing *in the exact same
way*.
This is my opinion as a non-lawyer, which is my right to make under the
1st Amendment.
--
Paul Robinson
General Manager
Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc.
--
Among Other things, we sell and service ideas. Call 1-800-TDARCOS from
anywhere in North America if you are interested in buying an idea to
solve one of your problems.
------------------------------
From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu ()
Date: 03 Apr 1996 15:59:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Finding Lost Money
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
References: <comp-privacy8.29.5@cs.uwm.edu>
Todd W Burgess (tburgess@uoguelph.ca) wrote: I find it hard to
believe that a third party can circumvent all the bank's security
procedures for a small fee. As well, I also find it hard to believe
that the bank would permit access to its customer database. I would
hope the only people who have access to my customer information is
the bank and nobody else.
I don't know about Canada, but here in Virginia there is a state
program that searches for the owners of "abandoned" bank accounts.
There is a state agency that maintains list of names and the bank and
town for each of the accounts that have been reported to them as
inactive. Of course, there is a state regulation that requires the
banks to report the inactive accounts. The state is required to try to
locate the rightful owner of the account, and occasionally they publish
lists of names in various newspapers. They will give anyone a full
list of the names if asked.
I can easily see one of those deals where a company takes free
governement published information and then sells it.
**********************************************************************
* Bill Ranck 540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu *
*Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center *
**********************************************************************
------------------------------
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Date: 03 Apr 96 17:25 EST
Subject: Re: Finding Lost Money
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
A couple of week ago, I heard a disturbing radio commercial. The ad
said that there is over 200 million dollars of inactive bank
accounts across Canada and you may be entitled to it. All you had
to do is call a 1-900 number and they would do a search for you
I don't know what the rules are in Canada, but in the U.S. abandoned
bank accounts are eventually forfeited to the state. You'll see large
ads in the paper every once in a while with a list in small type of the
account names forfeited. You can get your money (or more likely, your
ancestors' money you inherited) back from the state, but without
interest.
Assuming that the situation is analogous and they're compiling data
from the newspaper ads or equivalent, I can't see much privacy
problem.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof
------------------------------
From: D.Rinewalt@tcu.edu (Dick Rinewalt)
Date: 04 Apr 1996 22:38:29 -0600
Subject: USPS Address Change Plan
According to a wire report quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on
April 3, Postmaster General Runyon announced that by the end of the
month the agency will send confirmation notices to both the old and new
addresses of individuals who file change notices. The notice sent to
the old address will not include new address information.
------------------------------
From: Robert Ellis Smith <0005101719@mcimail.com>
Date: 05 Apr 96 09:15 EST
Subject: Increasingly Intrusive Capability
How can people who work daily with computers and know their
capabilities simply shrug whenever a new application comes along that
threatens privacy? "So, what else is new?" they ask. Like Michael
McClennen, who sees nothing new in the capacity now to se arch at a
keyboard for the names, phone numbers, home addresses, and e-mail
addresses of anybody throughout the U.S. What's new is that - even
though that information has always been available - to get it you would
have had to search directories in publi c libraries - or phone booths -
in hundreds of cities. It was simply impractical. Now it isn't. What
else is new is that we were not aware of this capability when we
provided the information in the first place. Something else that is
"new": In the 19 90s, one's home address is no longer an innocuous
piece of information, especially if you are a woman. It can be a
matter of life or death.
Likewise, Dean Ridgeway has no objection to a company with an 800
number being able to display his name, address, phone number, "AND
CREDIT RATING" when he calls. I hope that he will concede that many of
us do object - especially those who have been the victims of
credit-card fraud or who have experienced inaccurate credit reporting.
Remember, his credit report most likely includes his Social Security
number. Would he like to call an 800 number simply to inquire about a
product and have his credit repo rt available to the telemarketing
sales person? Does it matter to him that accessing a credit rating at
that point is illegal? Would he like to call an 800 hotline for
confidential counseling about a personal crisis and have his name and
address display ed for the counselor? Does he object if the display
includes demographic data about his neighborhood, as it does in
Southwest Bell's service area? (It's fair for a company to store the
phone numbers of people calling into an 800 number because it's esse
ntially a collect call, but that doesn't mean that every employee
answering the phone needs to see that information. Too many
possibilities for abuse.)
Federal Communications Commission rules, by the way, prohibit the
secondary use of that incoming ANI information - that is, use of the
information for a purpose incompatible with the purpose for which the
information is provided.
On another matter, Jack Quinn asked whether an employer could get
access to PERSONAL discs and use them as a basis for discipline. An
employer may use anything as the basis for discipline, even if it is
procured illegally (unless the basis is related to race, sex, age,
handicap, or religious discrimination). It's the police who must use
only legally-procured evidence. Still, for an employer to seize
computer media that is clearly marked PRIVATE or PERSONAL may violate
the Electronic Communications Priv acy Act or a state computer-crime
law. It is not a violation to access or seize computer materials
related to the business.
--
Robert Ellis Smith, Publisher, Privacy Journal newsletter, Providence
RI. Send a message if you would like an electronic sample of the
newsletter. 5101719@mcimail.com.
------------------------------
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Date: 05 Apr 1996 15:54:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Individual RTP vs. Corporate FOS
Organization: Gnu World Order
References: <comp-privacy8.27.10@cs.uwm.edu>
sybesma@netcom.com (Steven D. Sybesma) writes: I am posting here an
e-mail message I just sent to Deja News about their business
practices. I didn't find out about what their service consisted of
(although I had vaguely heard of them) until I read the Rocky
Mountain News article from 3/10/96 entitled "Searched, stalked on
Internet").
I think you have a legitimate issue here that deserves some play, and
has been dismissed a bit too easily by others who have responded. FYI,
there have been at least two other threads with similar discussion
("All Brothers May Be Watching Us" and "The Stalker's Home Page").
I think "stalking" provides an interesting analogy. If someone
observes you going into a certain store or restaurant or whatever,
that's fine because it's in a public place. But if they follow you
around enough to know everything you do, then that's considered to be
stalking, and you can get a restraining order. Just because it's
observable publicly doesn't mean it's OK to track a particular person.
This fact provides a precedent that may be relevant in the DejaNews
case.
Another angle that makes DejaNews look questionable depends on whether
or not you think it's OK for any organization to give out personal
information about an individual without that individual's informed
consent to that particular information transaction (or type of
transaction). Considering that public information becomes personal
(though perhaps not private) when collated by person, if an
organization does a search on your name, and then supplies the result
of that search to a third party, then I'd say they're engaged in the
transacting of personal information. It's bad manners to transact
personal information behind people's back, and that's about the best
thing I can say about it.
--
Hans Lachman
------------------------------
From: macrohead@aol.com (MacroHead)
Date: 05 Apr 1996 14:34:29 -0500
Subject: A Bar Copied my Drivers License
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
A bar here in Michigan (Macomb County), checks ID's at the door and
photo copies them. They did it before I had a chance to see what was
going on.
I objected and was told it was for their Mailing list of upcoming
events. I said I didn't want to be on there mailing list. They still
didn't give me the copy back and said they also needed it because of
trouble they've been having.
Can they do this? It had my Driv. Lic. #, addresss, photo and
signature. I admit if I write a check to a supermarket they have the
same info, except photo, but at least it's being done with my consent.
Opinions? Do I have any recourse? Please post to the newsgroup(not to
me) as I'll be deleting this screen name later to protect my privacy
from all the junk mailers who may find me here.
------------------------------
From: Peter Marshall <rocque@eskimo.com>
Date: 05 Apr 1996 17:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: AARP Privacy Invasion
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Adam Starchild wrote: It seems obvious to us: Postcards and
privacy don't go together. So why do bit-time mailers keep asking
consumers to put private information -- like credit card numbers --
on postcard reply devices? The latest offender is Retired Persons
Services, an organization sponsored by the American Association of
Retired Persons.
Interesting tie-in here to the AARP Pharmacy Service, which is also
sponsored by AARP. Seems there are some more privacy issues that apply
to these folks in addition to those explicitly involving privacy of
personal health care information. And AARP P.S. doesn't tell its
customers about the practices in question, thus precluding their
ability to make informed choices.
AARP P.S. appears to capture the originating numbers of callers to
their 800 number, with the ANI provided by MCI; although the P.S.
states this is only done after the customer has already "voluntarily"
provided this info. Requests to delete this data are apparently not
complied with, and, as indicated, there is no prior disclosure to the
caller.
Same with their other practice--call "monitoring" or "service
observing"--aka eavesdropping. A company exec. would neither confirm or
deny they do this. Some employees who take these calls are much clearer
about this practice, however....
It all seems to add up to a rather un-pretty picture, and one that does
no credit to sponsoring org. AARP. Communicate with your pocketbook --
so it would seem.
--
Peter Marshall.
------------------------------
From: rkarp@accessone.com
Date: 07 Apr 1996 04:01:02 GMT
Subject: Privacy and Computer Technology
Organization: AccessOne
While I hesitate to recomend any actions which impinge upon any
individuls's privacy,(it would be hypocritical) I do wonder what would
happen if some one had the time and energy to post, (make a web page)
or Email to the News services, a listing for ALL of our congress
critters, enumerating their credit rating, medical history, property
registrations, scholastic histories, census statistics, financial
position records (as requires by law), and arrest records.
All such are (unfortunatly) available, often through "computers".
A revelation of such info to the press (though personally distasteful)
might cause our [U.S.A.] congress critters to pay attention. I suspect
that having the amount of personal information available displayed,
might result in some speedy legislation promoting the issues of respect
for privacy and individual rights. The "Critters" only act when they
feel, or percieve the potential for, pain.
--
Rein Karp
------------------------------
From: aldoane@aol.com (Al Doane)
Date: 03 Apr 1996 08:51:56 -0500
Subject: Privacy and Computer Technology
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
I am prepairing a colege paper on personal privacy and modern computer
technology. What I am looking for are a few good examples of where
private personal information is available to anyone with a computer and
the desire to find out private/confidential information on anybody they
choose. I am familiar with lawenforcement controlled systems, such as
NCIC maintained by the FBI. I would like to know more about the
medical (insurance industry?), financial Banking and credit), business
and realestate ownership and other types of services that make
available this kind of information.
Anyone having knowledge of where I can get some basic information on
this type of available services/information please respond. I do not
wish to retrieve the information, just reference it in my paper.
--
Thanks, Al.
------------------------------
From: firebird@exit109.com (firebird)
Date: 06 Apr 1996 21:04:04 GMT
Subject: DoubleClick: 'We're No Peeping Toms'
Organization: Alantic Internet Technologies, Inc.
Review of On The Record column, page 11 of DIRECT Magazine, April 1,
1996
"DoubleClick: 'We're No Peeping Toms'"
"Privacy cops say new Poppe Tyson service is too nosy" by Lynn Jones
An article by Lynn Jones in DIRECT, a trade magazine for the Direct
Marketing industry, describes DoubleClick, a new service by Poppe Tyson
(New York) that monitors Web visitors. It apparently uses the Netscape
"Cookie" to obtain true email addresses and then reverse matches the
email addresses to true names and addresses.
"Unlike the list rental business, 'DoubleClick;s data isn't based on
transactional or public information,' ...'It basically records every
time you look in a store window, and that's nobody's business'"
"The program patterns every visitor, recording what sites they view the
most and how many times they've seen a particular ad."
"...DoubleClick uses Netscape's Magic Cookie technology which is
located on computer hard drives. DoubleClick accesses individual's hard
drives without permission and retrieves the recorded data with the help
of unique codes captured by Magic Cookie..."
The article includes a denial by DoubleClick president Kevin O'Connor
who says his company is doing nothing wrong, a statement that a DIRECT
staff member visit to a monitored site resulted in changes to the
Cookie file, and an assertion that Netscape will remove the technology
from its software. Netscape, according to the article, denies having
such a redesign in the works.
For additional information or to register complaints:
Direct Magazine web site:
http://www.mediacentral.com/Direct
Direct Magazine email address:
rsdirect@aol.com
Direct Marketing Association web site:
http://www.the-dma.org/welcome.html
Direct Marketing Association email:
president@the-dma.org
Poppe Tyson Web Site:
http://www.poppe.com/poppe/newyork/overview.html
Poppe Tyson email:
webmaster@sv.poppe.com
Bozell, Jacobs, Kenyon & Eckhardt (owner of Poppe Tyson):
Restricted web page. Not open to general public.
Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org
Federal Communications Commission:
http://www.fcc.gov/Consumer_Week.html#How
Federal Trade Commission:
http://www.fraud.com/
DoubleClick information:
http://altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&what=web&fmt=.&q=DoubleClick
------------------------------
From: hal@murren.ai.mit.edu (Hal Abelson)
Date: 07 Apr 1996 00:06:31 GMT
Subject: CFP96 Audio Sessions AVailable on the Web
Organization: MIT Project MAC
The Sixth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and
Privacy was held last week at MIT. Over the next few weeks, the web
site
web.mit.edu/cfp96
will be edited to contain the on-line conference proceedings.
Presently, the site contains audio recording of all the plenary
sessions as well as brief session summaries.
--
Hal Abelson
Phone: (617) 253-5856 Fax: (617) 258-8682
Email: hal@mit.edu
URL: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~hal/hal.html
MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Room NE43-429
545 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA 02139
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 07 Apr 1996 02:30:00 -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 #030
******************************
.