Date: Wed, 06 May 92 12:52:05 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#013 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 06 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 013 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#007 Re: Should political speech be censored online? Re: Should political speech be censored online? Post, please :) Cordless phones Re: Cordless Phones Re: Call for a new moderator? NO! The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.200]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 May 92 14:11:39 -0700 From: Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#007 I'd like to say a few words in favor of extreme moderation. Speaking only for myself, I'm nearly always hard pressed for time, so any culling of digests that someone else does is a little bit of the load off my back. I've always been very impressed that anyone was willing to invest the time it takes to moderate a mailing list or digest, and I don't think many of you take that seriously enough. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Dennis is making that investment makes this _his digest_ and gives him _absolute authority_ to edit it in any way he sees fit. If he decides to proceed in a manner that I don't agree with, I'm sure he'd let me unsubscribe. This being an informational free market, that's everyone's right: vote with your feet, as it were. Furthermore, if you post something, as Mr. Tenney did (which, by the way, seems to me to have been suited more for a local distribution medium than an international one), which is not published, you always have the right to start your own mailing list. Remember the guy who got sick of Patrick's culling of his postings, and started alt.telecom or whatever it was? Its lack of popularity demonstrates the fact that a well-edited digest is of much more value than one to which everyone can post freely. Which is not to say that I don't think it's absolutely necessary that there be a means of letting people post freely; there is, and that's good. But I don't see that anyone has the right to harass Dennis over his choice of moderation method. -Bill Woodcock ________________________________________________________________________________ bill.woodcock.iv..woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu..2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 92 0:22:39 EDT From: Brinton Cooper cc: comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online? Reply-To: cooper@dewey.udel.edu In the ongoing debate of proper use of federally-owned and operated computers and nets, it is worthwhile pointing out that "management" at many of our installations has decreed that talk.*, alt.* and most rec.* newsgroups may not be offered to the machine's users because they are deemed generally to carry very little, if any, traffic that is "relevant to the mission of the organization." I'm quite sure that, put to a referendum, UseNet would come off all government-owned and government-funded machines and nets. (Remember, this includes NSFNET from which a large number of users access UseNet.) The big issue today is taxes: No one wants to pay them; no one wants public employees getting something for nothing. (Many folks don't want public employees getting full measure for something, but that's for another forum.) _BCooper ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman cc: John Nagle Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online? Date: Tue, 05 May 92 07:01:20 EDT Dagnabbit, I am really tired of all this whining about whether or not we need a new moderator. We have a lot of short memories here. I seem to remember a time last year when Dennis was looking for somebody to take over the job. Well, where were all our guardians of free speech then, when it was time to *volunteer* to do some *work*? While I disagree with Dennis' interpretation of the Hatch Act, I also think one does not *need* to invoke the Hatch Act to kill the posting in question. This is not alt.politics. I do not want to have this forum cluttered up with campaign material. If a campaign is involved in privacy-related issues, a "news item" type of posting would be interesting. But not advertising. If Mr. Whomever wishes to engage us in a discussion of the issues, that's fine. But that doesn't appear to be what happened in this case. He wanted to post an advertisement, or a press release. I think it is a reasonable decision to not run it. The Moderator's job is to keep the signal to noise ratio up. We could all help by going back to privacy discussions rather than meta discussions of moderation. -- Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ From: Steve Barber Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online? Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 12:38:38 GMT >[Moderator's Note: This is a technical forum not a polical forum. ] Well, you can call it whatever you want, I suppose. Seems to me that about 90% of the messages here deal with questions of legality and policy, which is why I read it. And besides, choices of technology are quite frequently made for "political" reasons, especially in the telecommunications area. -- Steve Barber sbarber@panix.com "The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation. ------------------------------ Subject: Post, please :) From: Brian Hendrix Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 09:24:02 +0100 > I tend to agree that a new moderator or perhaps no moderator would >be a solution that could satisfy all parties. People who believe in >principles of privacy should also have strong beliefs in freedom of >expression, as both are fundamental elements of a working democracy. A >new moderator would certainly allow for an opening of debate on many >related issues, and leave no room for reprecussions against those >who's postings could jeopardize their employment. Are there any other >opinions on this? > - Bill Currie > duxbury@sfu.ca Recognizing appropriate topics of discussion is also important. While I also believe in freedom of expression, I have no interest in reading the election platform of an American congressional hopeful. I would like to see this forum restrict itself to topics that aren't better coverered in other forums. I don't believe that the restrictions, or possible restrictions, on the moderator that may be due to his employment will in any way prevent the discussion in this forum. Political campaigning is, IMHO, best left to talk.politics or another more appropriate forum. I support the moderator in his actions so far. It is necessary to discriminate to some degree or else we'll be wandering all over the map, so to speak. Brian Hendrix bhendrix@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca Edmonton Remote Systems: Celebrating 10 years of service to Northern Alberta ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 92 13:26:01 -0700 From: "Robert L. McMillin" Subject: Cordless phones Skipper Smith writes on Fri, 1 May 1992 21:51:30 GMT: > For those people who are paranoid about people snooping in on their cordless > phone calls but don't want to be tied down to a corded phone, Motorola started > producing (about three months ago or so) a cordless phone with a simple > coding of the signal. I don't know what type of coding it is, but it will > definately stop the casual snooper (kind of like a lock on the door). Since > the coding scheme is public knowledge, it won't stop anyone who is really > serious. For those people who are REALLY paranoid, you will have to wait for > the next version :-). The phones in question, according to the folk who write in TELECOM Digest (Usenet: comp.dcom.telecom), are not really encoded at all, but are digital, thus preventing reception by people listening in on scanners or other brands of cordless phones. > Since the phones are produced by a different segment, I am afraid that I don't > know where they are sold or who they are sold by. They are available from Sears, or so I've been told. Motorola employees can purchase them directly from Motorola. --- Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 92 23:00 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Anthony Rzepela writes: > How many hours of potential wage-earning time did he spend trying to > keep his life to himself? > > How much privacy can we afford? That is the new, evil question. Mine is rather "how much privacy do we care about"? This whole exercise reminds me somewhat of the endless debate over CNID: awfully long on scenerios and "what ifs"; terribly short on actual situations where there has been or even appears to have been a problem. I am a fairly average person with an ATM card, some credit cards, utilities, vehicles, etc. I am registered to vote, post heavily on the net, and am actively involved in the matter of technical consultations for criminal matters. Many, many people have my SSN. Can someone find out things about me? You bet. And so what? You would think by now, at least SOME of this much discussed evil would have befallen me, no? This is beginning to smell like the old computer witch hunt, where people who have a half-assed knowledge of the technology start getting all freaked out about what the computer CAN do, what conversations MIGHT be listened to, and what dossiers MIGHT be compiled. I thought the old saw about making sure NO ONE got your social security number went out of vogue years ago. Granted, it is different to live in 1992 rather than 1892. Some things are easier; some things are harder. Can you imagine what some traveler from that day who was beginning a transcontinental journey might say if you told him that in one hundred years people would be more concerned about "privacy" than that trip he was about to endure? As I have asked repeatedly (and never had anyone provide significant response) about CNID, so I ask about this "privacy in general" issue: please cite some case histories of genuine and undeserved harm that an innocent citizen has experienced as a result of computerized information gathering. But realize this: you COULD in the next hour take your automobile and kill five or ten people with it. Now that is SERIOUS harm. Why do we still let you drive? "What if" is a tricky game. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: William Pfeiffer Subject: Re: Call for a new moderator? NO! Date: Tue, 5 May 92 12:51:18 CDT In article > >scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stuart M Castergine) writes: > Bill Currie duxbury@sfu.ca writes: > > >On this group in particular, I feel uncomfortable thinking that our > >posts are going through some sort of government censor before being > >approved. > > I tend to agree that a new moderator or perhaps no moderator would > be a solution that could satisfy all parties. People who believe in > principles of privacy should also have strong beliefs in freedom of > expression, as both are fundamental elements of a working democracy. A > new moderator would certainly allow for an opening of debate on many > related issues, and leave no room for reprecussions against those > who's postings could jeopardize their employment. Are there any other > opinions on this? YES, THERE IS. I, too am leary about Dennis's employment by, and use of equipment run by, the US army, hence the Federal Government. Yes, the government is, indeed, a prime subject here on Privacy Digest. My more paranoid side is very concerned. BUT.. That concern is NOT enough to get me to go freak-out-wild and start shooting at any target in sight, least of all Dennis. Like the hippies of the sixties (a culture I actually was PART of) who hated the cop on the street, the government worker, the common foot soldier etc. You are condemning Dennis for the rules and restrictions of his employer. I have faith in Dennis, so I would vote NO on any call for a new moderator, without much more proof that he is culpable in some major censorship. I reacted, originally, to the allegations of censorship, but after careful consideration of the facts (as I read them) I think Dennis is doing a pretty good job. I would like to ask him to make _EVERY_ effort to secure a non-army non-government-controlled/influenced internet account with which to edit this newsgroup, though. Perhaps someoe in Dennis's area could assist in finding him such an account. But, let's not spit on the footsoldier as the cause of the war. Dennis did not write the damned Hatch(et) act, give him a break. William > [Moderator's Note: You make the assumption that any debate has been > stifled. As I said in a previous post I will not censor anything that > belongs in this forum. Dennis ] I make no such assumption, Dennis. Keep up the great work, but try to find a more condusive computer connection. Even if YOU are 100% honest (as I believe you to be) who's to say what commander has 'root' access to your army system and is keeping nice little diaries about all that we discuss here. After all, Privacy and our rights there-to would be very interesting reading for some in the Government Intelligence community. What say? W -- ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #013 ******************************