Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 16:46:35 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#062 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 16 Jul 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 062 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Administrivia Urgently needed information on e-mail privacy Re: Caller ID decision On Privacy, Utility Regulation & RBOC Info Gateways 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: Wed, 15 Jul 92 18:09:33 EDT From: Computer Privacy List Moderator Subject: Administrivia Good evening. I thought I would give a status of the digest/newsgroup. The computer privacy digest is currently available in three ways: (1) Electronic Mail Digests - currently there are 301 direct subscribers and 25 exploders lists. (2) USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (3) USENET electronic mail - This is a combination of 1 & 2. These people get the digest via electronic mail but get fed individual articles instead of the whole digest. These people get the exact same thing people from USENET see. I think I have all my scripts working. At first I had some problems with bursting the digests into individual articles. This has been resolved. A policy statement has been drafted and posted. This will go out every 45 days or so. I had experimented with sending out automatic ACKs to submissions but since some mailers can't handle the "Errors-to:" field I was getting into a daemon auto-send loop. I will look into this again. Submissions have really gone down in the last two weeks. This is my first digest this week. Without submissions this forum can't exist. There are lots of topics that haven`t been mentioned here that probably should. Dennis ------------------------------ From: STG colleague Subject: Urgently needed information on e-mail privacy Date: 15 Jul 92 21:17:25 GMT Followup-To: comp.society.privacy >Does anyone know if there is any legislation protecting Email users from surveillance techniques and nosey managers? Please reply to: BARR@VAX.LSE.AC.UK MY HEARTFELT THANKS TO ANYONE WHO CARES TO RESPOND Erika Barr ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 01:03:28 -0700 From: "Michael C. Berch" Subject: Re: Caller ID decision Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, California, USA Steve Forrette writes: > I think you are overlooking a big difference here. In the case of a "large > company" getting a direct T1 with 800 ANI, they are paying for the call. > Certainly those who wish to remain anonymous have no business expecting > someone else to pay for their calls. And that's just what you're doing > anytime you call an 800 number - asking the recipient to pay for it. Also, > there is a long-standing tradition in US telecom that the person paying for > the call gets to know who both parties are. [...] This tradition has already been broken -- by cellular phone service. Cellular customers pay air time for incoming calls (which are generally free to callers in the area), but incoming calls are listed on the bill with the customer's own cellular number (in most cases, mine included), or simply as "INCOMING" on other systems' bills. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 11:51:54 -0700 From: ole!rwing!peterm@nwnexus.wa.com (Peter Marshall) Subject: On Privacy, Utility Regulation & RBOC Info Gateways [From 7/1/92 joint reply comments of US West Comm. and Community Link Minitel Assocs. to the responses of other parties to the...Report on privacy issues re: Community Link]: ...Community Link may not be subject to regulation by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. USWC and CLMA believe...observations are well founded.... the Company may believe the service is not subject to regulation because it is not a telephone service.... The...most conservative alternative, is to begin offering the service as if it was regulated and sort through the regulatory issues at a later date. In the original filings, USWC and CLMA took the conservative approach by filing Community Link as an emerging competitive service.... The FCChas concluded that Community Link is an enhanced deregulated service.... problem...concerning the issues being addressed by the...report. USWC and CLMA strongly agree that the problems addressed are speculative.... ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #062 ******************************