Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 16:04:41 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#004 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 28 Jul 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 004 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: America Online censor Re: America Online censor Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work re: First Person broadcast on privacy... Call for Articles, EJVC: Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture 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 [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Martin Subject: Re: America Online censor Date: 26 Jul 1993 21:20:49 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC In Richard Roda writes: >Why not have these electronic discussion bases have a killfile? Then the >people can decide what they will and will not hear, and a sysadmin or sysop >will not have to "Boot" people offline. In the case of the sysop, however, You agree that minimal coercion is preferable, correct? If a group of people wish to have a particular type of discussion, and there is general agreement as to what sort of discussion they wish to pursue, boorish behavior "forces" the group to use the killfile in order to meet their goal. This amounts to (possibly) hundreds of people forced into an action that -most- people would rather not do. We've all been taught that it's impolite to ignore people. The coercion of forcing one boor to be polite or get out is relatively little coercion, and therefore the better way to handle things - less coercion and, in the long run, less repeats of this sort of thing, and therefore likely to be less polarizing. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 03:22 GMT From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: America Online censor I've seen this issue about PRODIGY and AMERICA ONLINE come up over and over- censorship, reading mail, forcing users to adopt double-speak for words the system (big brother?) finds offensive. My question is this, _WHY_ does PRODIGY and AMERICA ONLINE management find it necessary to go to all the trouble and expense of scrubbing their system to keep it "clean" to their specs (are they employing humans to bounce "offenders" off, or simple keyword-checking by computer- either way there must be people being paid to do this nonsense)? I am on CompuServe and many Internet mailing lists and I don't remember ever seeing these sorts measures being necessary. CompuServe has rules of etiquette that are more or less - I believe - based on courtesy and common sense. Have these other services put in all this added work just for their own amusement (maybe PRODIGY has some pathological fear of becoming profitable and must take steps to encourage bad press)? I've never read _WHY_ PRODIGY and AMERICA ONLINE do all the monitoring, maybe it's because they have had to react to the pressure of "infants" who can't seem to control themselves and feel it's necessary to blurt (write- "wrurt"?) out messages designed to offend? Personally, I can't see paying a monthly fee to giggle like a schoolboy who's found "penis" is written in the dictionary! What's the gag? Basically, did PRODIGY and AMERICA ONLINE start out with the screening (I don't want to say censorship because that is very ugly) of email traffic or did the behavior of their subscribers make it necessary? I know if someone abused the broadcast capability of LISTSERVers he would be flamed into oblivion, and maybe have his access revoked? Why do _hopefully_ normal, functional adults feel it is necessary to turn into children on PRODIGY or AMERICA ONLINE? Christopher Zguris CZGURIS@MCIMail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 23:45:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA Kevin Calmes , writes to comp-privacy@pica.army.mil: > What did you think of last nights Maria Schriver story about > privacy in the workplace? I thought the thing about private > e-mail was a bit of a stretch. After all it is the employers > computer and it is the employers right to know what is there. > Simply, don't put your private information in the company's > computer. 1. NBC has created, 18 news analysius programs like 60 minutes or 20/20. 17 of these have failed, and the head of the news division resigned in disgrace after it was discovered that NBC had fabricated an explosion to make a GM truck look worse than it was. It takes a lot of effort to make a company like GM look like a victim, considering how many screw ups it has made, but NBC did it. First Person is the 18th news analysis program produced by NBC. I figure *anything* NBC is putting into a news analysis program is done from despiration, so take anything they do with a grain of salt. 2. I did not see the show in question. 3. In the United States, *Federal Law* sets certain standards for any computer system that handles mail that is transferred intersystem, and it's called the Electronic Communications Protection Act, the same law that makes it illegal to monitor cellular phones. If your system is on the Internet or is otherwise connected to an outside network, certain rules are automatic and mandatory unless the system manager explicitly denies them. Failure to deny makes them automatic and mandatory. These provisions are: I. Private Mail may not be intercepted, monitored or read by third parties. II. In the absence of a subpoena, warrant or other process, the information in private E-Mail cannot be used in a court proceding. III. Violating these provisions is a federal crime punishable by fines and imprisonment, and the victim(s) can also sue civilly for up to $10,000 or provable damages. Let me ask you: your employer owns the telephone on your desk; should he have the right to record your telephone calls? He's paying for the call, shouldn't he be able to monitor anything transmitted? --- Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ From: David Hoffman Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work Date: 27 Jul 93 07:02:52 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University. In article tmis1692@altair.selu.edu writes: >What did you think of last nights Maria Schriver story about privacy in the >workplace? I thought the thing about private e-mail was a bit of a stretch. >After all it is the employers computer and it is the employers right to know >what is there. Simply, don't put your private information in the company's >computer. I would probably agree with that in principle, but I think there are laws or things that sound like laws that talk about a "reasonable expectation of privacy". I know first hand that a LOT of non-techie people who use corporate e-mail have no idea that someone other than the intended recipient can read their mail, and they are understandably rattled when they find out otherwise. I thought Schriver's piece was a little alarmist and sensational - she made every attempt to convey the message that "big brother is watching and you can't trust anyone - especially your employer". Not once did she mention anything about encryption, which I think would have given the stories a very different slant. It's quite a trip from "your boss can and will scrutinize every word you type and there's nothing you can do about it" to "the wires aren't bug-proof, but you can still make the message private". I guess it's more dramatic television if you just ignore the fact that there are solutions. ------------------------------ From: rogerj@otago.ac.nz Subject: re: First Person broadcast on privacy... Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 01:47:18 GMT In reply to Kevin Calmes article: >What did you think of last nights Maria Schriver story about privacy in the >workplace? I thought the thing about private e-mail was a bit of a stretch. >After all it is the employers computer and it is the employers right to know >what is there. Don't you expect that your personal mail to be treated as private when it is sent using a post office. I know that I would not accept anyone, other than the person who I have sent the letter to read it. And doesn't the post office own all the equipment that is used to send my letter from me to the person I am sending it to. While I realise that you are paying the post office for the service of handling your mail, you do not expect either the post office, you boss or anyone else (other than the person who it is addressed to) to read it. Why then do people treat the private information on computers with different values than standard methods of storing information? >Simply, don't put your private information in the company's computer. It is unfortunate that this is true. Roger Roger@otago.ac.nz C/o Otago University New Zealand The Otago University may or may not agree with the views expressed in this article, I haven't asked them. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 20:52:25 EST From: Diane Kovacs Subject: Call for Articles, EJVC: Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture The _Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture_ a refereed scholarly journal is now accepting submissions for Fall 1993 and Spring 1994 issues. The _Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture_ (EJVC) is a refereed scholarly journal that fosters, encourages, advances and communicates scholarly thought on virtual culture. Virtual culture is computer-mediated experience, behavior, action, interaction and thought, including electronic conferences, electronic journals, networked information systems, the construction and visualization of models of reality, and global connectivity. EDITORIAL GUIDLINES FOR AUTHORS FORM AND STYLE 1. Use a recognized standard form and style, preferably the APA Publication Manual published by the American Psychological Association, as modified by the following requirements. 2. Do not have any line that exceeds 60 characters in length. 3. Do not use any figure or diagram. 4. Do not have more than 1000 lines in any article. 5. Do not submit any draft in any format other than ASCII. SUBMISSION An article may be submitted at any time to the EJVC for peer-review with the understanding that the peer-review requires time. Acknowledgements of the arrival of any article shall be made within 24 hours of arrival. Notification of acceptance or rejection shall be sent to authors within 30 days of the arrival of the submission. Submissions are acceptable only by electronic mail or send/file. Submissions may be made to either the Editor-in-Chief or the Co-Editor. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF CO-EDITOR Ermel Stepp Diane Kovacs Marshall University Kent State University BITNET: BITNET: M034050@Marshall DKOVACS@Kentvm Internet: Internet: M034050@Marshall.WVNET.edu DKOVACS@Kentvm.Kent.edu SUBSCRIPTION To subscribe to the EJVC send electronic mail to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU, including a blank subject line and the sole line of text: subscribe EJVC-L Yourfirstname Yourlastname VAX/VMS may require that the sole line be within quotes to register names in other than uppercase. EJVC ANONYMOUS FTP Information about the EJVC and issues of the EJVC may be retreived by anonymous FTP to byrd.mu.wvnet.edu in subdirectory /pub/ejvc. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #004 ******************************