Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 15:47:49 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V6#007 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 20 Jan 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 007 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Opening Mail Re: Opening Mail Re: Opening Mail Privacy... What Privacy? Re: CallerID Opinion Re: Signature Digitizers Re: Corporate e-Mail Privacy Policies Phone Numbers as IDs Clipper Chip Debate - Transcript Status Re: Inns Law ? (INSLAW) The Cyber Police Are Coming Supreme Court Decision on Anonymity Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AriadneM@scruznet.com (A. Marina Fournier) Date: 17 Jan 1995 11:36:45 -0800 Subject: Re: Opening Mail Organization: The (Re)Sourceress keywest54@aol.com (KEYWEST54) wrote: The US Post Office is the worst offender as a junk mail source. The Postal Service sells the change of address cards submitted to a "clearinghouse". This is why the junk (et al) seems to follow you everywhere. According to a letter I received from the Consumer Affairs Dept. of the USPS, they don't have any control over their change of address listings. I'd like to know why they gave up that perogative. I spend an hour most weeks deleting myself from mailings to me and former tenants of my box & residence. I got myself off the supermarket & other ciruclars by mailing a do-not-send notice to the address on the card that mandatorily accompanies the wad. My mail carrier knows that I don't get the stuff, also. -- "Islay...and it's good-bye to care" ------------------------------ From: AriadneM@scruznet.com (A. Marina Fournier) Date: 17 Jan 1995 11:41:29 -0800 Subject: Re: Opening Mail Organization: The (Re)Sourceress travis@netrix.com (Travis Low) wrote: Go to the post office which handles your mail and inform them that you are being harassed by a XXX at xxxxx address and you wish this to stop immediately. If I remember correctly, postal inspectors then notify the company that the mailings to you must stop or they will face stiff fines and federal prosecution. However, you must first have followed steps such as printing "REFUSED" clearly on the front of the mailings and having it returned to sender at least once I have had more problems with AT&T ignoring the "do not send/refused" bit than any other ten firms combined. On the second "don-not-send" letter, I cc my PO and the offender's PO. Marina the easily irritated by AT&T commercials. -- "Islay...and it's good-bye to care" ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 19 Jan 1995 20:30:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Opening Mail Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA "David C. Frier" , writes: The post office gets a government-granted monopoly on mail service, which may be even better than a $$ subsidy, eh? They can make you put 32 cents postage on that FedEx letter, too. Also, the analyses I've seen indicate that first-class mail costs MUCH less than 32 cents a piece to process, and it subsidizes your 6" a day of junk mail. It's strictly a matter of who has the better lobbyists, eh? Every local public utility has a monopoly on the delivery of their service, e.g. for telephone, gas, electric, water, sewer and (until recent changes) cable television. They don't get federal subsidies and I'm certain their costs are less than they charge us. Mail service had better cost much less than 32 cents a piece or we're in a lot of trouble. Typically, the post office raises rates every three years, in which it makes money the first year, breaks even the second and loses money the third. The post office has had the unfortunate habit of not taking into account the effect of a raise on common customers and listening to the volume users who complain the loudest. The old postage stamp should have been set at 30c, not 29; it made it too much trouble. Likewise the rate for new stamps should have been 35c instead of 32c. It would have caused a lot less trouble for the vast majority people if they knew that every three years or every 5 the rate would go up by 5c. The high volume bulk mailers can ask for - and receive - a discount for doing a lot of the work for the post office such as CART SORT, sorting to 3, 5 and 9 digits and pre-traying the mail. But let's not make things difficult for average users just to shave three cents off the cost of a letter and then come back and raise the rates again in two years. To tie this into privacy, perhaps if the USPS got more money for mailing letters, maybe it could forego the revenue of selling address information. :) ------------------------------ From: bmallard@leif.ucs.mun.ca (BRIAN J. MALLARD) Date: 17 Jan 95 16:15:06 -0230 Subject: Privacy... What Privacy? Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada What privacy? Ever since I've been surfing the Net, I've been receiving solicitations from book publishers to enrol in book clubs geared toward the Internet. Coincidence or what? "The fantastic advances in the field of electronic communication constitute a greater danger to the privacy of the individual" Earl Warren ------------------------------ From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning) Date: 18 Jan 1995 06:28:18 GMT Subject: Re: CallerID Opinion Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Doug Sewell (doug@cc.ysu.edu) writes: The next best thing, currently available, is a CNID box from Sears (I don't remember who actually makes it). It has a button on the front, that when activated, answers all blocked calls with a voice message like "We're sorry, this phone line does not accept calls that block Caller ID". The phone still rings once, but it dies after that. So what does this wonder device do for someone who gets defacto per line blocking by virue of the fact that their line is on an old technology switch where the telco can't let any subscribers turn "smart phone" features on and off, eg. you have Call Waiting and ask the telco how to turn it off during modem sessions, only to be told that you can't. A co-worker tells me that her mother bought a caller ID box for call screening and finds it useless because her daughter always shows as "unknown number" rather than "private". With the way that BC Tel is whining about loosing long distance revenue and not making money on local service it will be a while before these switches get replaced. BC Tel provides other ways of getting around "private" blockers, such as "alternate number display". From the directory "When a caller attempts to return a call to your alternate number they will reach a recorded message stating 'The party you are attempting to reach does not accept calls on this number.'" The directory also states that "Per Call Blocking may not suppress number delivery to some U.S. and overseas destinations." I think that individuals and businesses who have paid good money for caller ID without knowing these little bits of information probably have as much reason to feel ripped off at Telcos as non-published subscribers do. This technology was introduced to make money for Telcos by (sometimes) revealing the callers number. It is so unreliable in doing so that I really wonder why they don't run afoul of marketing practices laws. ------------------------------ From: Dean Ridgway Date: 19 Jan 1995 02:28:25 -0800 Subject: Re: Signature Digitizers "Vinod Narayanan" writes: Service Merchandise seems to have adopted a similar policy, when I last shopped there couple of months back. When I refused to sign on the digitizer, the clerk called the manager, who tried to tell me that the "signature does not go to the computer". After a few minutes of #satire mode on Yeah, right, tell me a story guys. >:-P #satire mode off I remember a few months ago when this discussion was about the UPS digi-pads. I recently read a full page ad on the inside back cover of "January 9 Newsweek" where you can now call UPS about a package and they will FAX you back a receipt document "signed" by the digitized signature off the pad. I wonder how long it will be before a black market in digitized signatures starts up by some disgruntled or dishonest employee that has access to the database. The next time someone wants my signature on a digitizer pad I think I'll just sign with "X". -- Dean Ridgway | Two roads diverged in a wood, and I- InterNet ridgwad@csos.orst.edu | I took the one less traveled by, FidoNet 1:357/1.103 | And that has made all the difference. CIS 73225,512 | "The Road Not Taken" - Robert Frost. PGP mail encouraged, finger for key: 28C577F3 2A5655AFD792B0FB 9BA31E6AB4683126 ------------------------------ From: paul.hedges@mail.admin.wisc.edu (Paul E. Hedges) Date: 20 Jan 1995 03:11:31 GMT Subject: Re: Corporate e-Mail Privacy Policies Organization: State Historical Society of Wisconsin bthayer@cs.ida.org says... I would like to see if there is a consensus on e-mail being treated as phone conversations are, ie, private unless specific legal reasons exist for tapping them. Several years ago the Wisconsin Attorney General presented an opinion that the current wiretapping laws in Wisconsin DID NOT apply to e-mail. This prompted some legislation that attempted to better define e-mail and require state agencies (not private sector) to develop internal policies on access. The legislation was vetoed by the Governor and not overturned. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Paul Hedges Electronic Records Archivist Pilot Electronic Records Project State Historical Society of Wisconsin paul.hedges@mail.admin.wisc.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ From: mr@world.std.com (Michael J Rollins) Date: 20 Jan 1995 11:17:54 GMT Subject: Phone Numbers as IDs Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Paul Robinson (paul@tdr.com) wrote: Or, more likely, which is becoming common for automated ordering of Pay Per View, is to assign an event a telephone number (an 800 number is used where Caller-ID isn't available) and when you call that number, your phone number is cross referenced against your account to know who is to be enabled for the service. Has any one else noticed the new trend of businesses answering their phones with an immediate request for a phone number. This first happened to me when I called several months ago to inquire about maybe getting an account at AOL. Since then, it has also happened when I called a few other companies. Most recently, it happened last week when I called the customer service number at AT&T. It appears that this is in fact being done as a sort of password situation, since all of the numbers where this has so far happened are of the eight hundred variety. Using phone numbers is simple enough and should be non-intrusive, since if there is a problem they can't handle right away, they would need to call you back anyway. With all due respects, I am a name not a number! Beyond that, maybe there are a few situations where I honestly do not want to end up on what I see as being the wrong mailing list, or even the wrong telemarketer's calling list. What happens if I do not want anyone to call me back? -- Mike Rollins mjr@ids.net mr@world.std.com Speaking only for myself. ------------------------------ From: dilute@panix.com (Ron Abramson) Date: 20 Jan 1995 18:21:40 GMT Subject: Clipper Chip Debate - Transcript Status Organization: Panix Public Access UNIX and Internet Since last evening's program on the Clipper Chip, we have received numerous requests for transcripts. Here is the status: The program was taped. The Association needs to check the quality of the tapes and to make copies. This will not be completed until early next week. If all is well, we will then begin working on preparing transcripts. This will be a lot of work, and we will try to do it as quickly as possible. I would hope to have the job done by the end of next week. Thanks again to everyone who participated and attended. Ron Abramson Chair, Committee on Computer Law The Association of the Bar of the City of New York e-mail: dilute@panix.com ------------------------------ From: rwmcn@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rosemary W McNaughton) Date: 17 Jan 1995 22:26:11 GMT Subject: Re: Inns Law ? (INSLAW) Organization: Masochists Institute of Technology SDBM18A@prodigy.com (Charlie Allen) writes: I cought the end of an NPR story on Inns Law. (sp?) I thought this would be the place to find out about it. The story was a little shocking to say the least.Had Big-Bro stamped on it. Charlie-- I don't know what you can access from Prodigy, but EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is generally a good place to start looking for information about computer crime and other civil rights and legal issues in cyberspace. The URL I have for INSLAW material is http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legal/cases/INSLAW I believe the same documents are available by ftp at ftp.eff.org. -- Rose @}>-^->-->--- ------------------------------ From: Kajae@aol.com Date: 18 Jan 1995 14:57:12 -0500 Subject: The Cyber Police Are Coming The Birth of an Activist... I must admit that I enjoy using the Internet as a means to stay informed and up to date on subjects as much as anyone who uses (or just plain surfs) the Net. However, I personally believe that there's a time to discuss pertinent issues and theres a time to *do* something about them (or at the very least *discuss* doing something about them). And for *me*, the time to do something is *now*. In the January 23, 1995 issue of "U.S. News & World Report", the cover story is "Is Anything Safe in Cyberspace?: The Growing Treats To Your Privacy and Property In the Information Age" by Vic Sussman. Interestingly enough, the article covers some of the very same topics that have been discussed in this forum (availability of personal information to commercial organizations, police abuse of priviliged info., etc.) The writer goes on to explain various law enforcement's need for more advanced technology, laws to effectively deal with cybercriminals, and the ability to defeat private encryption schemes (Clipper chips). But the rather peculiar wrinkle to this story that seemed to set it apart from all of the other "Policing The Net" stories I've read was the actual training of law enforcement officers for the sole purpose of policing the Net: "If ever a buzzword buzzed too much for traditionbound law enforcement, it's *cybercop*... Agents snickered when senior instructor Kevin Manson first used the word a few years ago at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center... Nobody [at the FLETC] laughs much anymore. They are too busy training cybercops... The day is comming very fast when every cop will be issued a badge, a gun, and a laptop." Now I know this sort of thing may not faze a lot of you, because many have been in here in cyberspace a lot longer than I have (this newbie's only been at this for the past five months) and you've probably heard stuff like this before, but anytime I see something in *print* that will no doubt be read by a great many people with little to no understanding or comprehension of Net Society will go into a greater state of panic than the one I'm in, and push for arbitrary endorsement of what will undoubtedly (and ultamately) become an online police state. But rather than just have this be another "Gee... This is really disturbing - anyone else disturbed?" posting, how about a discussion and a few ideas about what we can *do* to educate the other (at least) two-thirds of the american population who don't use the Internet (or have a computer in their home for that matter) on what goes on here, how things are handled here, and how any one agency having the ability to violate us all, for no matter the purpose, will impact us, and them as well. A few notions about what we can do to brace for the comming storm wouldn't be a bad idea either. I'll even start the ball rolling... The government's obsession with Clipper: I enjoy beating a dead dog just as much as anyone, but I don't think it's necessary to reiterate the average net dinizen's dislike for the Clipper chip. Only the United States Government could be so dense as to not realize that if it's possible for dozens of computer companies to take an IBM PC apart, figure out how it works, and then build another computer that works pretty much the same as IBM's machine, then eventually some eager beaver with the right skill and equipment can reverse-engineer the Clipper, then make an encryption scheme that it couldn't break (and possibly even sell copies of the chip and scheme - what a concept). What were they thinking? Did they believe that if they made defeating the Clipper illegal that no one would do it? The very concept of the Clipper was obsolete when it was devised... Sigh... Anyway, the alternative I suggest to the Clipper is for law enforcement agencies to become more a part of the Net. Let them have their own domain where they too will have the means to *interact* with the world around them. Let them develop their own network security, and if they really must decrypt or hack into other systems, let *us* have a federal mandate requiring that the softwar e they use for such activities only be accessed with the number on the warrant they *surely* have acquired before proceeding. The procedure would be somewhat similar to performing a wiretap. It would be a start... Sussman also writes: "Law enforcers are also deeply worried about... anonymous re-mailers... can convert return addresses to pseudonyms and render e-mail untraceable..." Are you kidding? Wouldn't law enforcement agencies around the world would be loosing out on a potential treasure trove of tips on so-called "net crimes" that could come from net surfers who want to help the law but remain anonymous? If I was in that position, I wouldn't want some criminal (or his lawyer) privy to anything about me - especially when I'm just trying to do the right thing morally and legally. Anyone involved in criminal activity is obviously dangerous to some degree - and so's his lawyer. I don't know which one I should be more scared of... "Cryptography will become even more popular once cybersurfers discover digital cash, which is the electronic equivalent or real money... DigiCash can prevent consumers' names and personal habits from funneling into databases... Criminals will love [digicash]... Anybody can use it to transfer money for legal or illegal purposes... Many people believe the widespread use of E-Cash will be one more aspect of the Internet that erodes the power of central government control..." I truly hope that the only reason Ralph Nader and the Consumer Protection Agency aren't in the middle of this already is because they're so busy fighting for our rights on other fronts - but I personally don't mind adding this particular crusade to their itenerary. Anyone who knows how to reach them online (* I will* resort to snail mail if necessary) pass the word. They (and other organizations like them) are out there fighting for our rights as consumers just so personal information of that nature doesn't fall into the wrong hands - or the right ones prematurely. I'll admit that I haven't been politically or socially active before - but I didn't have a cause before - and I'm more than willing to back these organizations with my time (on and offline) and (choke) money. Any other takers? As an afterthought I'll mention the usual standby's of writing to your congressman or the President (I did by the way) but I think that there are presidents out there that will be more sympatetic to our cause: the beloved presidents of our Internet providers. Government plans for the Internet will definitely have reprocussions on how they do business - and how we do (and don't do) business with them. If the FBI, the FLETC, the NRA, cable companies and anyone else with a cause and some economic clout can lobby Congress, then by God (and a decent net provider) we should too. Everyone at Compuserve, America Online, Prodigy, Delphi, Fidonet, GEnie, and everywhere else should make your concerns known to your CEO's (for the rest of you AOL subscribers ours is Steve Case at SteveCase@aol.com). We've got a bunch of people here who make thier living at listening to people's money talk - let's have 'em make other people listen with *our* money... For those who don't feel the urge to get involved, I leave this quote from a friend of mine: "When they came for the first man, I did nothing. When they came for the second man, I did nothing. When they came for the third man, I did nothing. Finally, when they came for me, there was no one to help me..." Info and additional feedback via e-mail is welcome. ------------------------------ From: vin@shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: 18 Jan 1995 16:36:18 -0500 Subject: Supreme Court Decision on Anonymity (This was plucked from the Cyberia-L mailing list, courtesy of Frank Swift, via Phil Agre, from Dave Banisar -- the latter, associated with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.) This decision, denying the constitutionality of (at least) broadly worded laws banning anonymous leaflets, has obvious relevance to on-going discussions here, (and on and off the net) about regulating or outlawing anonymous messages on the Internet. Perhaps more importantly, the text helps make the case for the value of this political tradition in a democracy (something not done very well, IMHO, at the raw edge of the cyberpunk/public frontier.) Even here, however, the Court makes clear that this is still an evolving debate... and implies that there is a potential association between anonymity and some information or presentation-based crime (eg. libel or fraud) that carefully drawn legislation could address. Still, this is a triumph for the good guys; a privacy decision that could echo through the years!!! suerte, _Vin McLellan The Privacy Guild Date: 17 Jan 1995 16:17:44 EST From: Dave Banisar Subject: anonymity [...] TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 362 U.S. 60 January 13-14, 1960, Argued March 7, 1960, Decided Certiorari to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. 172 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 797, 332 P. 2d 447, reversed. A. L. Wirin and Hugh R. Manes argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Fred Okrand. Philip E. Grey argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Roger Arnebergh. Shad Polier, Will Maslow, Leo Pfeffer and Joseph B. Robison filed a brief for the American Jewish Congress, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Whittaker, Stewart MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented here is whether the provisions of a Los Angeles City ordinance restricting the distribution of handbills "abridge the freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution." n1 The ordinance, @ 28.06 of the Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles, provides: "No person shall distribute any hand-bill in any place under any circumstances, which does not have printed on the cover, or the face thereof, the name and address of the following: "(a) The person who printed, wrote, compiled or manufactured the same. "(b) The person who caused the same to be distributed; provided, however, that in the case of a fictitious person or club, in addition to such fictitious name, the true names and addresses of the owners, managers or agents of the person sponsoring said hand-bill shall also appear thereon." The petitioner was arrested and tried in a Los Angeles Municipal Court for violating this ordinance. It was stipulated that the petitioner had distributed handbills in Los Angeles, and two of them were presented in evidence. Each had printed on it the following: National Consumers Mobilization, Box 6533, Los Angeles 55, Calif. PLeasant 9-1576. The handbills urged readers to help the organization carry on a boycott against certain merchants and businessmen, whose names were given, on the ground that, as one set of handbills said, they carried products of "manufacturers who will not offer equal employment opportunities to Negroes, Mexicans, and Orientals." There also appeared a blank, which, if signed, would request enrollment of the signer as a "member of National Consumers Mobilization," and which was preceded by a statement that "I believe that every man should have an equal opportunity for employment no matter what his race, religion, or place of birth." The Municipal Court held that the information printed on the handbills did not meet the requirements of the ordinance, found the petitioner guilty as charged, and fined him $ 10. The Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles affirmed the conviction, rejecting petitioner's contention, timely made in both state courts, that the ordinance invaded his freedom of speech and press in violation of the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the Federal Constitution. n2 172 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 797, 332 P. 2d 447. Since this was the highest state court available to petitioner, we granted certiorari to consider this constitutional contention. 360 U.S. 928. In Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, we held void on its face an ordinance that comprehensively forbade any distribution of literature at any time or place in Griffin, Georgia, without a license. Pamphlets and leaflets, it was pointed out, "have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty" n3 and enforcement of the Griffin ordinance "would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form." Id., at 452. A year later we had before us four ordinances each forbidding distribution of leaflets -- one in Irvington, New Jersey, one in Los Angeles, California, one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and one in Worcester, Massachusetts. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147. Efforts were made to distinguish these four ordinances from the one held void in the Griffin case. The chief grounds urged for distinction were that the four ordinances had been passed to prevent either frauds, disorder, or littering, according to the records in these cases, and another ground urged was that two of the ordinances applied only to certain city areas. This Court refused to uphold the four ordinances on those grounds pointing out that there were other ways to accomplish these legitimate aims without abridging freedom of speech and press. Frauds, street littering and disorderly conduct could be denounced and punished as offenses, the Court said. Several years later we followed the Griffin and Schneider cases in striking down a Dallas, Texas, ordinance which was applied to prohibit the dissemination of information by the distribution of handbills. We said that although a city could punish any person for conduct on the streets if he violates a valid law, "one who is rightfully on a street . . . carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to express his views in an orderly fashion . . . by handbills and literature as well as by the spoken word." Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 416. The broad ordinance now before us, barring distribution of "any hand-bill in any place under any circumstances," n4 falls precisely under the ban of our prior cases unless this ordinance is saved by the qualification that handbills can be distributed if they have printed on them the names and addresses of the persons who prepared, distributed or sponsored them. For, as in Griffin, the ordinance here is not limited to handbills whose content is "obscene or offensive to public morals or that advocates unlawful conduct." n5 Counsel has urged that this ordinance is aimed at providing a way to identify those responsible for fraud, false advertising and libel. Yet the ordinance is in no manner so limited, nor have we been referred to any legislative history indicating such a purpose. Therefore we do not pass on the validity of an ordinance limited to prevent these or any other supposed evils. This ordinance simply bars all handbills under all circumstances anywhere that do not have the names and addresses printed on them in the place the ordinance requires. There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression. "Liberty of circulating is as essential to that freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value." Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S., at 452. Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. n6 Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. n7 Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes. We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462. The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. This broad Los Angeles ordinance is subject to the same infirmity. We hold that it, like the Griffin, Georgia, ordinance, is void on its face. The judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State of California is reversed and the cause is remanded to it for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Footnotes n1 Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 154. Cf. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450. n2 Petitioner also argues here that the ordinance both on its face and as construed and applied "arbitrarily denies petitioner equal protection of the laws in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection" Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument is based on the fact that the ordinance applies to handbills only, and does not include within its proscription books, magazines and newspapers. Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to consider this contention. n3 The Court's entire sentence was: "These [pamphlets and leaflets] indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest." It has been noted that some of Thomas Paine's pamphlets were signed with pseudonyms. See Bleyer, Main Currents in the History of American Journalism (1927), 90-93. Illustrations of other anonymous and pseudonymous pamphlets and other writings used to discuss important public questions can be found in this same volume. n4 Section 28.00 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code defines "handbill" as follows: "'HAND-BILL' shall mean any hand-bill, dodger, commercial advertising circular, folder, booklet, letter, card, pamphlet, sheet, poster, sticker, banner, notice or other written, printed or painted matter calculated to attract attention of the public." n5 Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S., at 451. n6 Penry was executed and Udal died as a result of his confinement. 1 Hallam, The Constitutional History of England (1855), 205-206, 232. n7 In one of the letters written May 28, 1770, the author asked the following question about the tea tax imposed on this country, a question which he could hardly have asked but for his anonymity: "What is it then, but an odious, unprofitable exertion of a speculative right, and fixing a badge of slavery upon the Americans, without service to their masters?" 2 Letters of Junius (1821) 39. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. In judging the validity of municipal action affecting rights of speech or association protected against invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not believe that we can escape, as Mr. Justice Roberts said in Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161, "the delicate and difficult task" of weighing "the circumstances" and appraising Frank Swift L-321 (Sent from Home) Unclassified Computer Security Coordinator Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 7000 East Avenue L-321 Livermore CA 94550-9516 Voice: (510) 422-1463 FAX: (510) 423-0913 ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 29 Dec 1994 10:50:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94] 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 or append to 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. Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Older archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- 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 | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V6 #007 ****************************** .