Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 09:05:38 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V6#017 Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 11 Feb 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 017 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: The Cybercop Impetus Re: The Cybercop Impetus Re: Requests for Home Phone Numbers How Can I Change This? Re: Tracking of News and WWW Routes Re: Who is Looking at Your Files? Re: Who is Looking at Your Files? Re: Who is Looking at Your Files? Re: Radio Shack and Privacy Autodialing Ban Store Returns Re: Requests for Home Phone Numbers Post Office Partially Limits Address Access Conferences that May Be of Interest Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jckruger@jckruger.aztec.co.za (Johan Kruger) Date: 09 Feb 1995 02:07:28 GMT Subject: Re: The Cybercop Impetus Organization: Aztec Information Management Kajae@aol.com (Kajae@aol.com) wrote: The year is 2005. At least 75% of all homes in America have computers, tied in via modem (or whatever really cool tech we'll be using by then) to every information exchange and service we require or desire, and the U.S.'s population of couch potatoes has been all but converted into netsurfers. But the Net isn't what it was back in the roaring '90's. Oh, no. All (yes all) newsgroups and online services are monitored for content by expert systems deployed by various "politically correct" agencies of the Federal government to "regulate content for the purpose of insuring domestic tranquillity". Far be it from me to propose to know something about your country, but isn't it supposed to be a free one? If the law enforcement agencies of the US and the world want to stake a better claim to the Net, let them have Usenet groups and online services where the average person can *interact* with them, like a police station on-line. Let them develop their own services, applications, and encryption breakers, but do it in such a way that it wouldn't be cost effective to have every individual either world- or nationwide under some form of constant surveillance. I don't like the idea of a government monitoring everything I do, and I simply HATE the idea that the government doing the monitoring could be one that DOESN'T EVEN REPRESENT ME. I didn't vote for these guys, I'm a citizen of an entirely different sovreign (sp?) country. What right do they have to snoop around in my private business? For that matter, what right do they have to snoop around in ayone's private business? -- Johan Kruger - FlagShip consultant Johannesburg Voice: +27 (11) 816 2359 South Africa Internet: jckruger@aztec.co.za Personal URL: http://aztec.co.za/jckruger/jckruger.html Maintainer: FlagShip URL: http://aztec.co.za/jckruger/FlagShip.html Finger for PGP public key ------------------------------ From: metaman@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Eugene Kachmarsky) Date: 09 Feb 1995 07:58:55 GMT Subject: Re: The Cybercop Impetus Organization: Vancouver Regional FreeNet Regarding the idea of _lawlessness_ on the Net and not advocating it as a method of counteracting government permeation. It isn't _lawless_ to oppose an unjust system. Sometimes, to gain justice, some _laws_ may have to be broken. However, short of some sort of mass Interrevolution, any action to counteract the digitalitarian state and it's electronic oppression of whole societies will inevitably end in failure and the elimination of individual _viruses_ from The Body. As long as an opinion being expressed is expressed solely by random and disconnected individuals, the Reich can succeed in quietly eliminating these voices under the guise of dealing with _lawbreakers_ and threats to society, enemies of the poeple and so on, and so on, and so on, and blahblahblahblahblah... Conversely, any mass action undertaken to circumvent the establishment of a complete permeable habitat society that lies within the boundaries of _the LAW_ and constitutional guidelines is also doomed to fail because the system is designed to perpetuate the power of the designers. (Just like allowing the corporate and the state to regulate the NET will inevitably lead to this becoming a tool for their own domination over us). So, anything you may want to do to protect yourself and your rights along these lines is doomed to failure unless it is a collective, unified, directed, and _illegal_ effort. Otherwise, it will be useless. Fight the government? Where? In the Supreme Court? Who appoints the members of the Supreme Court? I agree that the future envisioned in the Cybercop Impetus is most likely probable, where the state and the corporation (with eventually the state becoming irrelevant and therefore the corporation itself) will be running this planet like a giant, digital Auschwitz. But really, what the hell are you going to do? Revolt? How. How are you going to motivate millions of people to oppose the system that stuffs them full of bovine growth hormone, gives them Monday Night Football and the OJ Simpson trial, and two weeks paid vacation per year? Sadly, for many, this is heaven on Earth and they can't see past their stomachs to realize that their brains are being robbed. And it just occurred to me that the author of Cybercop Impetus could very well be an agent sent here to run the flag up the pole to see who salutes. If so, so what? As far as i still know, they can't kill you for having an opinion (said John Lennon, Jesus Christ, and various others with opinions, i guess). ------------------------------ From: Kelly Bert Manning Date: 09 Feb 1995 03:33:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Requests for Home Phone Numbers Kelly Bert Manning writes: I have no problem with an alias. I am refering to when a person is asked for a SSN or credit card number and that person gives a number that is false. [snip] They should be able to decide who and who not they want as customers. [snip and] In most cases market pressure will bear on the store to develop reasonable policies. I'm not up on US law, but I have a vague recollection about a lot of small businesses/partnerhsips/sole proprieterships using laws or precedents covering something called "restraint of trade" to obtain damage judgements against civil rights organizations that publicized details of their treatment of members of minorities, even if the accounts were factual and didn't explicitly suggest a boycott. Where does this stand currently? As to individuals deciding who they will sell to, didn't middle class and professional blacks use a strategy called "block busting" earlier in this century? This involved a group of them pooling their resources to pay a white agent to purchase houses, often at inflated prices. When the identity of the concealed purchasers was revealed the white neighbours would typically either sell quickly at distress prices or form a mob to burn the house down and injure or kill anyone inside it at the time. The point I am attempting to make is that it is not terribly difficult to purchase through an agent, and that this "right to choose" is so ineffective that it only serves to promote prejudice, leading to more serious types of incident. In any case it ends at the first purchaser. ------------------------------ From: lauras@holly.ColoState.EDU (Laura Sizemore) Date: 09 Feb 1995 17:48:02 -0700 Subject: How Can I Change This? Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Is there anyone out there who knows how to change your name on the system when someone types, "finger (your login name)" I know I can't do anything about the login name itself, unless I go directly to the Uni's administration, but I would like to keep my full "in Real Life" name that is revealed under the finger command private. I'm becoming a bit weary of guys trying to pick me up on line ... Thanks, LS ------------------------------ From: alamar@ctp.org (Nathaniel Irons) Date: 09 Feb 1995 16:01:03 -0700 Subject: Re: Tracking of News and WWW Routes Organization: secret society inside Phil K. Dick's head Kajae@aol.com wrote: kirby6@psu.edu wrote: Is it possible for my school admins. to keep track of the sites I visit or the news servers I connect to, or even the groups I read? Specifically with the WWW, most current browsers transmit a variable called HTTP_From that contains your email address and name. It's the same information that gets plunked into the relevant fields when you click on a Mailto URL. If you don't want to be logged, don't fill out that info. Then all they'll get is an IP address, which may be bad enough However, this is only on the server end. Whether your school admins are tracking outgoing HTTP requests well, that's a level of technical sophistication that most bureaucrats just don't have. Make friends with a unix administrator and get him drunk - there's the person to ask. -- .sigless in the meantime ------------------------------ From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills) Date: 09 Feb 1995 18:41:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Who is Looking at Your Files? [BSD Now! ] writes: OK, I'll bite on your question as to why no enthusiasm... Then he cites a number of examples of shady types who would be determined enough to ignore any law. Finally, he wrote: I am sure we can all agree that we would like to believe everyone would obey a set of legislative ethic limitations --but I dont. do you? No I don't either; not everyone. Of course he's right. No law can protect us from determined and resourceful people determined to penetrate our privacy. Just think of the O.J. Simpson trial. If O.J.'s lawyers want to get dirt on some witness, nothing on earth will stop them. That wasn't the intent of the suggested legal protection. It is more the case of the TRW's, and Sears, and Radio Shacks, and IRSs of the world who gradually erode the sanctity of the privacy of millions of individuals by lots of minor incursions. The idea of the mandatory notification suggestion is to cut down on this type of chronic wholesale assaults on privacy. I'm a political conservative so suggesting any new law grates. This one though, seems to offer the promise of eventually replacing dozens of complicated laws with one simple one. It would be bitterly opposed by the abusers, as [otto@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (M. Otto)] pointed out. Regulators like the FCC, SEC, FDA,..., would also oppose it because it could undermine some of the reason for their existence. Activists might also oppose it because they prefer to do things at the grassroot level like demonstrations and personal confrontations with store managers. It might spoil their fun. These groups would only oppose it if they felt it could be effective. Opposition is not a reason to stop trying to improve things. On the contrary, I would see it as an indication that a reform is worth the while. Not worth the while are ideas which are flawed, unworkable, or have been thorougly worked over before. I'm still not sure how this one measures. -- Dick Mills rj.mills@pti-us.com Power Technologies, Inc. phone +1(518)395-5154 P.O. Box 1058 fax +1(518)346-2777 Schenectady, NY 12301-1058 ------------------------------ From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning) Date: 10 Feb 1995 05:40:56 GMT Subject: Re: Who is Looking at Your Files? Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Dick Mills (rj.mills@pti-us.com) writes: I guess Jesse and I are the only ones who like this idea. There have been no other posts I've seen yet. Too bad. It could be the answer to a number of issues discussed recently in comp.society.privacy. For example: Why isn't there more enthusiasm from comp.society.privacy readers? Is it not explained well? I have a recollection of seeing a news story on one of the Seattle stations a few years back that said that anyone wanting to trace a licence for a car had to produce ID, and that the details of the ID were automatically sent to the registered owner, along with the details that were released. Quebec's private sector privacy law requires that a record of all accesses to a file be kept, and states that the record of who accessed it and when is part of the file, with the same right of access by the subject as the rest of the file. I've interpreted sections of BC FOI/POP law as requireing that a record of access be kept and have a complaint in to the PRivacy Commissioner about being denied access. The response I got sounded remarkably similar to the one abortion clinice workers got from another public body. ------------------------------ From: flinchba@kns.com (Scott Flinchbaugh) Date: 10 Feb 1995 22:43:01 GMT Subject: Re: Who is Looking at Your Files? Organization: Kulicke & Soffa, Inc. Why isn't there more enthusiasm from comp.society.privacy readers? Is it not explained well? I think that it is a good compromise, if we have to compromise.... Personally I dont think we should have to compromise, after all the data about us should belong to us.. Perhaps we should all patent or copyright our phone numbers, SSNs, etc. -- Scott Flinchbaugh Software Engineer E-Mail: flinchba@kns.com Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. Phone (W): 215-784-6250 ------------------------------ From: AriadneM@scruznet.com (A. Marina Fournier) Date: 09 Feb 1995 22:02:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Radio Shack and Privacy Organization: The (Re)Sourceress privacy@interramp.com wrote: Do you have suggestions for a "Privacy Bill of Rights?" Please forward them to me, as I am compiling one for future applications. I want the right to know what mailing-list firms have my info and to be asked *each and every time in advance* before it can be distributed. I want the right to review and restrict such information and its distribution. I want the post office to have a box to check that says your COA will not be released to any firms for advertising. Thanks for asking. Marina -- "Islay...and it's good-bye to care" ------------------------------ From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com> Date: 10 Feb 95 07:42:31 EST Subject: Autodialing Ban >From the Associated Press news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service: APn 02/06 2020 Autodialing Ban By BOB EGELKO Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal ban on automated, tape-recorded telephone sales pitches was upheld Monday by a federal appeals court, which said Congress accurately identified commercial autodialing as a threat to privacy. Key points made by the author: * The original ban was suspended in December 1992. * The new ruling validates the law "prohibiting use of automatic dialing machines to reach homes unless the consumer has consented to get such calls or the message is introduced by a live operator." * The National Association of Telecomputer Operators challenged the original law, claiming it discriminated against small commercial organizations who cannot afford live telemarketing operators. * The law in question also bans automatic junk-faxes. * Congressional testimony at the time of passage of the legislation described automated calls as ...more invasive than live calls because the taped messages "cannot interact with the customer except in preprogrammed ways" and "do not allow the caller to feel the frustration of the called party." * Such calls, according to the judge, "also cluttered answering machines and made it difficult for consumers to remove their names from calling lists." -- M.E.Kabay,Ph.D., Director of Education, Natl Computer Security Assn (Carlisle, PA); Mgmt Consultant, LGS Group Inc. (Montreal, QC) ------------------------------ From: brunkhorst@mayo.EDU Date: 10 Feb 1995 14:51:56 GMT Subject: Store Returns Organization: Mayo Foundation privacy@interramp.com writes: I leave you all with the following thought. How can a company conduct anonymous or name-only returns but still protect itself against crooks who try to return products they never bought? It is often months later that companies realize that they returned money to ganiffs. writes: I was under the impression that this was a solved problem, years ago, independent of whether identification is provided. from childhood I have seen signes saying "no returns without a receipt". Presumably the store either retains the receipt or marks it (in the case of a partial return of the contents of a receipt). So long as this has been done, I don't see any valid reason for the store to require any further identification. (If receipts are readily forged, the store should fix that problem.) With the national competition in the retail marketplace, no-receipt returns are more of a problem. Often times, your 'big-spenders' who deal with cash tend to toss receipts with the bag. 'Big Spenders' are what make your high-end stores their margin (always pay cash, never shop sales, always buy accessories, etc), and if you start making them think your store is not forgiving to little mistakes, then you lose your cream sales to the competition at the other end of the mall. My wife worked for Dayton-Hudson's recently, and the policy there was if they carried that vendor (read: the product didn't even have to be in the store catalog, just the vendor), take the return. If they had a receipt, then you may credit them with cash. No receipt, but a store card, then credit their account (at the lowest price within the last 10 days). No receipt, no card, then in store credit only. Didn't completely zap the 'fencing' issue, but did dampen it. The major dampener was the 12 hour return policy... Any return with a receipt within twelve hours that was a charge, the returnee has to show the card that was used for the imprint. This stopped the bag lifters (car breakins to steal the bags containing both the purchase and the sales slip) from being able to quickly and easily fence their wares back to the store. -- geoff ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 10 Feb 1995 10:46:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Requests for Home Phone Numbers Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA "Dennis G. Rears" (drears@pica.army.mil) writes: My opinions on providing SSN to merchants have appeared to be disjointed in the past. This is mainly because I haven't had an original post in CPD in about 18 months, only followups. Here's my thoughts: 1. Don't give false information. Either leave it blank or fill it in. Giving false information poorly reflects on one integrity. bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning) writes: This may be a cultural difference. There is also a nuance of difference between alias and false name. An alias is a name that you choose to use for a particular purpose, as opposed to a false name made to disassociate yourself from something. The legal right of canadians to use any alias they choose in most financial transactions has been widely publicized over the decades. My first recollection of reading this was as a teenager in the 60s. This is also a right that exists "south of the border" in the U.S. Generally you can use any name you want in a transaction as long as there is no intent to commit fraud. If I pay for a subscription to TV Guide by a money order based on the price printed on one of its bingo cards, the name they mail it to is irrelevant and cannot affect the validity of the transaction. Generally, if a person decides that they want to change their name, all they have to do is to inform people of their new name; they can, if they wish, file a court petition to do so, which is almost always routinely granted, but that is typically done only because they want it to be a matter of public record, or if the person having their name changed is a minor, in which case it is required. But I suppose something you might consider possibly fraudulent would be the case where someone intentionally uses the last name of someone they know in place of their own. It is common practice for some people to literally use another person's last name, typically because they are adopting the "sinister and devious" practice of taking the last name of the man they got married to. Women intentionally commit this "fraud" to make people believe they are related. The law neither forbids nor requires this practice, but it is routinely done. And someone decides to sign a contract under an assumed name. Which of the following names do you think was more valuable for a contract involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1950s, signing it "Norma Jean Baker" or using the alias of "Marilyn Monroe." (Assuming it is whatever name is signed on the contract that is to be advertised). Do you think it was "fraud" for the actor Michael Douglas to change his name to "Michael Keaton"? (The name "Michael Douglas" was taken as an alias in the Actor's union records by different man named "Michael Danelovich," the son of the man whose birth name was Kirk Danelovich and also used the alias of "Kirk Douglas"). The man born Cornelius Grace Chace goes around telling people his name is "Chevy Chase". And you're not. On a issue not that has nothing to do with privacy, I am a firm believer in property rights. Part of owning property is have the ability to decide who you want to sell, lease, give, or otherwise convey services or property to. I believe a merchant should have the right to refuse to do business with anybody. How far does that belief extend? Can a healthcare merchant(hospital) refuse to provide life saving care to someone who can pay the going rate but happens to have a skin color the hospital doesn't like to see? Federal law requires hospitals that get federal funding (which means medicare) to provide emergency care to anyone regardless of ability to pay and requires them to provide care to anyone on the same terms without discrimination based on race and several other factors. Apparently it's okay to demand involuntary servitude if it's for a good cause. (If forcing someone not convicted of a crime to provide unpaid labor isn't involuntary servitude, what is?) Can someone who owns a restaurant refuse to sell the food they own to people of a particular ethnic or racial background? There was a bar in North Carolina that was profiled within the last year or so on one of the tabloid news shows, that clearly had a sign in the window, saying "Whites Only". I was surprised to find such a practice still being done and that they hadn't been stomped on. Then the show explained why. The U.S. Civil Rights commission declared that the premises do not operate in interstate commerce, so it has no jurisdiction over the facility. The state of North Carolina (I do not know if it has one now) did not have a law prohibiting discrimination by race on the part of taverns. Therefore he can do so if he wants. If enough of his customers oppose such practice as to make his business unprofitable, he will either close up, sell out or change his conditions. Allowing merchants to be arbitrary rather than equitable in their choice of clients opens up a wide range of posibilities for them to be discriminatory. If they are in business they should be prepared to treat anyone with sufficient cash to pay in the same manner as anyone else who can pay. A person should the right to decide who they will associate with, and a merchant should have the right not to provide goods or services if they do not approve of the use of that service or the practices of the particular person or organization buying them. What has happened is that the people who are customers typically have more politcal power than the sellers. This was indicated in a front page report in {Digital News} three or four years ago, when Executive Software decided to refuse to provide warranty service for its Diskeeper defragmenter for Vax computers to one particular customer because they had accidentally sold the product to a customer that they did not approve of. They informed the customer that they would honor their contract and provide technical support until the original warranty ran out, and would not renew their TS contract, or the customer could return the software for a full refund. The customer chose to get a refund since a maintenance program of this type is dangerous to useless without technical support. They had sold the product to a non-pharmeceutical division of the Ciba-Geigy corporation. Executive Software passed a corporate bylaw, at the demand of the President of the company, prohibiting it from selling products to companies (and all subsidiaries of any company) that manufactures or markets psychotropic drugs, or specifically psychotropic drugs used on children, I don't quite remember which. Ciba-Geigy is the manufacturer of a psychotropic drug sold under the trade name Ritalin, which is commonly used on children who have personality disorders. The department that bought the program has nothing to do with the manufacture or marketing of any drugs, but Executive Software decided to declare them "contaminated" because of the other department. The president of the company opposes psychotropics because he is a member of the Church of Scientology that has formally opposed the use of psychotropic drugs on children. Some people may think this is an odd-ball reason to refuse to sell something to a company, but to that organization it may be a deeply held religious belief or a moral conviction. Some people might see it as the crackpot ravings of a cult religion. What it comes down to is whether the person who looks at it finds the opinion valid or invalid. Should a shopkeeper in Washington DC who opposes apartheid be permitted to have refused to make sales to the mission office itself, or diplomats or employees of the South African Embassy when that country practiced such activities? Or should one be able to refuse to sell to Ethiopia's embassy because of its country's practice of Marxist collective farming and forced deaths through planned famines? In the first case they would be refusing to sell to people who are almost certainly exclusively white; in the other the people they would be almost certainly exclusively black. If you looked at the practice based on what was being done at the point of sale, not knowing why it was being done, it might look like the person was refusing to sell to people on the basis of race. Or does the reason matter if it happens that all the people being discriminated against are of one color. There was a problem reported in a newspaper with some shopkeepers in South Dakota who did not want to sell on credit to indians from the reservation. The reason was not because of their race, but because they live on a reservation, if they don't pay (as some didn't) the merchant would have no means to reposess the property or sue for damages; the local courts have no jurisdiction. An attorney for either the state or federal government was interviewed in the paper and opined that such a practice was a violation of civil rights laws by these merchants. Was their action discriminatory? What about their right to be paid for what they sell, a right they are entitled to enforce against any *other* group *except* indians living on a reservation? Would I have the right to refuse to sell computer programs to the Justice Department on the grounds of its use of militarily banned gasses on children in Waco, Texas? How about because of the known fondness of some of its staff for pirating and/or stealing computer programs for official use? Would my action be discriminatory? Yes, it would be, on the basis of one's employer. Am I right in "discriminating" against some people simply because I don't like their employer? The only manufacturer of a particular chemical was planning to quit business rather than be required to sell that chemical to the Department of Defense so it could manufacture nerve gas. DOD decided not to push the issue and made other plans. Was this company right in "discriminating" against some people (a government is simply a group of people) simply because the owner doesn't like what they are doing? Some people can have reasons for not wanting to do something that are illogical or do not make sense to people who do not follow their customs; I would find the Jewish and Muslim custom of not eating pork to be a rule that I find silly (as I grab some sausage for breakfast), but they have such a rule and their opinion it is valid to them. Some people believe in provisions of the Bible that they interpret to mean that people of different races should not mix. Some interpret the provisions to only mean that interracial marrages are not allowed; others might interpret that as not having business dealings (or perhaps any) with persons of another color. Is their opinion an old fashioned crackpot idea (because the person who looks at it doesn't like it) or a deeply held religious conviction (if they do). Apparently it depends on whose ox is gored and whether they are entitled to special treatment. It's apparently okay an NAACP operated for the support of the betterment of black people. I have heard that another organization founded to do the exact same thing for white people was considered racist. To use a rather bad pun here, is the pot calling the kettle black? If it is racist for one, why not the other? If the demand is for people to be treated equally on the basis of color, e.g. to act color blind, then any right or special privelege for any race or group must also be permitted to any other equivalent group or they should be forbidden. To do otherwise is to simply substitute one (legally mandated) form of discrimination (Jim Crow Laws and segregated facilities) for another (legally mandated) form of discrimination (Affirmative Action and quotas), or if it's not legally required, then people are saying they still support forms of discrimination against some particular class of people they don't like, e.g. as long as their particular oxen remain ungored. What it all comes down to is whether the particular type of discrimination is politically acceptable. A hundred years ago, it was okay to discriminate against Chinese. Sixty years ago, it was routine to discriminate against Irish. During the 1930s it was stylish to be anti-semitic. After December 8, 1942 it was okay to deprive American Citizens whose parents were Japanese of their civil rights. Until the 1960s, it was okay to do the same to blacks. Now it's okay to discriminate against white males. Maybe my particular minority (there are more women than men in the U.S. and more white women than white men, so that makes me a member of this 'minority') can picket to eliminate discrimination against us. Maybe they'll go after lawyers this time. :) There's always someone who get's picked as the particular target of the times because it's politically acceptable to discriminate against some groups at some times and other groups at other times. The names and faces change but the ugliness and stench stays the same. ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 11 Feb 1995 08:03:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Post Office Partially Limits Address Access Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Taken from EPIC Alert 2.02 Volume 2.02 February 6, 1995 Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, DC info@epic.org The U.S. Postal Service announced on December 28 its final rule on access to names and addresses. The agency announced it was eliminating the service that allows anyone to obtain the new address of any individual for a $3.00 fee. The Postal Service, however, left intact its service that provides the addresses of all postal customers to large mailers such as direct marketers. The notice states "Congress has not given the Postal Service the function of serving as a national registration point for the physical whereabouts of individuals." HR 434, The Postal Privacy Act of 1995, (introduced by Rep. Gary Condit) requires that the Postal Service inform individuals of the uses of information contained in Change of Address cards and mandates that customers be offered an option to not have their names and addresses forwarded. The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. To subscribe, send the message: SUBSCRIBE CPSR-ANNOUNCE Firstname Lastname to listserv@cpsr.org. You may also receive the Alert by reading the USENET newsgroup comp.org.cpsr.announce. ------------------------------ From: Susan Evoy Date: 08 Feb 1995 17:24:51 -0800 Subject: Conferences that May Be of Interest CPSR Members and Friends, If you are planning to attend one of these conferences, or another that may be related to CPSR's work, please contact CPSR at cpsr@cpsr.org or (415) 322-3778 for easy ways for you to be a presence for CPSR. CONFERENCE /EVENT SCHEDULE [moderator: I have excerpted from her list those items that deal with privacy.] Technologies of Freedom: State of the Nation (A conference on the progress of the National Information Infrastructure), Washington Court Hotel, Washington, DC, Feb. 23-25. Contact: holder@apt.org 202 408-1403 202 408-1134 (fax) Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment, and Community, Chicago Circle Center, UIC, IL, March 2-4. Contact: jdav@mcs.com 312 996-5463 Towards an Electronic Patient Record '95. Orlando, FL. Mar. 14-19, 1995. Sponsored by Medical Records Institute. Contact: 617-964-3926 (fax). Access, Privacy, and Commercialism: When States Gather Personal Information, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, March 17. Contact: Trotter Hardy 804 221-3826 Computers, Freedom and Privacy CFP'95, Burlingame CA, Mar 28-31 Contact: info.cfp95@forsythe.stanford.edu Information Security and Privacy in the Public Sector. Herdon, VA. Apr. 19-20, 1995. Sponsored by AIC Conferences. Contact: 212/952-1899. 1995 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 8-10. Contact: sp95@itd.nrl.navy.mil [moderator: I have excerpted from her list those items that deal with privacy.] ------------------------------ 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 #017 ****************************** .