Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 15:47:20 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V6#036 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 12 Apr 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 036 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine USPS to Offer eMail Crypto Lots of Misses in Polk Directory? Re: Private Medical Records Available Online in Mass. Useful URL for Them That Can See It Neighbor Peruses My Medical Records Re: Use of Mailboxes Big Brother Aids in Car Servicing Privacy "Remailer" for Phones Email/VoiceMail Privacy Church of Scientology, Privacy, and Criminality BC News Articles about FOI/POP Re: Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995 Re: Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995 Internet Porn Censorship Conferences/Events of Interest Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jyl@riesling (Jacob Levy) Date: 07 Apr 1995 11:12:21 -0700 Subject: USPS to Offer eMail Crypto Please forward this message as widely as you see fit. INTRO ----- This is a "trip report" of sorts. Thursday (4/6/95) evening I attended a Smart Valley sponsored talk at Rickey's Hyatt by the VP of Advanced Technology at the US Postal Service, Bob Reissler (sp?) and by the technical architect, Richard Rothwell. The purpose of the talk was to give USPS an opportunity to present their plans for "electronic mail and electronic commerce for the general population". I was the only one from Sun there as far as I could tell. There was a big contingent of people from HP, Apple and some IBMers, many one-person companies and startups, some trainers and educators and many unaffiliated individuals - a total of about 150 people attended, standing room only. OVERVIEW -------- Mr Rothwell's talk was the more substantive and interesting among the two. He presented USPS's plans for offering electronic access to their email delivery system to the 80 million US households and businesses that are currently not reached by online service providers or the Internet. After his talk, Mr Rothwell presented a short video on how they intend to educate their customers on the new product, and another USPS employee demoed the client side of their system online. Their client side system works under Windows 3.1 with MS Mail and Lotus Notes. Overall points to note: They are very concerned about privacy. They do not want to be in the business of managing or issuing escrowed key-pairs. They are very concerned about the new possibilities for abuse of privacy that become available when public keys and identity certificates are widely used (I didn't understand this part - what would these oppties be?). They are interested in working with whoever cares to make the US Govt and legislative branch relax the rules about using crypto and the export controls. They are working on a system that works globally, and active collaboration with other postal services is high on their agenda. Canada and European services were mentioned several times. TECHNICAL POINTS ---------------- The system they are building is based on a transliteration of the basic principles that make hardcopy mail work today, into the electronic world: Stamp -> Digital Signature+digital money Privace (envelope) -> Encryption Dating+location -> Per-client digital time stamp (dts) Identity (signature) -> Digital signature (ds) In regular hardcopy mail, the stamp proves that you paid and provides a guarantee that the postal service will deliver your hardcopy. The envelope provides privacy and is protected by privacy laws from tampering. The dating is provided by the cancellation on the stamp. The location is provided by each post office having its own cancellation label with its name and serial number listed. The identity is provided by the signature of the sender on the hardcopy stored within the sealed envelope carrying the cancelled stamp. The postal service will offer: - An electronic mechanism for stamping a message and adding a dts so that it proves payment and dates the message - Registered mail equivalent where the message gets signed by the USPS private key and the signature is returned to sender - Mechanisms for managing public keys (see below - no escrow) - Certificate mechanisms (see below - no escrow) - Archival services for both messages, certificates and message signatures In their new system, the "stamp" will be replaced by a digital signature on a receipt returned to the sender and archived by the service. The receipt will contain "enough bits to track the message through the system" (his words). The service replaces the traditional envelope with encryption: it accepts messages that are already encrypted and it will also offer RSA public key encryption as a service. Dating is achieved by adding a dts plus a digital signature identifying the client from which the message was received (if desire) or a more generic signature. Finally the service offers extensive mechanisms for corporate and individual public key management and certification with various levels of identity checking, all the way from biometrics based to a simple send-in-by-mail "under penalty of perjury I hereby certify that I am Jacob Levy and this key is my public key". The service also offers a certificate and public key lookup service based on an ISO 509 standard (?) without a publishing database, i.e. modelled after the "Moscow city phonebook" (his words). The idea is you can get anyone's public key if you know who they are but you cannot harvest the phone book for, e.g., all postal employees living in San Mateo (apparently they are concerned about e-mail bombs :). Some new services that he talked about: - Receipt notification through the equivalent of "sign here to receive your package" and delivery of the signed receipt back to the sender - "Bonded mail" which as far as I could tell includes archival and delivery upon the occurrence of an event specified by the sender. He called this "Forever mail", i.e. you send something which is potentially never delivered, and he noted that this is already a service offered by the current USPS (many laughs..) and so it should be offered in the new system, in the interest of preserving their current product offerings (more laughs). - Automatic tamper-proofing through the addition of a USPS generated signature that notarizes the text of your message. -- JYL ------------------------------ From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning) Date: 10 Apr 1995 06:25:45 GMT Subject: Lots of Misses in Polk Directory? Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada I've seen statistics about unlisted numbers in publications such as Privacy Journal and Communications of the ACM, for the USA and Japan, but have never seen any for Canada. BC Tel refuses to release statistics about these, something that John Grace, Federal Access to Information Commissioner, supported in a recent decision. This data is contained in Telco annual financial statements filed with the CRTC. Commissioner Grace rejected my suggestion that this was an open secret because BC Tel publishes paper directories, and through Dominion Directory, a CD-ROM version, of all published numbers. I stated that it seems to be straightforward to dial up the unlisted numbers and seem which ones give you "moved to new number", "not in service", busy, or give you one or more rings to indicate that they are actually in service. Commissioner Grace wrote that "The exercise you proposed ... would involve considerable effort and expense". Since this issue seemed so clear in his mind I thought I'd do a sanity check about it. I went to the local library and got ranges of missing numbers from the numerical index section of the local Polk directory for 1993, using an exchange in an older, stable residential neighbourhood, containing mostly high priced single family homes occupied by people with higher than average family incomes. I have a touch tone line and a touch tone memory phone that I set to repeat the first 4 digits of the number range I was surveying. All I had to punch in was the last 3 digits of each missing number. BC Tel seems to give a recorded message without a ring for numbers that aren't in service, so I simply waited for a single ring or a busy signal at each line. I felt that a single ring would be a minimal intrusion, since anyone not directly beside their phone should notice that it stopped after the first ring, rather than waste any time answering it. It took me less than an hour, over 2 evenings, to work from 952-4000 to 952-4299. Only 1 of the 131 "Polk unlisted" numbers in this range of 300 gave me a "not in service" message. Polk seems to have less than 60% of the in-service numbers in it's directory. The threat of reverse directories seems to be somewhat overrated. How complete are Polk directories in comparison to Telco directories? Would every residential number in the BC Tel directory be entered in the Polk one, or do they just enter the ones for people dumb enough to fill in their nosy questionaires? ------------------------------ From: ctobola@rrnet.com (Cloy D. Tobola) Date: 10 Apr 1995 07:27:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Private Medical Records Available Online in Mass. Organization: Exactly! Publications pmcvay@interramp.com wrote: "Mental Health professionals at Harvard Community Health Plan routinely put detailed psyciatric notes into patients' computerized medical records, making supposedly confidential information available to hundreds of physicians and staff members who work for the health maintenance organization. I'm sorry... I don't understand. Do you think that docs take their records home and hide them under the bed??? Nurses, transcriptionists, records clerks, lab techs, visiting nurses, pharmacists, peer review committees, physican therapists, hospital social workers, etc., etc., have ALWAYS had fairly unlimited access to records. The article uses the word "supposedly confidential," but is seems to me that the information is still confidential because it has not left the organization. The article is long, with several references to abuse of the system. For example, employees in a training class routinely called up the medical records of Paul Tsongas and Michael Dukakis, both prominent national political figures. Once again, I don't understand your concern. These people are being trained to handle and access these records. Is it so unusual that they might actually LOOK at one of them? Several years ago I worked for a company that had numerous accounts -- including some famous people. When I was being trained, we used Jackie Onasis' account as a "sample" to open, look up information, etc. What's the big deal?? I worked with these records EVERY DAY -- and frequently came across the accounts of famous people (among them, John Elway and Leo Kottke). It is so surprising that I actually opened my eyes and looked at them? This whole article seems to be based on the concept that nobody actually uses the information we give to health care providers. Not true. Granted, there may be abuses of the system -- but I don't see anything inappropriate or unethical in the information you listed. -- ctobola@rrnet.com ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 08 Apr 95 18:29:19 PDT Subject: Useful URL for Them That Can See It Taken from a private posting: To those of you interested in privacy on the 'net, I recommend this page: http://www.paranoia.com/~ebola/yow.html It has some summaries of current privacy issues & cases, as well as lots of pointers to other info. -- Chris Long | allanl@cs.berkeley.edu | http://infopad.eecs.berkeley.edu/~allanl PGP key info: 1024/E58613A5 87 60 9C D4 AC 01 83 3D 5A EC A2 46 11 89 90 03 "With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Captain Picard, ST:TNG, "The Drumhead" ------------------------------ From: Richard.Drumn@ncal.kaiperm.org Date: 10 Apr 1995 09:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Neighbor Peruses My Medical Records As a condition of working at a medical center, many organizations have you sign a Confidentiality of Patient, Employee and Organizational Info form (I have enclosed a version). As an employee of a medical institution we are instructed that all interaction at the medical center are confidential -so if by chance you run into a friend while working at the medical center you are not to disclose to others that you saw that friend at the hospital. Confidentiality form below The Organization acknowledges both a legal and ethical responsibility to protect the privacy of patients. Concequently, the indiscriminate or unauthorized review, use or disclosure of personal information, medical or otherwise, from any source regarding any patient is expressly prohibited. Except when required in the regular course of business, the discussion, use, transmission or narration , in any form, of any patient information which is obtained in the regular course of our employment is strictly forbidden. Any violation of this policy shall constitute grounds for severe disciplinary action, including possible termination of the offending employee. ------------------------------ From: horowitz@nosc.mil (Alan M. Horowitz) Date: 11 Apr 1995 06:38:09 GMT Subject: Re: Use of Mailboxes Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA It is illegal to put something into a person's mailbox if the proper postage has not been paid. There is no regulation specifying that you must let the USPS be the deliverer. ------------------------------ From: wjwinn@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Bill Winn) Date: 11 Apr 1995 16:47:13 GMT Subject: Big Brother Aids in Car Servicing Organization: Analysts International Corporation The below was pulled from another newsgroup: In case you haven't heard, California Air Resources Board is starting to talk about an OBD III standard. Part of this new standard incorporates some Hughes developed remote monitoring technology. Each car will have on-board telemetry that will allow monitoring of your vehicle's diagnostics. If your "Check Engine" light turns on, you get a nice letter from CARB that tells you to get your engine fixed pronto. Boy, is this loaded with invasion of privacy implications. You can imagine the State of California (or any state), when confronted with a need for money, selling the diagnositic informationto private businesses. Even worse, they could sell direct access to the telemetry. Just think, you would receive junk mail every 3,000 miles reminding you to change your oil. After 40,000 miles the car dealerships would deluge you with offers to trade in your car. Also, if this telemetry include speed information it would be rather trivial for the State to issue tickets. -- Bill Winn Software Engineer - Analysts International Corporation ------------------------------- wjwinn@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com wwinn@klingon.iupucs.iupui.edu ------------------------------ From: prure@aol.com (PruRE) Date: 12 Apr 1995 02:57:33 -0400 Subject: Privacy "Remailer" for Phones Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I want to get around "caller ID". Is anyone aware of a service that accomplishes for a phone call the same thing that remailer does for email? Thanks! ------------------------------ From: storm@panix.com (Frank Field) Date: 12 Apr 1995 17:41:12 GMT Subject: Email/VoiceMail Privacy Organization: CBS The issue is email and voice mail privacy in the workplace. I see several postings dealing with legalities of email and the boss...I'm doing a story on the privacy issues surrounding that and voice mail. Am looking for people in the New York city metro area who feel or know the boss has taken a look or a listen to their email or voice mail. Am also looking for companies or sysops with progressive, well-stated privacy policies for their workers. Responses will be kept confidential. Email me at winb@interport.net or real world calll 212-975-2571 or voice mail 975-9753. -- win baker technology producer, wcbs tv ------------------------------ From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) Date: 12 Apr 1995 19:27:44 GMT Subject: Church of Scientology, Privacy, and Criminality Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) [Note that follow-on discussion should go to a.r.s. misc.legal, and alt.privacy] [Feel free to cross-post *where appropriate*] The recent attempted "outings" of anonymous posters by the "Church" of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs (OSA, their intelligence org), is very troubling from net.privacy and net.freedom perspectives. It is even possible, as some evidence indicates (but needs to be proven of course) that OSA violated the law in gathering the information. There are now inquiries with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies on the attempted "outings". This post is to give my perspective on CoS' "theological" views on anonymity, privacy, criminality, and the law. In their view of the world, these appear to be inextricably linked. First, Scientology considers it a sign of criminality for a person to seek or desire privacy. You see this in their high-level orgs such as Sea Org, OSA, etc. Thus, not only are CoS' critics considered to be hiding crimes even if they openly post (see next paragraph), being anonymous is itself a crime. And according to CoS "theology", by revealing the identities of the anonymous posters, you reveal their criminality. They even believe that by revealing a person's "crimes", they will actually help that person! They use this as one moral justification for digging into other people's privacy. Of course, many OSA people are themselves posting anonymously, but CoS is authorizing it and knows who they are, so from CoS' perspective, they are *not* anonymous. And the whole issue of "criminality" is itself very interesting as CoS will define criminality by their frame of reference and not by the society at large (the "wog-world"). If it is not a crime according to "wog-world" law, it can be declared to be a crime by them if it serves their purpose. CoS considers their law to be the only legitimate law of the universe and that they are not subject to any other law, especially "wog-world" law. They will, interestingly enough, use and even subject themselves to "wog-world" law when and until it serves their long-term purpose of instituting their law as the law of the universe. Another interesting observation from reading comments by Milne and other OSA posters regarding Dennis Erlich and other very vocal critics of CoS is their total blindness to and rejection of the morally correct view that people are innocent until proven guilty by due process. In fact, according to Scientological "theology", a critic of CoS is automatically and unquestionably guilty of some crime or crimes (and as I said above, they define what are crimes!), thus the principle of innocent until proven guilty cannot exist in the world of Scientology. Or, to put it another way, a loyal supporter of CoS has no hidden criminality and thus is innocent, while a critic *must* be hiding criminality and is therefore *guilty* -- there are no other options, no "gray" areas. *All* riticism of them is "criminal". Their posts so far to alt.religion.scientology make this very clear, as well as supporting the other points I make in this post. Of course, I welcome Scientology supporters to point out where my assessment above is incorrect. Let's dialogue on this. Jon Noring (For discussion on the particulars about the revealing of the information on anonymous posters (not given here), start reading the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. Discussion there has been extremely lively and interesting, to say the least. I'll guarantee a.r.s. to be the "hottest" newsgroup on Usenet, and one where breaking issues of grave ramification to net.freedom occur almost weekly if not daily. Do support discussion there as what happens there will eventually reverberate through the entire Internet.) -- OmniMedia | The Electronic Bookstore. Come in and browse! Two 1312 Carlton Place | locations: ftp.netcom.com /pub/Om/OmniMedia/books Livermore, CA 94550 | and ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia 510-294-8153 | E-book publishing service follows NWU recommendations. ------------------------------ From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning) Date: 10 Apr 1995 06:47:36 GMT Subject: BC News Articles about FOI/POP Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada In an article "Shutters falling on lien information", on page B10 of the 1995/April/05 Victoria Times-Colonist, Norman Gidney writes "Last Friday, the Land Title Office cut off a long standing practice of allowing researchers to gather lists of the latest liens, a practice know as 'bulk searching' or 'grazing'." [...] "Provincial land title registrar Malcolm McAvity said release of this information in bulk contravenes the new provincial freedom of information and privacy law. Anyone may still go to a land title office and ask to see any outstanding liens on a particular property, but the practice of gathering lists of the latest liens for publication has been stopped." The article goes on to quote a number of publishers of these lists, and their clients, predicting the end of the world as we know it. It fails to note that anyone can inquire about the liens against a particluar property over the phone on almost a 24x7 basis. It is not neccessary for someone to actually go to the land title office during normal business hours, or even during Government working hours.:-) Farther down on the same page there is an article "Tailor data base to track snoops", by Les Leyne, which describes Information and Privacy Commissioner David Flaherty's comments about the conclusions of his recent inquiry about the use of government records by a Delta police officer active in the anti-abortion movement. Commissioner Flaherty's comments leave me with the distinct impression that he feels that authorized staff engaging in a bit of private enterprise are more of a privacy threat than hackers or people from the outside. My own reading of BC's FOI/POP act is that there is an implied requirement to maintain an access audit trail and retain access audit records for at least 1 year. Some TP systems already generate these kinds of trails in a rudimentary form. For example IMS/TM systems generate type 01 and 03 log records of all input and output messages for recovery purposes, in addition to undo/redo log records generated by updates to databases using IMS/DM. I haven't read whether these kinds of logs were used to trace the access of motor vehicle records at ICBC by this rogue cop. ICBC may have had a head start because of the earlier tracing of improper access by ICBC staff to the driving records of ICBC head Robyn Allen, who lost her job after her history of moving violations was leaked to the press. Whatever ICBC did before was probably recycled to handle this FOI/POP request by staff at a Vancouver Abortion Clinic who received harassing mail at their non-published home addresses. An access auditing system based on such logs would be impossible to defeat, without access to the logs themselves, or without modifying vendor TP monitor code. Someone using an IMS MPP, for example, cannot prevent their input transaction, and the output from the transaction, from being logged in the OLDS and archived to the SLDS. Someone would have to have separate access to the logs, and any tampering with them would show up in SMF, which records who accessed which dataset and when. Do other TP monitors have similar logging facilities? I've heard that CICS, for example, doesn't log transactions for recoverability, and that it depends on DBMSs such as IMS/DM or DB2 handling their own logging and backout/recovery. ------------------------------ From: hpux_gtown_mail!tpeters@uunet.uu.net (Thomas Peters) Date: 10 Apr 1995 16:54:02 GMT Subject: Re: Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995 Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc. The Act was part of the Republican Contract With America. ... I offer a few observations about the bill. First, it appears that this is part of the agenda of the new right. Buried I think you are too concerned about the identity and motives of proponents of this law rather than what it actually does. As I understand your article, the key points are: 1. The bill's sole effect is to prevent Federal government money from being spent on certain activites. It doesn't authorize anyone to do anything they can't do now. It doesn't affect the rights of anyone who isn't using government money. 2. The bill limits the right of the government to ask intrusive personal questions of children without getting parental consent. There has to be a good reason, as described in the exceptions. Maybe there are too many exceptions, but currently there is no protection at all. Personally, I don't like the immigration/internal revenue/customs exception, but I recognize that it may be the price of getting a majority to support it. Half a loaf is better than none. The bill provides valuable protection to parents against people using their children as tools to invade their privacy. If you want to know something, ask me, not my son. It also enhances parents' ability to fulfill their right and responsibility to protect their children. A child who tells his teacher that he is homosexual, or a Pagan, or a nudist, for example, may face some consequences. It's the parent's job to help him make an informed and unpressured decision about his privacy--and decide if he is even old enough to make such a decision. -- Tom Peters Speaking for myself as always ------------------------------ From: Bill Hensley Date: 12 Apr 1995 03:55:08 GMT Subject: Re: Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995 Organization: Questar Network Services Robert Gellman wrote: A privacy bill was approved by the House of Representatives on April 4, 1995. The bill is the Family Privacy Protection Act [... remainder deleted] I don't really have any substantial comment on this bill, except that it is probably one of those pieces of "law" that, IMHO, has no worthwile purpose, "contract" or no "contract". I would comment that I find it very strange that a law like this would even be considered by the same body that approved the Digital Telephony bill without any real debate. On the one hand, we have a proposed law that criminalizes asking a teen about some "sensitive" topics, while on the other we allow the FBI to easily tap any phone call or other telecommunication in the entire country. -- Bill Hensley bhensley@oceo.trw.com 75542.2343@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: cpsr-global@Sunnyside.COM Date: 06 Apr 1995 02:58:41 -0700 Subject: Internet Porn Censorship Taken from CPSR-GLOBAL Digest 123 Date: 05 Apr 1995 09:02:17 -0500 From: Ms Roisin Ni Mhaille Battel (by way of Subject: Re: internet/porn/censorship (@) Sender: Ms Roisin Ni Mhaille Battel The use of the internet to disseminate pornography, hate-mail etc. interests me a lot, but I despair of the 'tramlines' the discussions always seem to get caught in. I think there's a lot of point-missing going on - like discussing whether or not 'little Johnny' is going to be damaged by paedophile material [what about 'little Jane' in all this?]. For me a more central issue is the nature of the internet itself, and the hype surrounding it. It has been presented as a wonderful new medium for communication, bringing people and peoples together, a tool for radical contracts untramelled by boundaries, capable of turning the world into a global village, a limitless information superhighway for a brave new world of the future [cue orchestra and massed choirs in the background].. And what's the reality? That it's used for the same tired old abuses - porn, paedophilia, racism, homophobia - as all the other media. I'm not actually *surprised* that this has happened - I call it 'The Tomcat Effect' - you name the media, and it is very quickly 'marked' as territory by those who call the shots in the wider society; it happened with print, film, telephones, so why not the internet? But if not surprised, I am slightly disappointed that as soon as cyberspace was called into being, the same oppressive structures which exist in 'real' society sprang into existence there as well, and that few people want to address this issue, because they see it as either inevitable or just not a problem. *HOWEVER*...mention spamming and suddenly it's the end of civilisation as we know it..misuse of the internet..lack of respect for the medium..not the done thing, old chap..something must be done..groups formed..letters to The Times.. Funny, isn't it? ------------------------------ From: Susan Evoy Date: 06 Apr 1995 01:16:06 -0700 Subject: Conferences/Events 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 Security on the I-Way, NCSA's 1995 Technical Symposium, Stouffer Concourse Hotel, Arlington, VA, April 10-11. Contact: 74774.1326@compuserve.com The First Amendment in Cyberspace, University of Texas, Austin, April 18. Contact: m.norkunas@mail.utexas.edu 512 495-4515 512 495-4542(fax) 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 Health Care, Privacy & Cyberspace, Albany, New York, June 21-22. Contact: ds3789@albany.edu 17th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners, Copenhagen, DENMARK, Sept. 6-8. Contact: 45 33 14 38 44 45 33 13 38 43 (fax) International Cryptography Institute 1995: Global Challenges, Washington, DC Sep. 21-22. Contact: denning@cs.georgetown.edu 800 301 MIND (US only) 202 962-9494 202 962-9495 (fax) Managing the Privacy Revolution, Washington, DC, Oct. 31-Nov. 1 Contact: 201 996-1154 ------------------------------ 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 #036 ****************************** .