Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 11:05:28 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V6#054 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 13 Jun 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 054 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Course: Cryptology for the Internet Fulbright & Computer Ethics in the UK Course: Internet Security, 7/ 24-28, at Stanford Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement Re: Text Filter for the Very Good Defences Against Cyber-Seduction Re: The Microsoft Win95 Virus - update Re: Sending VISA Card Details by e-Mail Re: Mondex Project CA PUC battles FCC over CNID blocking NSW electoral ID card MasterCard Survey on Junk Mail and Junk Phone Calls Freedom to Read Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wengler@ee.rochester.edu (Michael J. Wengler) Date: 08 Jun 1995 14:34:10 -0500 Subject: Course: Cryptology for the Internet Organization: EE Dept., University of Rochester EE 492: "SPECIAL TOPICS: CRYPTOLOGY AND COMPUTER-NETWORK SECURITY" We offer this summer (July 10 to August 16) a special course on the topic of privacy and security on computer networks, and how these can be enhanced using encoding. This course addresses: Financial fraud and theft on the internet Data theft as the internet is used to transport files Privacy of communication over the internet. This course provides 4 Credit Hours at the graduate level in the Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Rochester. For more information on the course send e-mail to Professor Gaj at gaj@ee.rochester.edu, or call him at (716) 275-2099. Or see our web page: http://www.ceas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/wengler/ee492.html -- For PGP, research plans, and more information, see web page: http://www.ceas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/wengler/home.html Electrical Engineering Department Voice: 716 275-9402 University of Rochester Fax : 716 473-0486 Rochester NY 14627 Cell: 716 748-1930 ------------------------------ From: Simon Rogerson Date: 09 Jun 1995 13:48:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: Fulbright & Computer Ethics in the UK The Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility was launched at ETHICOMP95 in March this year. Its aim is to raise awareness of the impact of IT on individuals, communities and organisations around the globe. Based in the University's School of Computing Sciences, CCSR undertakes research and provides teaching, consultancy and advice on all aspects of IT, addressing issues surrounding its dramatic expansion. Within the UK and other European countries there is an urgent need to address, both conceptually and practically, the ethical issues of computing. CCSR is a key player in computer ethics not only in the UK but across the world through its links with centres in other countries including Norway, Belgium, Spain and in the USA, the Research Centre on Computing and Society at Southern Connecticut State University whose Director, Terrell Ward Bynum is Visiting Professor at CCSR. Membership of the Centre's International Advisory Board comprises many of the leading authorities in the field. The Centre would welcome the opportunity of hosting a Fulbright Scholar who wishes to work on aspects of computer ethics and social responsibility. The work of the Centre would ideally suit someone working in applied philosophy who wants the opportunity of working alongside computer scientists who are interested in the practical application of ethics to computing in the workplace, in the home and in education. In the current climate in the UK there are many exciting and stimulating projects that can be undertaken in the field of computer ethics. Further details about CCSR can be found on http://www.cms.dmu.ac.uk/CCSR If you wish to discuss this opportunity further, please email me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Rogerson Director, Centre for Computing & Social Responsibility School of Computing Sciences De Montfort University TEL: +44 116 257 7475 The Gateway, Leicester FAX: +44 116 254 1891 LE1 9BH, UK EMAIL: srog@dmu.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: ark@Office.Stanford.EDU (Arthur Keller) Date: 13 Jun 1995 02:39:13 -0700 Subject: Course: Internet Security, 7/ 24-28, at Stanford Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University The Western Institute of Computer Science announces a week-long course on INTERNET SECURITY taught at Stanford University July 24 -- 28, 1995 by Arthur M. Keller (Stanford University) David H. Crocker (Brandenburg Consulting) Tina M. Darmohray (Internet Works!) Whitfield Diffie (Sun Microsystems) Mark Eichin (Cygnus Support) Gail Grant (Open Market) Lance Hoffman (George Washington University) Sushil Jajodia (George Mason University) Peter G. Neumann (SRI International) Allan M. Schiffman (Terisa Systems) William Wong (Enterprise Integration Technologies) A Practical Week-long Course for Consultants, Educators, Government and Industry Scientists and Engineers This course is taught by leading researchers and practioners in the area of internet security: Arthur M. Keller, Dave Crocker, Tina M. Darmohray, Whitfield Diffie, Mark Eichin, Gail Grant, Lance Hoffman, Sushil Jojodia, Peter Neumann, Allan M. Schiffman, and William Wong. Participants will receive a grounding in internet security, familiarity with current concepts and issues, and exposure to the most important research and development trends in the area. [moderator: full information can be obtained from the course coordinators, address above.] ------------------------------ From: PHILS@RELAY.RELAY.COM (Philip H. Smith III, (703) 506-0500) Date: 09 Jun 95 07:29:10 EDT Subject: Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement Prof. L. P. Levine" said: In the next version of the Web navigators, just introduce a new HTML tag . If a WWW browser encounters this tag enclosed inside the part of a HTML document, then the browser will simply refuse to load or render the document. The author of a Web page should put that tag in all of his pages containing materials that he does not want to be seen by young children. According to our local HTML expert, when asked "Could this work?": It might, but it strikes me as a bad solution. The "SurfWatch" concept would be more secure and would be general rather than specific to HTML. Ah yes, now I know why it WON'T work.. kids could simply access a URL for an adult GIF (or JPEG, or ...) directly if they knew what it was. And you can bet they would find such URLs. No HTML. No tag. No security. It seems to me that something at the TCP/IP access level (e.g. SurfWatc) is the only thing that would work. Further, deponent sayeth not. -- ...phsiii ------------------------------ From: ramole@aol.com (RAMole) Date: 10 Jun 1995 23:07:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Re: labeling and lockouts for adult material. I agree. The cover of Playboy has always said "Entertainment for Men", and that's never been called censorship, just truth in labeling. ( For the same reason, CD's with offensive lyrics can be labeled as such -- on this one, Tipper Gore is right.) And Playboy was never sold to minors [meaning we had to work to get it!] I think lockouts will work for young children, though I have doubts that anything will work for almost-eighteen-year-olds. But is this a concern when, on average, kids first have sex at 16? Labeling is such an easy, obvious solution. But then, Exon's idea would work too. And universal castration would prevent rape, but that doesn't make it a good plan! Alan Mole ramole@aol.com ------------------------------ From: ramole@aol.com (RAMole) Date: 10 Jun 1995 22:27:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Text Filter for the Very Good Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Dick Mills writes that this filter would work like a cancelbot and remove everything from the Net. That wasn't what I had in mind-- the filter program would run only on the *individual's* computer and protect her, him or the Sensitive Senator from *any* words they considered naughty. Naturally, no normal adult would imagine using the thing, even to filter out mail from Johnathan Edwards or SEXon. (Oops, I Mean S.Exon!) It could be provided by AOL etc, for download, customization and use by whoever felt the need for protection. I never use their chat groups, but AOL already provides an icon of a man with his hands in his ears, so you can choose not to receive the speech of a person you dislike. This has never been an issue that I know of -- one person refusing to listen is not censorship. To the contrary, "Freedom is the right to say 'NO' ." -- George Orwell. Anyway, such a filter for the few Sensitive Souls is *all* that's needed to solve the problem that worries them, not the destruction of free speech for everyone. Mr Mills also mentions pictures, but as I said, there is already a filter program that locks out a computer from access to sites with dirty pics. In answer to your next question, NO, they do not plan to sell their Index Expurgatorius to people who *want* to see the pictures. But if there was ever a file that hackers would crack.... Alan Mole ramole@aol.com ------------------------------ From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com> Date: 13 Jun 95 11:03:13 EDT Subject: Defences Against Cyber-Seduction >From the Associated Press news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service: APn 06/12 2359 On-Line Runaways By DAVID FOSTER Associated Press Writer What could be safer for a teen-ager than staying home to peck away at a computer keyboard? Plenty, it would appear from two recent cases of teen-age runaways lured from home by computer users they met on line. The article summarizes the cases of 13-year old Tara Noble and 15-year old Daniel Montgomery, both of whom left home to join cyber-friends they had met through America Online. There were some interesting quotes from parents and others in the story: "I would consider myself computer literate, but frankly, I didn't suspect what I found out," said Bill Montgomery of Maple Valley, Wash. [...] "You can get into anything you want on line," Montgomery said. "There's pornography in these chat rooms. There are obscenities. It's really wide open." [...] But the ...[FBI's]... Louisville office issued a statement saying Tara Noble's case "demonstrates the need for parents to provide oversight and guidance to their children in the use of computers." [...] ...[T]he big three computer network services -- America Online Inc., CompuServe Inc. and Prodigy Service Co.... say they allow subscribers to screen what their children see on line by blocking certain services such as chat rooms or access to the Internet. But the ultimate responsibility rests with parents, they say. The companies point out that there is an immense range of information available through their services, from education to pornography. "Two-point-five million use this service," said Pam McGraw, spokeswoman for America Online. "That's like a city. Parents wouldn't let their kids go wandering in a city of 2.5 million people without them, or without knowing what they're going to be doing." In conjunction with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the companies have helped to produce a brochure called "Child Safety on the Information Highway." "There are parents out there who don't know where the on-off switch is, and they don't know what their kids are doing," said Ernie Allen, the center's president. "It's important for parents to develop an understanding of what their kids are doing on the computer." Parents should establish what their children may or may not do on line. "The point, whether you're talking about on-line services or television or anything else, is that it's not inappropriate to set limits," Allen said. [...] Montgomery believes the most important lesson his family's crisis offers is personal, not technological. "It's not computer-related at all," he said. "I've learned how important it is to spend more time with my son, and to let him know that he's real important to us." In a separate story issued at the same time, AP provided the following excerpt from the brochure: A brochure distributed by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children includes this pledge for minors who use computer networks: o I will not give out personal information such as my address, telephone number, parents' work address, telephone number or the name and location of my school without my parents' permission. o I will tell my parents right away if I come across any information that makes me feel uncomfortable. o I will never agree to get together with someone I "meet" on line without first checking with my parents. If my parents agree to the meeting, I will be sure that it is in a public place and bring my mother or father along. o I will never send a person my picture or anything else without first checking with my parents. o I will not respond to any messages that are mean or in any way make me feel uncomfortable. It is not my fault if I get a message like that. If I do, I will tell my parents right away so that they can contact the on-line service. o I will talk with my parents so that we can set up rules for going on line. We will decide upon the time of day that I can be on line, the length of time I can be on line, and appropriate areas for me to visit. I will not access other areas or break these rules without their permission. For the full brochure, titled "Child Safety on the Information Highway," available free from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, call 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678). M.E.Kabay,Ph.D. / Dir. Education, Natl Computer Security Assn (Carlisle, PA) ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Date: 10 Jun 1995 02:29:12 GMT Subject: Re: The Microsoft Win95 Virus - update Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Dean Ridgway writes: An update on this. A friend of mine got hold of a copy of the beta test CD of Win95, and set up a packet sniffer between his serial port and the modem. When you try out the free demo time on The Microsoft Network, it transmits your entire directory structure in background. This means that they have a list of every directory (and, potentially every file) on your machine. It would not be difficult to have something like a FileRequest from your system to theirs, without you knowing about it. This way they could get ahold of any juicy routines you've written yourself and claim them as their own if you don't have them copyrighted. Needless to say, I'm rather annoyed about this. Isn't this the same sort of thing that got Prodigy in trouble a year or so ago? I remember reading about some class action lawsuits in California when some lawyers found Prodigy reading confidential lawyer/client info off their harddrives. I never heard how any of the lawsuits turned out though. If it's the incident I remember, then what Prodigy's installation software did was it allocated a swap file on the user's hard disk _BUT DIDN'T FIRST ZERO IT OUT_. Remember - when MS-DOS deletes a file it only deletes the directory information, then marks the space free. Well, some lawyer who knew just enough to be dangerous went snooping in the Prodigy files (probably with LIST, or maybe just by TYPEing them) and found some of his (deleted) documents. And made assumptions and went ballistic. After somebody got educated, it all died down. And hopefully Prodigy put a file zeroing routine in their installation software. -- Mike Morris WA6ILQ | All opinions must be my own since nobody PO Box 1130 | pays me enough to be their mouthpiece... Arcadia, CA. 91077 | ICBM: 34.07.930N, 118.03.799W | Reply to: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us ------------------------------ From: bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: 10 Jun 1995 21:17:12 GMT Subject: Re: Sending VISA Card Details by e-Mail Organization: Fantasy Farm, Pearisburg, VA Sean Donelan writes: Berclay's bank must have some different language in their cardholder agreement than most US banks do. US bank card holder agreements say nothing about the Internet, or encryption. Of course, US law tends to put the bulk of the risk on the card issuer, not the card holder. The US credit card associations rules and regulations further allocate much of the risk to the merchant acquirier. Well, one way to find this out fairly quickly would be for one of the folk who're arguing that "there's really no risk" simply to post *THEIR* MasterCard number to a handful of newsgroups where those with less-than-the-highest ethics hang out, and then report back to us how much in bogus charges got racked up and how hard it was to get the mess cleared up. -- Bernie Cosell bernie@fantasyfarm.com Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358 --->>> Too many people; too few sheep <<<--- ------------------------------ From: renaud@CAM.ORG Date: 12 Jun 1995 10:44:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Mondex Project I have seen in the list the letters from Kelly Bert Manning and Paul McKeever mckeever@cogsci.uwo.ca about the Mondex project from the Royal Bank and CIBC. I want to bring some precisions, not about the project, but about the smart cards. A smart card is a micro-processor on a credit/debit card with memory. What is interesting in that the memory is controled by the micro-processor only. That means that a smart card may be really secure, depending on the usage and the security architecture we design for it. In the banking industry, thay are a lot of options for a smart card: credit card, debit card, electronic purse and the combination of all these options. If you choose the electronic purse option only, I agree with Paul McKeever that the smart card is really anonymous because it is no link between the bank account ant the purchase. It's like cash payment. If you choose to combine debit/credit card with electronic purse, that's another thing. The secure features of the smart card enables to encode securely the PIN into the card and, of course all account informations. In this case, the smart card is no more anonymous. The protection of private life depends on the laws and the management of the bank. Of course, the information stored in the card can't be stolen or used by criminals. The snart card is very versatile. It has been used for years in Europe for a lot of different projects, from the payment of the fare tickets to the storage of the medical informations. The protection of the private life and the security of the informations is conditionnal to the rules that are applied in the smart card applications and architecture. Renaud Pirsch, CISA EDP Auditing Advisor renaud@cam.org ------------------------------ From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com> Date: 12 Jun 95 10:55:36 EDT Subject: CA PUC battles FCC over CNID blocking Forum: CIS:NCSAFO Section: Telco/PBX/Cellular Subj : CA appeals FCC CNID rule To : All from the United Press Intl news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service: UPn 06/07 1927 Calif. appeals FCC Caller ID decision SAN FRANCISCO, June 7 (UPI) -- The state Public Utilities Commission filed an appeal in federal court Wednesday, claiming the Federal Communication Commission's decision not to require phone companies to automatically block unlisted numbers violates California's privacy protections. In essence, the story explains that the FCC has decided not to force telcos to provide automatic blocking of CNID on all calls from unlisted numbers. Over 60% of all the phone subscribers in California's 10 largest cities have unlisted numbers. M.E.Kabay,Ph.D. / Dir. Education, Natl Computer Security Assn (Carlisle, PA) ------------------------------ From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com> Date: 12 Jun 95 18:24:31 EDT Subject: NSW electoral ID card >From the Australian Associated Press news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service: AAP 06/09 1437 NSW: LEGISLATION FOR VOTER IDENTITY CARD SYDNEY, June 9 AAP - People enrolling to vote in state elections would be provided with an identity card under legislation introduced into the New South Wales parliament. [...] Under the legislation the state electoral commissioner would distribute a Voter Identity Card with the issuing of writs before any state election or by-election. -- M.E.Kabay,Ph.D. / Dir. Education, Natl Computer Security Assn (Carlisle, PA) ------------------------------ From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA Sys_Op]" <75300.3232@compuserve.com> Date: 13 Jun 95 11:03:25 EDT Subject: MasterCard Survey on Junk Mail and Junk Phone Calls >From the United Press Intl news wire via CompuServe's Executive News Service: UPn 06/12 1014 Lifestyles By CYNTHIA LITTLETON United Press International TELE-NUISANCE?: MasterCard International wants to know how consumers feel about direct marketing, better known to some as junk mail and unsolicited sales pitches by phone. [...] MasterCard has set up a toll-free line, 800-622-7581, for consumers to voice their opinions on these practices through July 4. The credit giant will issue a report on the responses later this year. The short article also reports on "the Illinois-based Private Citizen, which helps people get their names off direct-marketing lists." According to its founder, Robert Bulmash, it is even possible to make money from the telemarketeers. What you do is send them a legal notice warning that you charge, say, $500 for each unsolicited call. Then if the firm fails to prevent its minions from calling you, you sue them. The article ends with these details: For more information about the direct-marketing survey, call MasterCard International, 212-649-6400, ex. 2082, or Robert Bulmash with Private Citizen, 708-393-1555.... -- M.E.Kabay,Ph.D. / Dir. Education, Natl Computer Security Assn (Carlisle, PA) ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 12 Jun 1995 10:58:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Freedom to Read Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Taken from Computer underground Digest Sun Jun 11, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 48 ISSN 1004-042X Date: 09 Jun 1995 17:21:21 GMT From: kadie@SAL.CS.UIUC.EDU(Carl M Kadie) Subject: Can Parents prevent Web page viewing? Here is my suggested alternative: That authors, publishers, and distributors (both for-profit and non-profit) assert and defend their full First Amendment-protected rights by adopting the American Library Assocations and Association of American Publishers's "Freedom To Read" statement (enclosed). These priciples have been in use for over 40 years. They are tested. They have a good track record of protecting freedom of speech, much better than any self-labeling scheme. That is not to say there is no place for labeling. I think SurfWatch and similar projects and projects are fine for parents who want them. But self-labeling is not necessary and makes formal and informal cenesorhsip more likely. - Carl ============== THE FREEDOM TO READ The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove books from sale, to censor textbooks, to label "controversial" books, to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors, and to purge libraries. These actions apparently rise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals. We, as citizens devoted to the use of books and as librarians and publishers responsible for disseminating them, wish to assert the public interest in the preservation of the freedom to read. We are deeply concerned about these attempts at suppression. Most such attempts rest on a denial of the fundamental premise of democracy: that the ordinary citizen, by exercising critical judgment, will accept the good and reject the bad. The censors, public and private, assume that they should determine what is good and what is bad for their fellow-citizens. We trust Americans to recognize propaganda, and to reject it. We do not believe they need the help of censors to assist them in this task. We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what others think may be bad for them. We believe they still favor free enterprise in ideas and expression. We are aware, of course, that books are not alone in being subjected to efforts at suppression. We are aware that these efforts are related to a larger pattern of pressures being brought against education, the press, films, radio and television. The problem is not only one of actual censorship. The shadow of fear cast by these pressures leads, we suspect, to an even larger voluntary curtailment of expression by those who seek to avoid controversy. Such pressure toward conformity is perhaps natural to a time of uneasy change and pervading fear. Especially when so many of our apprehensions are directed against an ideology, the expression of a dissident idea becomes a thing feared in itself, and we tend to move against it as against a hostile deed, with suppression. And yet suppression is never more dangerous than in such a time of social tension. Freedom has given the United States the elasticity to endure strain. Freedom keeps open the path of novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with stress. Now as always in our history, books are among our greatest instruments of freedom. They are almost the only means for making generally available ideas or manners of expression that can initially command only a small audience. They are the natural medium for the new idea and the untried voice from which come the original contributions to social growth. They are essential to the extended discussion which serious thought requires, and to the accumulation of knowledge and ideas into organized collections. We believe that free communication is essential to the preservation of a free society and a creative culture. We believe that these pressures towards conformity present the danger of limiting the range and variety of inquiry and expression on which our democracy and our culture depend. We believe that every American community must jealously guard the freedom to publish and to circulate, in order to preserve its own freedom to read. We believe that publishers and librarians have a profound responsibility to give validity to that freedom to read by making it possible for the readers to choose freely from a variety of offerings. The freedom to read is guaranteed by the Constitution. Those with faith in free people will stand firm on these constitutional guarantees of essential rights and will exercise the responsibilities that accompany these rights. _We therefore affirm these propositions: 1. It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those which are unorthodox or unpopular with the majority._ Creative thought is by definition new, and what is new is different. The bearer of every new thought is a rebel until that idea is refined and tested. Totalitarian systems attempt to maintain themselves in power by the ruthless suppression of any concept which challenges the established orthodoxy. The power of a democratic system to adapt to change is vastly strengthened by the freedom of its citizens to choose widely from among conflicting opinions offered freely to them. To stifle every nonconformist idea at birth would mark the end of the democratic process. Furthermore, only through the constant activity of weighing and selecting can the democratic mind attain the strength demanded by times like these. We need to know not only what we believe but why we believe it. 2. _Publishers, librarians and booksellers do not need to endorse every idea or presentation contained in the books they make available. It would conflict with the public interest for them to establish their own political, moral or aesthetic views as a standard for determining what books should be published or circulated._ Publishers and librarians serve the educational process by helping to make available knowledge and ideas required for the growth of the mind and the increase of learning. They do not foster education by imposing as mentors the patterns of their own thought. The people should have the freedom to read and consider a broader range of ideas than those that may be held by any single librarian or publisher or government or church. It is wrong that what one can read should be confined to what another thinks proper. 3. _It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or librarians to determine the acceptability of a book on the basis of the personal history or political affiliations of the author._ A book should be judged as a book. No art or literature can flourish if it is to be measured by the political views or private lives of its creators. No society of free people can flourish which draws up lists of writers to whom it will not listen, whatever they may have to say. 4. _There is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression._ To some, much of modern literature is shocking. But is not much of life itself shocking? We cut off literature at the source if we prevent writers from dealing with the stuff of life. Parents and teachers have a responsibility to prepare the young to meet the diversity of experiences in life to which they will be exposed, as they have a responsibility to help them learn to think critically for themselves. These are affirmative responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by preventing them from reading works for which they are not yet prepared. In these matters taste differs, and taste cannot be legislated; nor can machinery be devised which will suit the demands of one group without limiting the freedom of others. 5. _It is not in the public interest to force a reader to accept with any book the prejudgment of a label characterizing the book or author as subversive or dangerous._ The ideal of labeling presupposes the existence of individuals or groups with wisdom to determine by authority what is good or bad for the citizen. It presupposes that individuals must be directed in making up their minds about the ideas they examine. But Americans do not need others to do their thinking for them. 6. _It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians, as guardians of the people's freedom to read, to contest encroachments upon that freedom by individuals or groups seeking to impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at large._ It is inevitable in the give and take of the democratic process that the political, the moral, or the aesthetic concepts of an individual or group will occasionally collide with those of another individual or group. In a free society individuals are free to determine for themselves what they wish to read, and each group is free to determine what it will recommend to its freely associated members. But no group has the right to take the law into its own hands, and to impose its own concept of politics or morality upon other members of a democratic society. Freedom is no freedom if it is accorded only to the accepted and the inoffensive. 7. _It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians to give full meaning to the freedom to read by providing books that enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression. By the exercise of this affirmative responsibility, they can demonstrate that the answer to a bad book is a good one, the answer to a bad idea is a good one._ The freedom to read is of little consequence when expended on the trivial; it is frustrated when the reader cannot obtain matter fit for that reader's purpose. What is needed is not only the absence of restraint, but the positive provision of opportunity for the people to read the best that has been thought and said. Books are the major channel by which the intellectual inheritance is handed down, and the principal means of its testing and growth. The defense of their freedom and integrity, and the enlargement of their service to society, requires of all publishers and librarians the utmost of their faculties, and deserves of all citizens the fullest of their support. We state these propositions neither lightly nor as easy generalizations. We here stake out a lofty claim for the value of books. We do so because we believe that they are good, possessed of enormous variety and usefulness, worthy of cherishing and keeping free. We realize that the application of these propositions may mean the dissemination of ideas and manners of expression that are repugnant to many persons. We do not state these propositions in the comfortable belief that what people read is unimportant. We believe rather that what people read is deeply important; that ideas can be dangerous; but that the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society. Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is ours. ___________________________ This statement was originally issued in May of 1953 by the Westchester Conference of the American Library Association and the American Book Publishers Council, which in 1970 consolidated with the American Educational Publishers Institute to become the Association of American Publishers. Adopted June 25, 1953; revised January 28, 1972, January 16, 1991, by the ALA Council and the AAP Freedom to Read Committee. _A Joint Statement by:_ American Library Association Association of American Publishers _Subsequently Endorsed by:_ American Booksellers Association American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression American Civil Liberties Union American Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith Association of American University Presses Children's Book Council Freedom to Read Foundation International Reading Association Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression National Association of College Stores National Council of Teachers of English P.E.N. - American Center People for the American Way Periodical and Book Association of America Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S. Society of Professional Journalists Women's National Book Association YWCA of the U.S.A. Information provider: Unit: American Library Association Email: Edward.Valauskas@ala.org Posted: 24 Apr 1994 -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization or employer; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: ------------------------------ 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 #054 ****************************** .