Date: Sun, 09 Jul 95 12:15:29 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V7#002 Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 09 Jul 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 002 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Allegations of Privacy Violation by Microsoft Per-call blocking exclusion Re: Encryption Laws Prevent Censorship on the Net Re: Bitten & Branded Help for Funding Privacy Conference Announcement Exon Coats Amendment [Long] Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scherrey@proteus-tech.com (Benjamin Scherrey) Date: 04 Jul 1995 02:34:42 GMT Subject: Re: Allegations of Privacy Violation by Microsoft Organization: Proteus Technologies, Inc. Dean Ridgway writes: 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. I don't know how the lawsuits turned out (I imagine that they were dropped) but the Prodigy software was reserving a file of X bytes for data transfers. Apparently they didn't bother to initialize that space so any data left over from previous deleted files would still be there. I don't recall whether any unitialized data was actually transferred over modem or not but if you went and looked at the raw file on your hard drive you would have found stuff that didn't look like it belonged there to be sure! The Microsoft situation seems to be completely different but I doubt that there's any unknown data being transferred there either. I mean - what's the point when soon all those Windows 97 users start paying their bills over the Microsoft network, Microsoft will be able to get information much more valuable than how many copies of Doom are on your hard drive! ;-) // // Benjamin Scherrey // Proteus Technologies, Inc. // (404) 454-1013v (404) 986-9876f // ------------------------------ From: LaneL@aol.com Date: 05 Jul 1995 13:06:15 -0400 Subject: Per-call blocking exclusion I have never used per-call blocking before today, but I decided to try it. According to Bell Atlantic's instructions, I punched in *67, but instead of 3 beeps and a dial tone, I got a busy signal on both my lines. I called the phone company and after much confusion on their part, they determined that I must have a "residential centrex" system. In fact what I have is called a "Business Variety Package," which includes things like Call Hold, Automatic Transfer, Call Forwarding, etc. After several calls to the BA business office, it was determined that per-call blocking is precluded when you have BVP. BA could offer me no logical reason why this was so, and there is certainly no indication of the preclusion in the phone book description of the service. In fact, the BA people I spoke to seemed rather perplexed by it themselves and promised to look into it. I wonder if anyone else has encounted this problem or has any insight into why it is happening. -- Lane Lenard ------------------------------ From: disposable Date: 05 Jul 95 12:05:44 GMT Subject: Re: Encryption Laws Organization: Experimental Jet Set, Trash and No Star david creffield writes: Is there anyone who knows about encryption laws in Britain, and about official anxieties here regarding encryption. AFAIK [moderator: As far as I know?], there are no restrictions on the use of PGP. I haven't heard of any equivalent of the US ITAR laws which ban the exporting of crypto systems. Is there any ban, or move to ban, systems such as PGP? Not as yet. If the US gets around to the banning of crypto (as France has) then the UK may follow suit. This is pure speculation however. What's the current state of play in the US and elsewhere on these issues? The only laws restriciting use of PGP inside the US are copyright/patent laws. There are two flavours of PGP now. One which is US friendly and does not infringe copyright and one which is rest-of-world friendly, (PGP 2.6.2i) which does infringe US copyright. This 'i' version is not supported by Phil Zimmerman, and it uses the original library that was used in earlier PGP versions. I've never thought of using such systems myself and can only guess why people might want to use them. Should they have a right to use them? Absolutely. It would be my ideal that everybody uses them as a matter of course. Your email passes through many systems to reach its destination, and it can be read at any of them. I believe we should use PGP like we use envelopes for snail-mail. If Di and her friend had scrambled their phone calls, they might have saved themselves a lot of aggro, nesspar? Exactly, Di should have used PGP, had her keyrings handy, and hey presto, no eavesdropping... 8) -- Cheers. Dean. $ submit usual$disclaimer o -- o _____ _ PRIVACY IS A RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE ! PGP IS FREE NET PRIVACY. o /o \_/ | Learn about PGP: http://vinca.cnidr.org/software/pgp/pgp.html o) _ | PGP KeyID:1024/95e81db5 94/08/07. Fingerprint available. `-----' `-' ------------------------------ From: X92TAYLOR27@wmich.edu Date: 06 Jul 1995 17:15:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Prevent Censorship on the Net Organization: Western Michigan University Prevent censorship on the net by signing the petition to stop the Exon Communications Decency Act Bill. You can set your web browser to http://www.cdt.org and access the petition. Speak up now or forever be condemened "Sunday School" talk and expression over the net. If you have any questions visit the web site first. I am not the page provider. -- THANKS, PHILL ------------------------------ From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) Date: 07 Jul 1995 14:23:49 GMT Subject: Re: Bitten & Branded Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI From: janhuss@netpoint.net (richard w spisak jr) RWSPISAK doesn't seem to know what he's talking about: His account has been used my someone so sophisicated that they have crawled through the internet to strike at the intergrity of his online transaction. What account information has been made accessible to this thief by this action? This is not true. This attack was made theough AOL. There is no access from the Internet to these AOL chat rooms by people without AOL accounts. He was not AWARE of the "SATAN-Unix-Hack" that provides a backdoor to any network communications. Where is the warning label ? What files Neither am I. No such hack exists. SATAN is a tool that might show up a potential vulnerability on specific systems. It has no effect on AOL and little effect on any network. -- Peter da Silva (NIC: PJD2) `-_-' Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U` 1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA +1 713 274 5180 "Har du kramat din varg idag?" ------------------------------ From: Urs Gattiker Date: 08 Jul 1995 07:52:55 -0700 Subject: Help for Funding Dear Editor (if you see this?) I hope you can distribute this call for help. Thank you Urs [moderator: I have no idea who this group is, where they are or what they want/should be given. The ideas are interesting and we might want to look them over. Presented in only that light, not as a paid political advertisement :=)] Research Program on Privacy, Caller-ID, Direct Marketing and the Information Highway _Help for Funding Needed_ Currently, our research team is preparing the second phase of this international research project that concentrates on the above issues. In particular, we plan to collect data from individuals to answer the questions listed below. 1) Do caller-id and direct marketing efforts that use the information highway invade an individual's privacy? If so, how? 2) What data-gathering activities and distribution systems are perceived by individuals as fair information practices? 3) How should business use telecommunication technologies (e.g., caller ID, World-Wide-Web) and data-bases to market their products/services and, at the same time, respect individuals' desire or right for privacy? 4) Should regulatory efforts try to influence the direction of the issues outlined in questions 1, 2 and 3? If so, how should regulatory agencies do this and effectively balance the interests of both business and private citizens? 5) How may these developments affect IS policy and strategy in various organization settings? We are trying to gather the data from several countries (i.e., Australia, Canada, USA, European Union and South Africa). The data we are currently collecting should provide interested parties with information about people's perceptions regarding if, why and what regulations are needed for privacy, call management services and the information highway. We are positive that this type of information would be very beneficial to the public and governments as well as firms' marketing efforts. Moreover, the project will provide information about how firms should manage their IS strategy to take advantage of new developments, while protecting consumers' privacy effectively. At this stage we need some help to secure funding for this project. We would appreciate any help you can give us. For additional information about the program please point your browser to: http://www.mngt.uleth.ca/deprtmnt/tech/techn.htm or drop a line to: Gattiker@cetus.mngt.uleth.ca _Thanks for your help_ Cordially, Urs (the bear) WWW\Privnews.fn1 ------------------------------ From: WLRGSH@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Date: 06 Jul 1995 17:36:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Privacy Conference Announcement CALL FOR PAPERS for a Conference on Technological Assaults on Privacy, April 18-20, 1996 at the Rochester Institute of Technol- ogy, Rochester, New York. We are interested in a wide variety of issues regarding privacy that have arisen from recent technologi- cal advances--the capacity to eavesdrop, the debate regarding the Clipperchip, the capacity to create profiles of individuals for marketing purposes, and so on. Our concern is that we have a wide-ranging look at the state of assaults on privacy currently, in all its manifestations in our lives. The Conference will be interdisciplinary. Participants will have 30 minutes to give their presentation, with comments and discus- sion for another 30 to 40 minutes. Papers will be available for the audience. Papers should be single-spaced, suitable for xeroxing. Please send a copy of your paper to Prof. Wade Robison, Department of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623. Drafts should be postmarked by February 1, 1996. For additional information, contact Prof. Robison by e-mail at privacy@rit.edu, by FAX at (716) 475-7120, or by phone at (716) 475-6643. If you are interested in commenting or chairing a session, you should contact Prof. Robison. ------------------------------ From: 49erfan@nmia.com (Michael Chastain) Date: 07 Jul 1995 01:30:16 GMT Subject: Exon Coats Amendment [Long] Organization: New Mexico Internet Access This stemms from a research paper of mine. I think it covers the Exon amendment pretty well. It's just a hair on the dry side, but well worth the read. A good part of my research stemmed from links on the Center for Democracy and Technologies home page. http://www.cdt.org/ If you have any comments or questions, e-mail me at 49erfan@nmia.com. Thanks and enjoy. =) (HTML hotlinked version coming soon...I hope!) P.S. Maybe we could just get rid of Nebraska entirely. ;) CommStockery Fear and Censorship in a Digital Age Comstockery is "censorship or vigorous condemnation of literary and artistic artworks for alleged obscenity" (RH 280). On his trip to Washington, he toted a great cloth bag filled with obscenity and smut, and set up a "chamber of horrors" in the vice-president's office. This material should not be available to the general public, he proposed, in order to protect the most impressionable members of society. Comstock was successful in his crusade, and Congress passed the Law to Suppress Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use. Without consideration for the artistic value of works, Comstock would eventually be able to claim destruction of almost 160 tons of allegedly obscene literature and 3,984,063 obscene pictures (Corn- Revere). Many believe censorship of such magnitude is in our past. On 14 June 1995, the Exon Coats Communications Decency Act amendment passed congress by a vote 84 to 16. The critical parts of this amendment would make it illegal to: "knowingly make, create, or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person.", "make available any obscene communication in any form including any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communications," or "knowingly within the United States or in foreign communications with the United States by means of telecommunications device makes or makes available any indecent comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image to any person under 18 years of age" (S.314). This amendment was proffered as a way to "side with women endangered by rape and violence, to side with children threatened by abuse, to side with families concerned about the innocence of their children and the decency of our culture" (Coats Sen. Debate). Exon introduced this bill in response to concerns that "pornography on the computer superhighway has become so prevalent and accessible to children that it necessitates congressional action" (Christian Coalition qtd. Exon Sen. Debate). Undeniably, pornography is available on the Net. James Gleick of New York Times magazine writes, "If you have time on your hands, if you're comfortable with computing, and if you have an unflagging curiosity about sex_in other words, if you're a teen-ager_you may think you've suddenly landed in pornography heaven" (Gleick). The availability of such pornography in a medium where nobody checks for an ID is disturbing. Only the most depraved of us would suggest it is not a worthy goal to work to protect our children from this material. There has been some distortion, however, about how easy this material is to find on the information superhighway. Senator Exon states that "porn pirates who post...pictures of violence, rape, bestiality, torture, excretory functions, group sex, and other forms of hard and soft core pornography [have] invaded our homes" (Exon Sen. Debate). Studies have shown the greatest majority of material is scanned from print sources commonly available, and requires mastering "fairly daunting computer science" to decode and view the pictures (Elmer-Dewitt 40). Considering this research, a child sneaking a Playboy from his father's night stand would be a more apt analogy than porn pirates invading our home. In examining the legality of the amendment, one must first be familiar with the legal precedents involved. The Supreme Court standard for obscenity, which is not viewed as protected speech, was derived from Miller v. California (1973). The result of that case was a three part test for determining obscenity, which asks: 1. would "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest?; 2. does the work depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law?; and, 3. does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific? (Cavazos 95) The contemporary community standards' clause plays an important part. The court recognized that people in Mississippi might not have the same standards as people in New York. But what are we referring to when we speak of an on-line community? In cases to date obscenity has been judged by the community in which the material was requested. This allows the most conservative communities in the US to dictate what is and is not obscene; exactly the kind of national standard the Supreme Court was trying to avoid. Distribution of obscene material by any means is illegal under current law. The FCC has defined indecent speech as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs''_including the so-called seven dirty words (CDT position paper). The Supreme Court has ruled that indecent speech may only be censored when there is a compelling government interest to abridge protected speech (Pacifica v FCC); and is accomplished in the least restrictive means possible (Sable v California). Protection of minors has been ruled a compelling government interested. With information posted to the Internet however, there is no way of knowing in advance if a minor will have access to the posted information, or if it might "annoy" someone. This effectively bans all indecent speech. These restrictions would make it illegal to discuss passages from Joyce's Ulysses or Newt Gingrich's novel 1945, tell someone off, or write steamy e-mail to a loved one on the Net. All would be punishable by up to $100,000 and/or two years in jail. The availability of less restrictive means clearly makes these constraints unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held that it will not tolerate vague, open-ended restrictions on speech_not even for the benefit of minors_and that the government cannot "reduce the adult population...to reading only what is fit for children" (Corn-Revere). The Department of Justice finds serious flaws in the legislation, which they outline in a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). They state that the amendment "would significantly thwart enforcement of existing laws regarding obscenity and child pornography, create several ways for distributors and packagers of obscenity and child pornography to avoid criminal liability, and threaten important First Amendment and privacy rights...Moreover, this provision would have the unintended consequences of jeopardizing law enforcement's authority to conduct lawful, court- ordered wiretaps and would prevent system administrators from protecting their systems when they are under attack by computer hackers" (DOJ). The American Family Association urges the "administration could make substantial progress in protecting children in particular from both obscenity and child pornography by using existing law to prosecute illegal pornographers who use the Internet if it had the will to do so," and "the pro-family movement in America will uniformly oppose your bill...unless significant changes are made prior to a vote on the Senate floor" (Truman). The amendment furthermore preempts all existing and future state laws that might provide stronger protection for children (DOJ). The Communications Decency Act amendment as proposed stands on extremely questionable legal ground, but one must also wonder how they intend to enforce the amendment. The Internet is an international network of computers dedicated to sharing information. On the Internet, a computer in Germany looks identical to a computer in Georgia. It is relatively simple to stop the flow of indecent books and magazines from being imported into the country. Tracking terabytes of information through the skein of the Internet is several orders of magnitude more difficult. The Electronics Communications Privacy Act, which makes it illegal to intercept or disclose private communications, makes this even more difficult (Cavazos 17). We cannot expect any international consensus on the issue either, as "other countries on the Internet...are probably no more interested in having their messages screened by US censors than Americans would be in having theirs screened by...the government of Saudi Arabia" (Elmer-Dewitt 45). The only way the Communications Decency Act amendment will be effective in stopping international distribution is if it leads foreign information providers to deny US access outright. There is another major difference between censoring traditional media and the Internet. "Anyone with an Internet account can distribute files to the whole world_files users can then download in their own home" (Phelps 77). The ease of posting files anonymously further complicates the problem. "Some of the most famous areas of decadence can be found in the thousands of newsgroups_the electronic bulletin boards where users post articles or files for one another to read" (Phelps 74). "The actual technology of these newsgroups is hard to fathom at first. They are utterly decentralized. Every message begins on one person's computer and propagates outward in waves, like a chain letter that could eventually reach every mailbox in the world. Legislators would like to cut off a group like alt.sex.bondage.particle-physics at the source, or at it's home_but it has no source and no home, or rather, it has as many homes as there are computers carrying newsgroups" (Gleick). There are currently over 60,000 newsgroups with contributors from all over the world. No one has proposed a solution to the difficulty of censoring such a media. John Gilmore noted "the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" (qtd. Elmer-Dewitt 45). Phelps adds, "Today's Internet grew out of a Department of Defense project designed to preserve communications even if parts of the system were destroyed. It works." (Phelps 75) The international aspects and resistance to censorship of the Internet make it extremely dubious that any legislative solutions can be effective. An alternative to the Exon amendment is to empower users to protect themselves and their children (Leahy Sen. Debate). There are several developing solutions to give this level of control to parents, schools, and others to block out unwanted indecent material. The first category is software control designed to block out such unwanted materials. One of the first of these products is SurfWatch: Self described on their Web site, "SurfWatch is a breakthrough software product which helps you deal with the flood of sexual material on the Internet. By allowing you to be responsible for blocking what is being received at any individual computer, children and others have less chance of accidentally or deliberately being exposed to unwanted material" (Surfwatch). Internet service providers are also beginning to take note of the desire for family sensitive Internet service. A prime example is Siecom in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Siecom supplies 20 elementary and secondary schools with restricted one-way access to USENET discussion groups through the Internet. The company does not make available the newsgroups on USENET which may be inappropriate for children (Feingold Sen. Debate). The major on-line services such as America Online, CompuServe, and Prodigy are also offering increasingly sophisticated controls to block inappropriate material on the Internet. "That means the opportunity exists to solve at least part of the problem through the marketplace today, not through governmental prohibitions. None of the technical safeguards available...are perfect, but the nice thing is they do not violate the first amendment" (Feingold Sen. Debate). There is an old- fashioned way to protect your children on the Internet as well_Parental supervision. Parents who would not allow their children to venture into the physical world without supervision, freely turn them loose on to the Internet. Ultimate responsibility must always fall on the parents. Pornography will always exist on the Net, in spite of legislative and software attempts to eliminate it. How did this amendment pass the Senate with such overwhelming questions facing the legality of this bill and how to enforce it? Exon used tactics that would have made his precursor, Anthony Comstock, proud. On the day of the vote, he carried into the senate his "blue book," the modern equivalent of Comstock's "great cloth bag". In this book, he had examples of the "the most disgusting, repulsive pornography...copied off the free Internet only last week" (Exon Sen. Debate). A """"huddle" of Senators wanting to see the material surrounded Exon. Exon entreated that "every day the Congress delays in dealing with this problem the pornographers, pedophiles and predators secure a much stronger foothold in what will be a universal service network" (Exon Sen. debate). "In the nationally televised vote, few Senators wanted to cast a...vote that might later be characterized as pro-pornography" (Elmer-Dewitt 42). The implications if this amendment is passed are staggering. The stakes are much higher than the right to download lascivious pictures: This legislation will have a chilling effect on free speech all over the world. It will take the largest library in the world and transform it into a children's reading room. The Internet has grown "as remarkably as it has, primarily because it has not had a whole lot of people restricting it, regulating it, and touching it and saying, do not do that or do this or the other thing" (Leahy Sen. debate). This legislation has been written by people who do not even begin to understand the Internet. Senator Exon admits he cannot even set the clock on his VCR stating "I have a blinking twelve I do not know how to get rid of" (Exon Sen. Debate). This lack of technical savvy does not prevent him from proposing legislation for the Internet. Legislation that Newt Gingrich states is "very badly thought out and not a very productive amendment [and will] if anything...put the debate back a step." (Gingrich). Legislation the American Family Association cautions would "would weaken current federal law regarding the prosecution of illegal pornography" (Trueman). Legislation the Department of Justice urges "would significantly thwart enforcement of existing laws regarding obscenity and child pornography and...impose criminal sanctions on the transmission of constitutionally protected speech" (DOJ). Publicity received on this issue demands legislation be passed. For those of us fond of free speech and constitutional rights, we can only hope it is not the Exon Coats amendment. Works Cited United States . Senators Exon, Coats, Feingold, Leahy et. al. Senate debate on Exon Coats Communications Decency Act. 14 June 1995. Available gopher: gopher://gopher.panix.com:70/0/vtw/exon/legislation/senate-debate Progress Report Discussion with Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Bob Walker (R-PA), and Progress and Freedom Foundation Chairman Jay Keyworth. National Empowerment Television. 20 June 1995. Available WWW: http://www.cdt.org/policy/freespeech/ging_oppose.html Corn-Revere, Robert "New Age Comstockery: Exon vs the Internet" Editorial. Cato Institute WWW Site 28 June 1995. Available WWW: http://www.cato.org/main/pa232.html United States. Sen. Jim Exon (D. NE) "Communications Decency Ammendment (S.314)" [Text of bill] Proposed 2 Feb. 1995. Available gopher: gopher://gopher.panix.com:70/0/vtw/exon/legislation/s314.final Trueman, Patrick (American Family Association President). Letter to Senator Pressler. 26 April 1995. Available WWW: http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Exon_bill/afa_pressler_042695.letter Department of Justice. Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy. 3 May 1995. Availably WWW: http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Issues/Censorship/Exon_bill/doj_leahy_cda_050395..letter Center for Democracy and Technology "CDT ANALYSIS OF REVISED EXON INDECENCY LEGISLATION" Available WWW: http://www.cdt.org/policy/322analysis.html Center for Democracy and Technology "Current status of the Communications Decency Act" Current status of the CDA Newsletter 30 June. Available e-mail:info@cdt.org Surfwatch Home Page. Available WWW: http://www.surfwatch.com/ Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. "On a Screen Near You: Cyberporn" Time 3 July 1995: 38-45. Phelps, Alan. "Online Slime" PC Novice July 1995: 74-77. Huttig, J.W. "Putting Porn in its Place?" PC Novice July 1995: 78-79. Cassel, Paul. "Cyber Democracy" ComputerScene July 1995: 14-15. Gleick, James. "This is Sex?" New York Times Magazine 11 June, 1995 . Cavazos, Edward, and Gavino Morin. Cyber-Space and the Law Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995. Random House Webster's Unabridged College Dictionary New York: Random House, 1991. Cross Fire Hosted Michael Kinsley and John Sununu. With Ralph Reed (Christian Coalition) and Nadine Strossen (ACLU). CNN. New York. 4 July 1995. ------------------------------ 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 V7 #002 ****************************** .