Date: Sun, 15 Oct 95 10:28:29 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V7#030 Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 15 Oct 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 030 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Knowing Where you Browse? Re: Netscape Logging Use of Its Product Photocopying of Drivers License Re: Junk Sales Calls Re: Where Caller ID Is Headed Corporate Information Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal Re: Need help with Harassing Creditors GE Capital Offer of Personal Information RE: Caller ID Electronic Road Taxation in Singapore Announcement; Alert Mailing List Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/01/95] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Peter Leppik) Date: 11 Oct 1995 15:26:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Knowing Where you Browse? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Bill Hensley wrote: For what it's worth, a very recent issue of Communications Week (I think) had an interview with the head of Netscape. It was one of those Q and A pieces. One of the questions concerned the expiration of Netscape on a user's machine such that the browser would *only* access URLs in the mcom.com domain. He said that they (Netscape) knew every time one of their browsers was activated, and that they collected tens of millions of hits via this monitoring every day. I'll try to get the specifics of the article (I'm at home today, the paper is at work) and post them. The default homepage for the Netscape browser is Netscape's homepage. This should be obvious to anyone who uses it, because the first page Netcape loads when you run it is http://home.netscape.com/ . You can easily change the default home page un the preferences. I have mine set to Yahoo.... There's nothing particularly sinister in this behavior, since the browser has to load SOMETHING as a default....it might as well be an advertisement for the company that wrote the browser. -- Peter Leppik leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu Lost in the Information Supercollider http://seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu/ ------------------------------ From: khera@kciLink.com (Vivek Khera) Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:10:31 GMT Subject: Re: Netscape Logging Use of Its Product Organization: Khera Communications, Inc., Rockville, MD Bill Hensley writes: I finally got around to looking up the interview that talks about this. It's in _Communications Week_, 25 Sep 95, pg 73, an interview with Jim Clark, Netscape Chairman. Quoted without permission: My read on that quote is that they've worked out *how* to do it, not that they *are* doing it. It doesn't seem likely that they get a message every time you fire it up and every time you shut it down; probably only when you visit their site. -- Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: khera@kciLink.com Rockville, MD +1-301-258-8292 PGP/RIPEM/MIME spoken here http://www.kciLink.com/home/khera/ ------------------------------ From: chris@ivanova.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Date: 11 Oct 95 18:15:08 PDT Subject: Photocopying of Drivers License Does anyone know about the legality of photocopying a driver's license? Today I won a CD boxed set from a local radio station. I went down there to pick it up, and they refused to let me have it unless I allowed them to photocopy my driver's license. They said that it was to prove to the record label that the set was, in fact, given away. I was under the impression that that was prohibited by federal law. Am I incorrect? To complete the story, I allowed them to do so, after placing a piece of tape over my signature. I figure, that's what most places use to verify my signature on a check, I don't want anyone having a copy of it! (Then again, they could get my signature anywhere and create a fake if they wanted to). Perhaps I'm being a bit paranoid, but something doesn't seem right to me... -- (C) Copyright, 1995 Christopher Ambler, Director, Punknet Internet Cooperative, San Luis Obispo, California NOTICE: Unsolicited commercial email may be treated under 47 USC 227 (b)(1)(C) [moderator: The above copyright notice was probably included in error. I am interested in just how to handle submissions that contain broad copyright restrictions.] ------------------------------ From: haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Bill) Date: 12 Oct 1995 02:08:12 GMT Subject: Re: Junk Sales Calls Organization: The University of Chicago Prvt Ctzn wrote: {deletia} Statistically, 25% of all residential phones are unlisted, with some areas (like Las Vegas) having an `unlisted rate' of 75%. Here in the Chicago metro area, it's 40% unlisted. Caller ID allows telcos to sell you the service of being unlisted, then sell junk callers the service of getting your unlisted number, and as a result, increase the number of junk calls that would otherwise not have been made... Thus increasing the telco's income a third way. Here's a scheme which would solve the problem, from the point of view of those who use caller ID to screen calls *and* from the point of view of those who don't want their unlisted number to fall into the hands of advertisers: 1) Instead of making "*67" an option for blocking your line from transmitting its ID when you make a call, make NOT transmitting ID be the default behavior in all cases, and provide a code like "*67", which you must dial at the start of a call if you DO want to transmit your phone number to the person receiving the call. Alternately, make automatic transmission of your phone number a "service" which you must specifically request, and otherwise assume you don't want the receiver to know your phone number. 2) Let phone companies sell, as an option with their "Caller ID" service, the option of having Caller-ID-blocked calls automatically rerouted to a message saying that you do not accept Caller-ID-blocked calls. You can achieve the same thing with an answering-machine message, but some people will for whatever reason not have or not want to bother with an answering machine message. The needs of people avoiding harassing phone calls via Caller ID would be met, and the privacy of the average telephone customer would not be needlessly destroyed. Anyone want to start a pool on the odds of phone companies ever voluntarily offering such a scheme? -- Bill (haz1@midway.uchicago.edu) ------------------------------ From: wbe@psr.com (Winston Edmond) Date: 14 Oct 1995 18:56:08 GMT Subject: Re: Where Caller ID Is Headed Organization: Panther Software and Research It's becoming increasingly clear -- Caller ID to a business phone is logically separate from Caller ID to an individual/residence phone. In general, people seem to agree that individuals should have the right to know who is calling them (with some exceptions), but don't want the service to become a new way of compiling information about them when they call businesses. I don't expect it to happen any time soon (if ever), but what's needed is a "Differential Caller ID" option, where the default is "blocked" to business phones but "unblocked" when calling residential phones. At the moment, the only way to get that effect is manually. When the only options are "yes" and "no" and in the two most common cases, one case argues for "yes" and the other for "no", the battle for which is best can go on forever with no one completely happy with the outcome. ------------------------------ From: Erik@harry.lloyd.com Date: 12 Oct 1995 05:49:49 GMT Subject: Corporate Information Organization: Sorry if this is a repeat, but I have been having some real problems with my news reader. I saw a posting on another group about accessing data bases to obtain corporate information. I was wondering just what kind of databases might be accessable and what kind of information might be available. I would particularly be interested in determining who is on the boards of directors, major shareholders and corporate earnings. Thoughts? -- Erik Holst erikh@spider.lloyd.com ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Date: 12 Oct 1995 11:41:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Dennis G. Rears wrote, (3) The term 'telephone solicitation' means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or message (A) to any person with that person's prior express invitation or permission, (B) to any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship, or (C) by a tax exempt nonprofit organization. execption (B) applies in this case. Wrong Dennis. Your looking at the wrong definitions. May I suggest a delightful sec. 47 CFR 64.1200 (f)(5) for a hearty glimpse of "Unsolicited Advertisement". And for the main course, why not try a hot bowl of (f)(2) "telephone facsimile machines". Then you may finish off your education with (f)(4) "established business relationship" (ebr), topped with a Q&A issued by the FCC on September 17, 1992.concerning the TCPA which specifically addresses EBR's, and states that an ebr may be severed, for the purpose of future solicitation calls, by asking a firm to stop soliciting. Note:, I asked AOL not to send me any junk e-mail of which it was the principal. They are now in violation. Why is this so hard to get? It's simple. Maybe I should ask people to read and UNDERSTAND the law. David Kennedy writes: I will gladly eat my own electrons if you would be kind enough to cite the law on which you seem so intent on having enforced. Well Dave... Have an electron.... and read 47 CFR 64.1200 (e)(3) . prohibiting unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines (f)(5) defining what an `unsolicited advertisement' is (f)(2) defining what a `telephone facsimile machine' is As for the definition of an `established business relationsahip' (f)(4), that's a bit harder to convince those who are not as steeped in the issue as myself. Suffice it to say that the FCC states that established business relationships may be terminated `for the purpose solicitations' by telling the solicitor to stop it. Hey, did you ever try electron stew with old printer ribbon, and photons on the side? mmmm mm! Eat up! Gary McGath, in his response to my ref. posting, seems intent on trying to misunderstand my point. He even goes so far as to compare the receipt of e-mail containing an unsolicited advertisement, to a service contract with AOL. Com'on Gary... - You state, "You seem to be implying that sending E-mail to a person without his consent, violates his `right of privacy' ". - My response: no, I am not saying that... but you did a reasonable job of warping my point. My point is that, my right of privacy includes my right to be left alone by those I seek to avoid. I seek to avoid people who see me as nothing more than a `source of revenue'. And, in the case of unsolicited advertisements transmitted by E-mail, I have the opportunity (granted by federal law) to ask such e-mailers to stop bothering me... and re-educate those that refuse to comply. As for your warp of the instant law concerning governmental inappropriate restrictions on free speech... I've got to agree with you... I consider parts of the TCPA to be `clearly unconstitutional'. Yet the law in its entirety does offer some gems... one of which is the junk fax/e-mail section. But that section gives the recipient of the communication the right to allow or disallow unsolicited ads.. L. Bednar wrote:: Do you want AOL to *read* your mail and determine its content? How will they know it's unsolicited advertisements? Dear L.., ..... No, What AOL did was send me their own junk E-Mail. I don't want them to do anything concerning e-mail from others... just stop sending me their own junk e-mail (which, once I ask them to stop, and they continue, is a violation of law). Let's see... can I say this another way to assure penetration? Let's try this.... AOL advertised "an AOL" service to me, via e-mail, after I told AOL not to do so!. Bob Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. 1-800-CUT-JUNK ------------------------------ From: berczuk@space.mit.edu (Steve Berczuk) Date: 12 Oct 1995 19:21:28 GMT Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal Organization: MIT Center for Space Research David M Kennedy writes: Where you will find a law that makes no mention of electronic mail. This law, recently enforced in at least one court case, restricts some unsolicited telephone calls, including some facsimile transmissions. However electronic mail is not mentioned in the statute and, absent your citing a law or a case, you are stretching this statute too far. Not knowing the case law, I am not sure that I agree that the absense of the words "email" or "computer communications equipment" make this law irrelevant.. it defines : (2) The term 'telephone facsimile machine' means equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper. much of which can be done with a computer/email.. note that the "communications decency act" defines telecommunications as: " the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, including voice, data, image, graphics, and video, without change in the form or content of the information, as sent and received, with or without benefit of any closed transmission medium." (ie, no mention of computers or email or usenet for that matter) yet the everyone is talking about implications for the internet... does anyone have any idea about what the case law is on this before we speculate any more? -- Steve Berczuk -berczuk@mit.edu | MIT Center for Space Research Phone: (617)253-3840/Fax: (617)253-0861 | 37-561; 77 Massachusetts Avenue URL: http://space.mit.edu/~berczuk/ | Cambridge MA 02139 ** finger berczuk@space.mit.edu for PGP public key ** ------------------------------ From: glr@ripco.com (Glen L. Roberts) Date: 13 Oct 1995 19:51:35 GMT Subject: Re: Need help with Harassing Creditors Organization: Full Disclosure misterz@ix.netcom.com (Mark Zilberman) says: I would appreciate any assistance. My parents are going through a wrenching bankruptcy in FL. If they have filed bankruptcy and are being harass... a motion for contempt of court should stop them in their tracks... Once they got notice of the filing, they should have stopped. If they have not actually filed yet... get it filed and the creditors must deal with the court and not you. They are not young. They are getting a deluge of calls from credittors. This past week they (the credittors) started calling neighbors. I am not in a postition to help my parents financially but I will do all that I can. I would like to know the full range of options regarding this matter. Specifically, what would be the legal limits that apply to these credittors? Additionally, what are the legal/procedural remedies that one might employ to keep the hounds at bay (to alleviate some of the stress)? Bankrupcty will stop them cold. Finally, is anyone familiar with the "Debt Collection Practices Act": what is it, where can I get a copy (ideally on the Net)? The Debt Collection Practices Act (get a xerox at the library), provides that of you tell them NOT TO contact you in WRITING, they must stop. You must tell them in WRITING. ------------------------------ From: "Michael O'Donnell" Date: 14 Oct 1995 18:27:03 -0400 Subject: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information My mortgage is held by GE Capital Mortgage Services. (Yah, I've heard about their record and reputation, but that's properly the subject of another discussion.) I recently received an offer from them whereby I'd pay $5 a month for the "privilege" of getting allegedly current reports on our credit, driving, Social Security and medical histories, including the ability to correct errors and discrepancies. The offer is supposedly revocable after three months with full refund of the $15 paid up to that point. Obviously, a company reputed to be as predatory, opportunistic, meddlesome, unprincipled and right-wing (is that last part redundant?) as GE wouldn't make an offer like this out of a desire to make the world a better place, so I'm wondering: what's the catch? Even in the offer letter they make inconsistent statements as to the services that will be available to me during the trial period, saying in different places that I will be entitled to just a credit report, or a credit report plus the items mentioned above - it's unclear. Can it be that the $5 a month is really all they're after? What are the risks in my subscribing to this service? -- Michael O'Donnell mod@std.com ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Date: 12 Oct 95 12:59:00 PDT Subject: RE: Caller ID In reply to Robert Ellis Smith: Lynne Gregg writes, "Yes, Caller ID is effective at thwarting harassing callers." Where's the evidence of this? I keep hearing this claim by phone companies but have never seen any documentation. I've had dozens of consumers tell me that they specifically bought residential Caller ID service to stop harassing phone calls. I have been told by these folks that after installing Caller ID (and telling the harasser that they knew who they were with Caller ID installed) the calls stopped. Some of these folks mentioned that they had children in the house and the harassing calls probably were coming from other kids. Caller ID is handy in stopping these types of calls and in screening out the telemarketers or other unwanted calls. Sure, some consumers choose to screen with answering machines. Others have demonstrated that they like Caller ID (and would like it more if telcos delivered all the numbers and other consumers didn't block). I'm sensitive to the privacy issue: some folks don't want their telephone or any of their numbers disclosed. I personally refrain from making harassing phone calls and thus, don't particularly care whether my number is displayed on someone's Caller ID box or not. When I call someone, it's intentional and if they happen to have Caller ID, I DO want them to know it's me calling. If I buy Caller ID, I'd sure want to know who was calling - or the caller's number in the event that I wanted to call them back later. doesn't an answering machine do this b etter? With Caller ID, you still have to stop what you are doing and go to your phone unit, then you have to have had memorized the incoming calling number. Not necessarily. Terminal manufacturers like AT&T and Nortel offer phones with spoken Caller ID. If I preprogram in Mom's number with a voice tag, when the phone rings, I will hear the voice tag played, " 'Mom' calling". So I don't have to run to the phone (just be within earshot). Answering machines can be used for call screening, too, but they reply on the willingness of the caller to state who they are. There are STILL some folks (like my father-in-law and next door neighbor) who REFUSE to talk to answering machines. With Caller ID, I'd know it was Dad or my neighbor who called and could phone them back at my convenience. What do you think of this sales pitch from Amerite ch? "You know exactly who's calling . . . Caller ID actually spells out the names of callers . . . You'll have a record of both the names and numbers of callers." Caller ID doesn't do that at all; it tells you only the number (or name) of TH PERSON SUB SCRIBING TO THE CALLING PHONE, not the caller. Good point. The assumption here is that if you see "FRANK SMITH" appear on your Caller ID box, Frank or someone in his household is calling for you. But, this is a good point that highlights a limitation of Caller ID service. If that caller was phoning you from a PBX extension or payphone, you wouldn't know EXACTLY who was calling. I don't think there is anything EXACT about Caller ID services at this stage. On many telco marketing materials, you may see plenty of disclaimers highlighting these present limitations. "With Caller ID, . . . the problem of malicious callers or just 'pranksters' practically disappears"? Isn't that deceptive? Within five years has the problem of harassing phone calls "practically disa ppeared"? Yes, as I've said, many consumers have specifically stated they bought Caller ID to eliminate annoying or harassing phone calls. It does the trick. I talk with many consumers of Caller ID services and in general, they like the service. The only thing they'd like is to see MORE NUMBERS. This requires that telcos freely exchange phone numbers and that callers allow the presentation of their numbers. Finally, let me tell you about how some consumers use Caller ID and why it can be important TO DISCLOSE numbers on calls to those who have Caller ID. In some states where Caller ID is prevalent, Caller ID subscribers have instructed their children to not answer calls from blocked numbers. Also, some public and privacy agencies (i.e., child care providers) have adopted practices of not answering calls from blocked numbers. This practice presented a bit of a problem for a telephone company that was in process of a network upgrade that could allowed Calling Party Number to be passed. To protect customers in advance of a formal notice announcing the change and blocking options, the company applied Per Line Blocking to all accounts as a default. The company then received many calls from customers who could not reach family at home or child care providers because of this practice of not answering blocked numbers. It's always hard to please everyone, but when it comes to Caller ID, I believe that current legislation (including the FCC Ruling) should satisfy all parties. Consumers have the option to buy the service or not; block on a per call or per line basis or not at all. It seems to me that the debate is over. -- Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 15 Oct 1995 09:08:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Electronic Road Taxation in Singapore Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Taken from PRIVACY Forum Digest Friday, 13 September 1995 Volume 04 : Issue 22 Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com) Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A. From: agre@laforia.ibp.fr (AGRE Phil 44.27.71.39 Professeur invite d'A Collinot) Date: 12 Oct 1995 09:49:39 +0100 Subject: electronic road taxation in Singapore The International Herald Tribune reports that the government of Singapore has awarded a S$197 million (US$140 million) contract to Philips Singapore, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Miyoshi Electronics, and its own Singapore Technologies group to build the first phase of an electronic system for automatic collection of taxes ("tolls") aimed at regulating demand for the country's road capacity. The full reference is: Michael Richardson, Singapore moves toward electronic tolls for vehicles, International Herald Tribune, 10 October 1995, page 4. Such systems have raised significant civil liberties concerns because, unless care is taken in their design, they can lead to the creation of electronic records of drivers' movements. The article does not comment on the civil liberties aspects of the Singapore system or on the Singapore government's highly controversial record on privacy and other civil liberties issues. It does say that the "smart cards", which "will be slotted into small holders mounted inside the windshield", will be debit cards from which "charges will be deducted from credit stored in the cards" by means of interactions with "electronic scanners mounted on gantries leading to congested areas and busy highways". It does not say how compliance with the system will be enforced. Nonetheless, the system does create one clearly ominous precedent: these cards will be "installed on *all* of Singapore's 650,000 motor vehicles" (emphasis added). This kind of coercion is needed, for all practical purposes, to implement an electronic road-use taxation system, also known by the somewhat misleading term "congestion pricing". Transportation officials in the United States have repeatedly asserted that such systems in this country will be "voluntary", yet moves toward congestion pricing are under way in several parts of the country. It is not at all clear how these two trends will be reconciled -- unless, of course, submitting to electronic monitoring of one's road travel is "voluntary" in just the same sense that driving a car at all is voluntary. In any event, the developments in Singapore redouble the urgent need to develop, implement, and standardize technologies for anonymous electronic toll collection systems. ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 15 Oct 1995 09:08:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Announcement; Alert Mailing List Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Taken from PRIVACY Forum Digest Friday, 13 September 1995 Volume 04 : Issue 22 Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com) Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A. From: Christopher Klaus Date: 09 Oct 1995 16:13:20 +1494730 (PDT) Subject: Announcement: Alert Mailing List Announcing a new security mailing list - The Alert. The Alert will be covering the following topics: - Security Product Announcements - Updates to Security Products - New Vulnerabilities found - New Security Frequently Asked Question files. - New Intruder Techniques and Awareness To join, send e-mail to request-alert@iss.net and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: subscribe alert To remove, send e-mail to request-alert@iss.net and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: unsubscribe alert This is a moderated list in the effort to keep the noise to a minimal and provide quality security information. If your site is interested in network security, we put out several FAQes (Frequently Asked Question) that cover the following main areas of topic: Vendor Contacts - Who is the security contacts at IBM, HP, Dec, Motorola, etc. - Web page at: http://iss.net/iss/vendor.html Patches - List of all security related patches catergorized by OS type. - Web page at: http://iss.net/iss/patch.html Compromise - Check list of things to do if your machines are compromised. - Web page at: http://iss.net/iss/compromise.html Anonymous FTP Security - How to correctly set up FTP and check for vulnerabilities. - Web page at: http://iss.net/iss/anonftp.html Sniffers - What they are. How they work. How to detect them. And solutions. - Web page: http://iss.net/iss/sniff.html Security Mailing Lists - A comprehensive list of security mailing lists. - Web page: http://iss.net/iss/maillist.html If possible, it might be a good idea for you to add links to the above web pages on your own Web server and point people who need to know some of the network security issues to the web page. It is possible to point to all of the FAQ pages at: http://iss.net/iss/faq.html -- Christopher William Klaus Voice: (770)441-2531. Fax: (770)441-2431 Internet Security Systems, Inc. "Internet Scanner lets you find 2000 Miller Court West, Norcross, GA 30071 your network security holes Web: http://iss.net/ Email: cklaus@iss.net before the hackers do." ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 11 Aug 1995 09:39:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/01/95] 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. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- 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 #030 ****************************** .