Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 07:06:04 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V7#031 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 18 Oct 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 031 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal Re: Junk Faxes [end of discussion] Re: Junk Sales Calls Re: Junk Sales Calls Re: Junk Sales Calls Copyright Notice Re: Copyright Notice Re: Copyright Notice Re: Copyright Notice Re: Knowing Where you Browse? Re: Knowing Where you Browse? Removing Digital Image From NH Records Re: Photocopying of Drivers License Access to Account Balances and Limits Re: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information Avrahami Press Release Your Net Activities for Sale Internet Law Review Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/01/95] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dean Ridgway Date: 15 Oct 1995 13:09:45 -0700 Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal Do you want AOL to *read* your mail and determine its content? How will they know it's unsolicited advertisements? Whats your point? AOL *ALREADY* routinely monitors EMail (see recent news item about AOL turning in names of subscribers to the FBI when they engaged in child pervert EMail discussions). Prodigy has been criticized for taking this one step furthur, they actively *CENSOR* EMail (or did at one time, I don't know if they still do). -- /\-/\ Dean Ridgway | Two roads diverged in a wood, and I- ( - - ) InterNet ridgwad@peak.org | I took the one less traveled by, =\_v_/= FidoNet 1:357/1.103 | And that has made all the difference. CIS 73225,512 | "The Road Not Taken" - Robert Frost. http://www.peak.org/~ridgwad/ PGP mail encouraged, finger for key: 28C577F3 2A5655AFD792B0FB 9BA31E6AB4683126 ------------------------------ From: gmcgath@condes.MV.COM (Gary McGath) Date: 16 Oct 1995 11:27:08 GMT Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal Organization: Conceptual Design prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) wrote: 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. Since Prvt Ctzn doesn't quote the passage where I allegedly compared receipt of E-mail to a contract, I can only say I have no idea what this means. - 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. Two separate points here: First, the use of euphemisms is bothersome. When you are asking the government to do something for you, you are talking about *force*, not "re-education." Of course, this particular euphemism has a long history. Second, you seem to be making a different statement from the one implied by the subject of this thread; and from all appearances, you originated that subject line. You are now stating not that junk faxes are illegal per se, but that their continued sending in spite of a request to cease is illegal. That's a more tenable position and implies a less intrusive law. If you insist on using a confusing and sensationalistic subject line, please don't blame others for "warping" your intent. But as others have pointed out, when you're in an ongoing business relationship with a company (and one which is not a common carrier, so an analogy to the phone company wouldn't apply), the law does not appear to apply. In any case, this situation implies you have the simplest of solutions available *without* resorting to governmental force: stop dealing with AOL. If they continued to send you advertising against your request when you weren't engaging in ongoing business with them, I would agree entirely that you'd be right in finding an appropriate law to bring down on their heads. But as you've described the situation, you want the government to intervene in the content of a business relationship to which both sides have consented. Once you've agreed to the principle which this implies, this means you've given up the right to privacy in favor of getting what you want in a particular case. And once you've given that up, what makes you think it's you and not the lobbyists for AOL and CompuServe that the government is going to listen to? -- Gary McGath gmcgath@condes.mv.com http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath ------------------------------ From: "Dennis G. Rears" Date: 17 Oct 95 11:58:11 EDT Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) writes: May I suggest a delightful sec. 47 CFR 64.1200 (f)(5) for a hearty glimpse of "Unsolicited Advertisement". No, I don't have the time look up all the arcane definitions that are in various statutes. Why is this so hard to get? It's simple. Maybe I should ask people to read and UNDERSTAND the law. Put up or shut!!!! We disagree about what the law states. When you get a judgement in your favour that was contested I will public admit I was wrong on the finer points of the law. Until then... 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 Dave, don't eat yet those electrons yet, No telephone line was used by AOL to send the message to him. They used one account to email to anopther account. The phone line was not use until he called to look at his mail, hence the law doesn't apply. Hey, did you ever try electron stew with old printer ribbon, and photons on the side? mmmm mm! Eat up! Until you get a judgement it's you just blowing hot air. 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). If you really don't want them sending you junk, get the HELL of their service. 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!. Ah, that's too bad. -- dennis ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 18 Oct 1995 06:00:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Junk Faxes [end of discussion] Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee As moderator I am calling for an end of this string. All who have feelings and ideas here have spoken their piece and it is now time to move on. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Chris Burris Date: 15 Oct 1995 13:39:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Junk Sales Calls Bill (haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu) wrote: 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. For the record, such as service already exists in Maryland (Bell Atlantic), and is available to subscribers of Caller ID for minimal or no charge. I am interested in this new Call-Name ID service. Does anyone know the specific coverage. -- Chris Burris Violation Communications http://reznor.ml.org/chris/ ------------------------------ From: wbe@psr.com (Winston Edmond) Date: 16 Oct 1995 20:11:07 GMT Subject: Re: Junk Sales Calls Organization: Panther Software and Research haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Bill) wrote: Here's a scheme which would solve the problem, ... Anyone want to start a pool on the odds of phone companies ever voluntarily offering such a scheme? I can't speak to the "voluntarily" part, since I don't know what hand regulators had in things, but the "odds" are 100 to 0. You've just described Per Line Blocking and anonymous call blocking, both of which are available in some areas. --WBE ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Date: 16 Oct 1995 18:46:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Junk Sales Calls Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) During Congressional hearings Ameritech's (Illinois Bell's) president (Richard Brown) pointedly fought against being required to freeley give their customers a `per line' blocking option. Whatever the specious resons he gave (I have a video tape of the farce), the fact is that... When per line blocking is allowed, most consumers opt for it, thus diminishing the marketability of Caller ID to others. Indeed, the California Public Utilities Commission requires all telcos operating in the state to offer free per-line blocking. So.... no telephone utilities in California offered Caller ID service.. -- Bob Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. 800-CUT-JUNK P.S. We sell a device that will send the "*67" block signal automatically, every time a caller pick up his phone, prior to his dialing. For more infor e-mail or call.. ------------------------------ From: chris@ivanova.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Date: 15 Oct 95 13:26:30 PDT Subject: Copyright Notice Do I take it that the copyright notice in my .signature caused some concern? It is my understanding that by submitting the article to the mailing list, where it is obvious that it will be redistributed over the mailing list, I am granting right to copy to the mailing list. In case this isn't the case, I'll just do it here: I hereby grant the Computer Privacy Digest full rights to all articles submitted by me, copyrighted by me or otherwise, unless otherwise stated or revoked via email. Would that do it? -- (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) ------------------------------ From: "Patrick A. Townson" Date: 16 Oct 1995 07:33:53 -0500 Subject: Re: Copyright Notice You questioned if Chris Ambler's 'copyright notice' was in error, and the answer is no. He sends stuff to me from time to time and always includes it on each article. Usually what I do is not run his stuff. If it is something I really feel is good or of interest, then I go ahead and run it and leave his copyright intact, but if the article is marginal or only a little of interest or not all that good then I dump it and just write him back saying 'sorry, will not publish anything on which the author rather than the Digest holds the copyright' or I may write back and say, 'sorry I do not publish anything which has the copyright conditions imposed on it which you included.' It is not like I am lacking for stuff to publish, and I doubt that you are either. You asked what to do about it, and I am telling you how I handle things from the same person. -- Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Editor ------------------------------ From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills) Date: 16 Oct 1995 07:46:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Copyright Notice If I were you I'd bounce them back to the authors. Why should you take any risk at all. Sometime somewhere when you least expect it, ther'll be a troublemaker. -- Dick Mills +1(518)395-5154 http://www.albany.net/~dmills ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 18 Oct 1995 06:00:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Copyright Notice Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Copyright is a reservation to yourself of the right to make copies. Submitting a copyrighted posting to an electronic newsgroup is an oxymoron as it causes the copying of the document very widely and quickly causes the author to lose control over just what he has officially reserved. It is not a privacy issue but is, for most of us, a desire to keep our authorship of our work intact and should probably be changed to a notice that "electronic copying of this posting is permitted with this notice intact but distribution for profit is forbidden" kind of message. I am not afraid of being sued but my electronic flesh crawls when someone tells me to distribute information widely at the same time as they are refusing me permission to copy. I guess I should move my Professorship over to the Department of Pedantic Studies :-) -- moderator ------------------------------ From: Bryan Pfaffenberger Date: 15 Oct 1995 16:41:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Knowing Where you Browse? I operate a Web server (Mac HTTP) on my office Power Macintosh, mostly for students to access material for my classes, but every once in a while there's an outside access (for what, I cannot imagine). Mac-HTTP lists the domain name of the incoming request, but that's it-or so I thought until a Prodigy user logged on. Apparently, Prodigy logs you on with a pretty complete e-mail address-I haven't tried contacting this user, but the information supplied seemed to be sufficient to enable me to do so. -- Bryan Pfaffenberger Division of Technology, Culture, and Communication University of Virginia http://bpmac.seas.virginia.edu/ ------------------------------ From: JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown) Date: 17 Oct 1995 00:37:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Knowing Where you Browse? Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs 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. leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu says... 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. Netscape does have to have an initial homepage defined, but it does not require it to be loaded. My Netscape comes up with the default in the "Goto" box but without actually loading it. Thus, I don't incur the wait - I don't have a homepage that I want up regularly. -- Jeff Brown JF_Brown@pnl.gov ------------------------------ From: gmcgath@condes.MV.COM (Gary McGath) Date: 16 Oct 1995 11:35:44 GMT Subject: Removing Digital Image From NH Records Organization: Conceptual Design New Hampshire puts a digital image of each driver's license photograph into a data base. It's unclear what uses it has for this data base at present, given a lack of sophisticated access methods, but the state has trotted out the standard "deadbeat dads" argument, which implies that all people (including women!) are suspected of being non-supporting fathers until proven innocent. You can have this image removed from the data base by submitting the form: "Application for Waiver to remove digital image from department records." This is available from the Department of Safety, James H. Hayes Bldg., 10 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03305. There may be analogous procedures in other states. When New Hampshire is putting drivers' pictures in a data base, it's a certainty that the rest of the country is well ahead of us. -- Gary McGath gmcgath@condes.mv.com http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath ------------------------------ From: an274807@anon.penet.fi (fig) Date: 17 Oct 1995 19:46:49 -0800 Subject: Re: Photocopying of Drivers License Organization: Me? chris@ivanova.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) wrote: Does anyone know about the legality of photocopying a driver's license? Whether it is right or not is up to debate. If they allowed you to tape over signature and address (and your state does not use SSN as a drivers license number), then it probably would be ok with me considering: I strongly suspect that the reason they do it is accounting. There have been so many scams regarding 'give-aways', 'contests', game shows, ... that these operations routinely are audited much more frequently/severely than your typical operation (by audited, I mean both IRS and private/CPA type auditing). For example, the people giving the radio station the CD want to make sure it doesn't end up w/ the general managers son/daughter. I believe there are also some strong laws in this respect, but of that I am not sure. If so, I wonder what the possibility is that those laws are in direct conflict with privacy laws. It's very hard for me to believe that there aren't conflicting laws somewhere in all those volumes. ------------------------------ From: JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown) Date: 17 Oct 1995 00:41:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Access to Account Balances and Limits Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs I called 1-800-DISCOVER to ask about a disputed purchase, and was given the option in an electronic menu to get my account balance and limit. I hadn't known this existed, so I tried it. It asked for my account number and my zip code. At that point an Account Manager answered who told me that normally the information would have been looked up but that their computers were in the process of updating. I stated concern about the ease with which private data was given out. The person responded that account numbers are not generally known. -- Jeff Brown JF_Brown@pnl.gov ------------------------------ From: JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown) Date: 17 Oct 1995 17:51:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs mod@world.std.com says... My mortgage is held by GE Capital Mortgage Services. ...snip... 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. ...snip... What are the risks in my subscribing to this service? 1) What information do they request from you? 2) Do the reports come directly to you or through them? (i.e., who gets to see the information on them) 3) You could get all the information yourself, but the $5 you pay them might be worth saving you the time. Your choice. -- Jeff Brown JF_Brown@pnl.gov ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 16 Oct 95 15:00:05 -0500 Subject: Avrahami Press Release Taken from http://www.epic.org/privacy/junk_mail/Press_release.html Press Release ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact: Ram Avrahami, 1001 N. Randolph/#110, Arlington, VA 22201. 703/908-9125 (tel), 703/908-0186 (fax) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A SOLUTION TO JUNK MAIL? Arlington, Aug. 21, 1995 -- "The Arlington County General District Court set a trial date for the case of an Arlington resident who is challenging the right of a magazine to sell or rent his name to another publication without his express written consent. Ram Avrahami of 1001 N. Randolph street, Arlington, Virginia, filed a motion against "US News & World Report" for selling his name, without prior written permission, to the Smithsonian Institution which sent him an unrequested mail soliciation for its "Smithsonian Magazine." Avrahami claims that USN&WR has benefited commercially from his name, thus violating Section 8.01-40 of the Virgnia Code which protects every person from having his/her name being used for commercial purpose without consent. While Section 8.01-40 is more known for protecting celebrities from misappropriating their name, Avrahami claims in his suit that the selling of magazine subscriber lists also, in effect, misappropriates his name. The Arlington man also accuses USN&WR of "conversion," that is, taking control of his name or property and using it for its own purposes without prior consent. Judge Jospeh Gwaltney of the Arlington COunty General District Court set a trial date for November 27th, 1995 (Civil Action No. 95-7479). In-house counsel for USN&WR, present in court, agreed to this trial date. Avrahami said he hoped the motion would help "set up a more equitable and efficient interaction between consumer and corporations in the information age." If successful, the suit should also help reduce the amount of junk mail, he added, since much of this mailing is based on lists that are sold withou consumers' permission. Ram Avrahami is represented by the Law Offices of Jonathan C. Dailey in Arlington, Virgnia (telephone 703-351-5097, fax 703-351-9292). ------------------------------ From: "David D. Levine" Date: 16 Oct 95 17:21:59 -0700 Subject: Your Net Activities for Sale ------- Forwarded Message 1 From: Steven Hackstadt Subject: Your Net Activities for Sale (fwd) ====================================================================== [3] Your Net Activities for Sale (and what you can do) ====================================================================== The Marketry company of Bellvue, Washington is now selling email addresses of Internet users obtained from Newsgroup postings. From the company's press release: "These are email address of individuals who are actively using the Internet to obtain and transfer information. They have demonstrated a substantial interest in specific area of information on the Internet. They are regularly accessing information in their interest areas from newsgroups, Internet chats and websites. . . . The file is anticipated to grow at the rate of 250,000 E Mail addresses per month, all with Interest selections." What are the interest areas currently available? "Adult, Computer, Sports, Science, Education, News, Investor, Games, Entertainment Religion, Pets." The release notes that "additional interests areas will be added, please inquire." Activities of US and non-US Net users will be included in the Marketry product. The Washington Post reported that the president of Markertry, Norm Swent, would not disclose who the actual owner of the list is. "That really is confidential information," Swent said, "and we are obviously bound by confidentiality agreements with the list owner." WHAT YOU CAN DO: (a) Sit back, let your newsgroup postings get swept up by the data scavengers and watch the junk email pile high on your system, or (b) Send email to Marketry and tell them to STOP SELLING PERSONAL DATA GATHERED FROM THE NET. Send email to: listpeople@marketry.com and tell your friends to send email. And tell your friends' friends. It's your name. It's your mailbox. Think about it. ------- End of Forwarded Message 1 I responded to this news as follows: Date: 16 Oct 95 16:05:06 -0700 From: "David D. Levine" To: listpeople@marketry.com Subject: Please remove my name from your mailing lists I understand that you are gathering e-mail addresses from Usenet postings for use in commercial e-mail solicitations. Please remove my name from your mailing lists. I realize that at the current time you are under no obligation to do so. However, I believe that maintainers of postal (paper) mailing lists *are* required to remove the names of customers who so request. Keep in mind that your actions and attitudes now will help determine the laws that are written to govern your industry later. - - David D. Levine, Intel Scalable Systems Division == davidl@ssd.intel.com "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." You may wish to do the same. -- David ------------------------------ From: support@thinck.com (E. Vlietinck) Date: 17 Oct 1995 18:45:21 +0100 Subject: Internet Law Review Dear Sirs, Ladies, Thinck Associates are looking for contributors to the Internet Law Review. Internet Law review. ------------------- The Internet Law Review is a new monthly review focused on the Internet. A broad range of editorials will cover everything from doing business on or via the Internet to the ins and outs of criminal behaviour on the I-Net and how this may affect legal issues in various countries. It is the intent of the publishers to make this review the reference regarding legal issues dealing with the Internet. Besides Internet-related legal issues, we are looking to publish articles on computer law, computer security if and when related to legal issues, and legal cases regarding IT. Therefore we are looking for academics and professional lawyers with a proven record in IT-law, who want to write high-quality editorials for the Review. Articles are restricted to 20 pages maximum. The author should also provide a summary to include in the final layout. The writer's resume will be mentioned at the end of the article with his or her photograph, if so desired. The review will be distributed in hardcopy or as an Acrobat PDF-file. Therefore, any photographs should be in digital format, scanned at high resolution. For the time being --because we are a very small firm and because we are starting our business-- this will be the only remuneration contributors will get. If the Review becomes the success we anticipate, every author will be contacted with a suggestion about a decent remuneration. Correspondence with the authors will be by Internet e-mail only. Articles must be sent in the state the author wants it printed, together with the author's full resume --and photo-- as an attached document to support@thinck.com. Please take into account that the workstations we use are Mac only. Your attached document should therefore be in text only format or in Word for Mac 5.1 or 6.0.1 format. The photos you send with your articles should be GIF-files. The same applies to any artwork you wish to include in your editorial. If we accept your text, only grammatical or spelling errors will be corrected, thus guaranteeing you that the content of the article remains unchanged. Some of the topics of interest are: * Advertising on the Internet: what is allowed and what is not? * Contracting by e-mail, legal implications. * Intruders in private networks: where do local police, FBI, Europol and Interpol stand? * Does the Internet intrude your privacy? * Contractual law with regards to ISP's, Web-sites. * etc., etc. ______________________ IIF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN WRITING FOR OUR REVIEW, SEND E-MAIL TO support@thinck.com. (END TEXT) Director: Erik Vlietinck, PhD in Law erikv@thinck.com Thinck Associates http://www.thinck.com ------------------------------ 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 #031 ****************************** .