Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 14:52:03 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V7#033 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 25 Oct 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 033 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Email Addresses for Sale by Direct Marketing Agency Re: Usenet Posters' Profiles Available to Anyone with WWW Browser Author Profiles at Deja News Marketry Inc. Resigns as E-mail List Broker The Information Rights Act of 1996 Re: State Phone Policies Survey Re: Call Blocking Re: Call Blocking Regulating re-use of Caller ID Information Re: Copyright Notice Inappropriate Access to Absentee Ballot Lists? Bell Atlantic VISA Re: Can you Sue if Credit is Denied for Lack of SSN? Exon Bill in US Congress This Weeks Free Online Privacy Article--Swiss Accounts Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/18/95] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Date: 23 Oct 1995 06:51:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Email Addresses for Sale by Direct Marketing Agency Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) richmsr@niia.net (rich markwart) wrote Email Addresses for Sale by Direct Marketing Agency According to DM(Direct Marketing) News 10-16-95, Marketry, Inc. of Bellevue, WA offerred a list of 250,000 Internet addresses to attendees of the 1995 Direct Marketing Association (DMA) convention in Dallas. The list of e-mail addresses was gathered from newsgroups, chat groups and Web sites. The list is available for rental at $50/1,000 names. Marketry is a list rental agency. In violation of DMA ethics rules, the owner of the list was not revealed. The spokesperson admited that users did not realize that their addresses were being captured, compiled and sold. The Direct Marketing Association can be reached at 212-768-7277 or 212-790-1400. If you complain to the DMA concerning this `direct marketing' outrage, don't hold your breath waiting for the DMA to do anything about it. Even if Marketry is a DMA member, I can assure from past experiences, the DMA will do little to nothing. Keep in mind, the DM News reported the DMA's president (Jonah Gitlitz) to have boasted, "THE GOAL OF THE DMA IS TO DISCOVER AND TO THWART POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT REGULATION.... AND WE HAVE DONE IT." Indeed, a DMA member, `Field Publications', was fined $175,000 by the FTC when one of its divisions was found to be making telemarketing offers in a `less than ethical manner'. But the most bizarre thing about this was that, at about the same time, Field Publication's' CEO was appointed to the DMA's Executive Board of Directors, whie the DMA's Ethics Director was on the Steering Committee of the Alliance Against Fraud in Telemarketing. There are other examples of the DMA's imperical inaction concerning violations of its ethical guidelines, but I won't get into them here. What's important is that you remember, most all of this `ethical' crap that the DMA feeds to us and our legislators is public relations fluff. I don't get a sense that the DMA believes it, so why should you believe it... or rely on it. You want proof? When you call them to complain, ask the DMA to respond in writing, with what they will do, should do, or have done concerning this Marketry matter. I only wish I could be proved wrong. -- Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK ------------------------------ From: ehunt@bga.com (Eric Hunt) Date: 23 Oct 1995 15:25:09 -0600 Subject: Re: Usenet Posters' Profiles Available to Anyone with WWW Browser Organization: Lil' Ole' Me dzubint@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Thomas Dzubin) wrote: You can "click" on the poster of the article and the dejanews server will give you an "Author profile" which lists how many articles you I went to their feedback page and firmly but politely requested they remove my two active UseNet posting accounts from their database. I also informed them I would not bring out the lawyers but I would become very active elsewhere in UseNet to bring pressure on them to remove this service. All of the points you raised are extremely valid and I'll definately be thinking twice about posting in some of the more left-wing and socially marginal groups from now on. -- Eric Hunt __ ehunt@bga.com (preferred) Austin, TX \/ hunt@metrowerks.com ------------------------------ From: Eric Hunt Date: 24 Oct 1995 10:07:30 -0500 Subject: Author Profiles at Deja News Upon learning from this discussion group of the Author Profiles available to anyone with a web client at Deja News (http://www.dejanews.com), I investigated. Sure enough, they had their database engine compile a summary of all the newsgroups I had posted to. At that point, I used their mailto: form to politely but firmly request that they remove me from their database, as I felt it was an invasion of my privacy. I received a response from George Demosthenes Nickas, Customer Liaison (demos@dejanews.com) that basically said "OK, we'll remove you, but didn't you realize that by posting to UseNet you opened yourself up to something just like this. We have no sympathy." I received another response this morning from Steve Madere, madere@home.dejanews.com (I deleted his original, so I don't know his title) that was even more to the point, and he quoted numerous net.guide documents and the banner from the tin newsreader, where they all remind you that you should be aware of the implications of posting to possibly controversial newsgroups. What follows is my reply to George from yesterday. I simply re-sent this same reply to Steve as well. I'd welcome any comments public or private on my arguments. Is the reality of UseNet completely different from the banners and net.guide documents, or am I being completely silly for assuming there was any expectation of privacy when posting to obscure newsgroups? Sent: 10/23/95 4:18 PM To: George Demosthenes Nickas, demos@home.dejanews.com I'd like to make a few points, however. Posting to UseNet is a world-wide *publishing* endeavor You are not providing a responsible service. The potential for discrimination and harassment, as well as targetted direct marketing is now infinitely easier with your service. By virtue of its entirely unmanageable size, UseNet was essentially a "private" place. Just as you can move to New York City and do *lots* of things that absolutely no one will notice, you could post to weird and potentially sensitive areas on UseNet and no one would be the wiser. Now, you've turned UseNet into that small town where everyone knows everyone else's business. It's now infinitely easier to find out all kinds of information about people they normally wouldn't want the whole world knowing. This service will allow employers to possibly discriminate against their employees by investigating *easily and efficiently* what areas of UseNet they inhabit. It will give the dregs of society an easy place to find targets for unwilling victims who just happen to share an interest. It will give direct marketers an even easier foothold into the sound-biting and oppressive commercialization of the Internet. Again, my point is this: there was an expectation of privacy with UseNet before your service. I don't even have that much of a problem with being able to get lists of posts a user makes. The scary part is the Author Profile that provides the Executive Summary of where a particular user frequents in UseNet. These same arguments are being used against the US Government's plans to consolidate all their citizen databases into one vast searchable archive. It allows every single detail of everyone's life to be put up for public display. I have to reject your claim that I should be responsible for my posting actions. Discrimination and oppression exist today and your service does nothing but make "safe spaces" for minorities less safe and more open to people who are targeting the inhabitants of those safe spaces. Please pass my response to the appropriate people internally at Deja News. -- Eric Hunt Austin, TX ------------------------------ From: privacy@interramp.com (Privacy Newsletter) Date: 24 Oct 1995 19:58:08 GMT Subject: Marketry Inc. Resigns as E-mail List Broker Organization: Privacy Newsletter On Monday, October 23, I spoke to Norman Swent, President of Marketry, Inc., who indicated that his company has dropped the recent attention grabbing Internet user e-mail list. In a press release dated October 17, 1995 (the day after the infamous DM News article formally hit the streets), Marketry had the following to say: "Norman Swent, President, Marketry, Inc., today announced Marketry's resignation as manager of the E-Mail Interest Selector list. While this is viewed as an exciting new potential for marketing purposes, the amount of effort required to gain acceptance for it will take some time. Marketry's resources are better spent further developing their core business rather than pioneering this effort." My personal take of this resignation is that Marketry is not prepared to take the heat at this time. A great deal of consumer backlash has taken place in the past week, and whoever exploits this market opportunity will have to "face the music" from consumer advocates. I'm sure that Marketry's resignation of this account will by no means slow down the emergence of this new list product. For some time, the editors here at Privacy Newsletter have been warning the public that its participation in Usenet conferences could have dire and unforeseen consequences. Whether you post messages to comp.society.privacy, alt.homosexual, or rec.drugs.psychedelic, you should assume by default that someone "out there" is compiling a list of your affiliations. We actively seek your personal experiences to share with our readers and encourage you to tell us your story. As a matter of policy, we will shield your identity. As we are preparing an e-mail privacy platform to submit to the DMA and other organizations, your input would be appreciated. -- John Featherman Editor Privacy Newsletter PO Box 8206 Philadelphia PA 19101-8206 Phone/fax: 215-533-7373 E-mail: privacy@interramp.com ------------------------------ From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills) Date: 23 Oct 1995 08:20:40 -0400 Subject: The Information Rights Act of 1996 Thomas Dzubin wrote: ...one of the items is called "Deja News" which will basically search through the dejanews Usenet archives for a certain search string. ...snip... This has a great potential as a marketing tool...or as a harrasment tool....or even as a job screening tool? Will someone in the future not hire me because I post to rec.whatever? Pretty scary potential. Mr. Dzubin expresses a theme frequently heard in the various privacy forums. I paraphrase it as, "I'm surprised to find that seemingly unrelated bits of information about me can be so easily gathered and used to build a profile of me. It ought to be forbidden." If enough people in enough places echo this desire, they may get their wish. A law could be passed restricting the gathering and correlation of information. On the surface, it might sound like consumer protection, but it could also backfire and become a real threat to freedom. Before asking for something, we ought to be sure what we want. So here's a challenge to the net community. If we had a "Information Rights Act of 1996", what would you like it to say? Please try to focus on a plane higher than just credit cards, phone numbers, and TV cameras. These things are important, but too transient to put into civil rights law. Technology changes awfully fast. A law which might stand for a hundred years or more has to talk about information, principles, parties and rights in very clear, yet generic language. It also has to be applicable, fair, and practical, to government, commerce and individuals. -- Dick Mills +1(518)395-5154 http://www.albany.net/~dmills ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Date: 23 Oct 1995 07:03:55 -0400 Subject: Re: State Phone Policies Survey Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Illinois, Chicago metro are, is covered by Ameritech. Charges are as follows: To stay out of the telephone book = $0.97/month To stay out of the book and Directory Assistance = $1.45/month To get the names and phone number of those paying Ameritech up to $17.40 / year to keep thier numbers private = $9.00 month Caller I D) To get Illinois' governor to appoint who you want to the Illinois Commerce Commission so you can get away with this incredible (yet common) industry practice = approximately $120,000 a year [that's what Ameritech's (they like to call it their Employee's) Political Action Committee gave in campaign contributions in 1990] Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK ------------------------------ From: WELKER@a1.vsdec.nl.nuwc.navy.mil Date: 23 Oct 1995 10:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Call Blocking I can find no rationale for permitting a common carrier to force citizens to pay extra not to have their privacy violated. The telephone is a vital public service, explicitly required in many jobs and a de facto requirement of most others. Access to emergency services depends on access to telephone services. Thus, we're not talking about a subscription list being sold by a private company. You don't have any choice but to deal with the local phone company if you want telephone service. The default behavior of the telephone company is to publish your number becuase most people want their numbers listed. Since the phone company has to do something special to "turn off" your listing, the cost of the additional labor can be passed on to you, not to mention cost of lost revenue from not being able to sell your name, which would otherwise show up on everybody's phone bill (a fact that the phone company will surely have reminded the UTC of). Access to emergency services need not be obtained via phone, you can still physically go directly to the public safety building in your community (or whatever). Having a phone line is a privilege that you pay for, not a right. The fact that a "natural monopoly" exists does not make it less of a privilege. Same goes for electricity, gas, and trash pickup -- you only have it as an entitlement if the government is providing it. Even if your zoning requires you to have electricity and trash removal, you can buy your own generator and haul your own garbage to a landfill -- and you can get a cellular phone and keep it in your house instead of paying for a standard line, too. ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Date: 23 Oct 1995 15:21:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Call Blocking Organization: mostly unorganized Aaron Zaugg writes: This anonymous call blocking problem everyone is talking about can be immediately solved by purchasing a Caller ID box (not from phone co.) which has that ability built in. I paid about 79$ for one from a computer (junk mail) catalog. I think the place was called PCZone. If your local phone company won't sell you the box that will eliminate blocked calls just find one that will. Sears (yes Sears) sells a box that does this as well. If you toggle the "block the blocker" mode, asnybody calling you will get a 'this phone does not accept blocked calls' msg. Note that unlike getting the service from telco, this box -will- have your phone do a single ring (whcih may or may not be useful) and the person calling you will get charged. -- Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com) ------------------------------ From: Peter B White Date: 24 Oct 1995 18:54:51 +1000 Subject: Regulating re-use of Caller ID Information Does anyone know of regulations which limit the re-use of information gained from Caller ID? For example are there any jurisdictions which limit the compilation of mailing lists or recontacting callers? Any leads appreciated. -- Peter B. White, Director, La Trobe University Online Media Program, Department of Media Studies, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia. email: pbwhite@latrobe.edu.au phone: +61 3 9479 2785 fax: +61 3 9817 5875 WWW http://teloz.latrobe.edu.au ------------------------------ From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) Date: 24 Oct 1995 22:08:39 GMT Subject: Re: Copyright Notice Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI Prof. L. P. Levine wrote: Copyright is a reservation to yourself of the right to make copies. The right to make copies is automatically reserved to the author. You don't have to assert it to retain copyright. 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. When you submit a document to a newsgroup, you are requesting that copies be made under the normal Usenet distribution mechanisms. Copyright in the document and responsibility for its contents remains with the author, oherwise nobody could afford the liability involved in carrying Usenet! To claim that one is giving up that copyright by posting, would be to claim that George Lucas (or Paramount, or whoever holds it these days) gave up the copyright to Star Wars when it was broadcast on TV. The situation is very closely analogous, except that the author has proportionately more control (it's generally not considered acceptable to run an edited newsfeed, but TV stations edit programs out of their broadcast schedule, insert local commercials, and so on all the time) in the case of news! A mailing list, with a smaller audience and more tightly controlled distribution, is even less of a conflict. I see no difficulty in messages containing simple copyright notices. They are not asserting any rights they do not automaticaly have anyway, and do not invalidate the compilation copyright on the list as a whole held by the moderator. Complicated distribution restrictions (may not be distributed via MSN, or AOL, or whatever) are a different matter, of course... -- Peter da Silva (NIC: PJD2) `-_-' 1601 Industrial Boulevard Bailey Network Management 'U` Sugar Land, TX 77487-5013 +1 713 274 5180 "Har du kramat din varg idag?" USA Bailey pays for my technical expertise. My opinions probably scare them ------------------------------ From: clearnts@coho.halcyon.com (Steve Habib Rose) Date: 25 Oct 1995 03:38:34 GMT Subject: Inappropriate Access to Absentee Ballot Lists? Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services I live in Seattle, Washington. I just got a mailing from a candidate named Richard B. Sanders encouraging me to: "Mark your absentee ballot today..." I found this, shall we say, interesting, considering I also happened to get an absentee ballot this same day. This mailing was clearly addressed: "Attention Absentee Voter" and my next door neighbor, who had not ordered an absentee ballot, didn't get the same mailing. Among my many questions: 1. Is it legal to distribute to political campaigns the list of people who have asked for absentee ballots? 2. Should it be? 3. In what format is this information supplied, and to whom? Is it provided on disk, for convenience? Or "just" on easily scanned printouts? Is there a cost for this "public service"? 4. Is it common knowledge that absentee ballot lists are made available in this fashion? I find it especially chilling that Mr. Sanders is a candidate for THE SUPREME COURT of Washington. This is the open behavior of a "citizen lawyer" who in the same mailing is supposed to be: FOR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS "Richard Sanders is a figher who will never lose sight of one of the Court's most important roles -- to stand for citizen rights against the excessive power of government." -- District Court Judge Mike Padden, Spokane. I'd sure hate to see the invasions of privacy that would happen if a candidate wasn't so supportive of citizen rights :-( -- Steve Rose ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Date: 23 Oct 1995 10:21:56 -0700 Subject: Bell Atlantic VISA Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 23 Oct 1995 10:57:13 -0500 From: Paul L. Moses To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Bell Atlantic VISA On Saturday I got junk mail offering me the Bell Atlantic VISA card. - no annual fee - 7.9% (introductory) APR for the first 6 months - credit line of 4k - and "UNLIMITED CASH BACK toward your Bell Atlantic phone calls and services!" And there's optional travel insurance too. This means BA has data on - who the customer calls - what the customer buys - where the customer travels Let's rerun that earlier discussion about phone company monitoring of customers and privacy, eh? ------------------------------ From: straurig@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com (Scott Traurig) Date: 23 Oct 1995 14:22:34 -0400 Subject: Re: Can you Sue if Credit is Denied for Lack of SSN? Organization: Lockheed Martin M & S, Sunnyvale, CA straurig@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com (Scott Traurig) wrote: Can you sue a financial institution that denies you credit solely on the basis that you refused to supply a social security number? All other information would be happily provided, e.g. bank balances and account numbers, etc. Thanks to all who replied to me. A few people misunderstood the question. They thought the bank was paying *me* interest, and needed my SSN for tax reporting purposes, as opposed to a credit account where I pay the *bank* interest. At any rate, the general consensus was, no, I could not sue for this reason, as companies can do business with whomever they like, aside from such issues as race, religion, etc. Thanks again for the responses. -- Scott Traurig straurig@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com ------------------------------ From: g4vegeta@cdf.toronto.edu (Me) Date: 23 Oct 1995 21:49:33 -0400 Subject: Exon Bill in US Congress Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility Does anyone know when the US congress is going to vote on James Exon's Communications Decency Act (or if they've already voted)? I'm doing a critique on it and I wondering if a decision has been made yet. -- Steven. ------------------------------ From: invis@ix.netcom.com (Duane Pitlock) Date: 23 Oct 1995 19:03:20 GMT Subject: This Weeks Free Online Privacy Article--Swiss Accounts Organization: Netcom This weeks Free Online Privacy Article can be accessed by emailing Privacy-Article@Mailback.com Do not put anything in the SUBJECT or BODY of your message. The Article will automatically be sent to your computer. Thank you for your interest. [moderator: I followed through and got a 200+ line message that began: FROM: "Financial Privacy News" May 1995 edition. NOTE: Used with special permission from the publisher. NOTICE: You may forward this article to others non-commercially only in its entirety. Internationally Copyrighted material. ---------------> Swiss Accounts, The Bare Facts <---------------- Switzerland has long been considered the paradise of the "Havens", well known for its controversial banking system, which has long offered a variety of opinions both in favor and against. But in reality very few understand the truth about banking in Swiss Banks, because they often get hung up on first impressions. It is no secret that Switzerland possesses in our modern world an attrac- tion, based upon its principles of CONFIDENTILAITY and ...] ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 18 Oct 1995 13:55:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/18/95] 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. [new: Ordinary copyrighted material should not be submitted. If a] [copyright owner wishes to make material available for electronic] [distribution then a message such as "Copyright 1988 John Doe.] [Permission to distribute free electronic copies is hereby granted but] [printed copy or copy distributed for financial gain is forbidden" would] [be appropriate.] 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 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. Web browsers 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 | Web: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V7 #033 ****************************** .