Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 11:13:45 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V7#046 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 28 Nov 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 046 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine See This Twice [1] See This Twice [2] Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious ... Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious ... Re: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information Re: SSN for CA DL renewal Common Carrier Re: Mark Twain Bank and DigiCash Re: Telemarketing Microsoft and Privacy Re: Private Property References Please Solid Clipper/Clipper2/communication Fact Sources Needed Data Encryption and the Future Re: Survey on Privacy in Business Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 28 Nov 1995 10:32:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: See This Twice [1] Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee >From the moderator: This message should appear twice in the comp.society.privacy newsgroup. Beginning very soon now we will be running a process called PGPMoose which will verify through a Pretty Good Privacy Signature line that all items in the newsgroup were, in fact, approved by the moderator. Although this group has not been subject to the heavy spamming of some other groups moderators of many moderated newsgroups are beginning a process that will add to the header lines of postings an additional line, called the X-Auth line that consists of a coded form of a signature generated from the content of the posting and the PGP private key beloging to the moderator. That new line looks something like this: X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.society.privacy iQBFAwUBMLsKUTNf3+97dK2NAQFf/gGAoJInaZbP/XQ9Cjx/T0 uaSAFBwKk79iSQUV6UkVe4k0Yzrx7rQJSFUf8ScOvQha+T =bx24 (You may or may not be able to see this line, depending on your newsreading software.) Of the two postings of this note, the first has the X-Auth line and the second does not. My concern is that you, the reader, can properly see newsgroup messages with this new feature added. I therefore request that, if you see only one posting of this message or if posting #1 is garbled, you let me know. An attempt to post your response will work well, I will filter such responses out. If there is no serious problem here we will be using the PGPMoose process on a regular basis. I will then post a fuller report on what the PGPMoose actually does, who wrote it, and its security aspects. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- 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: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 28 Nov 1995 10:32:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: See This Twice [2] Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee >From the moderator: This message should appear twice in the comp.society.privacy newsgroup. Beginning very soon now we will be running a process called PGPMoose which will verify through a Pretty Good Privacy Signature line that all items in the newsgroup were, in fact, approved by the moderator. Although this group has not been subject to the heavy spamming of some other groups moderators of many moderated newsgroups are beginning a process that will add to the header lines of postings an additional line, called the X-Auth line that consists of a coded form of a signature generated from the content of the posting and the PGP private key beloging to the moderator. That new line looks something like this: X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.society.privacy iQBFAwUBMLsKUTNf3+97dK2NAQFf/gGAoJInaZbP/XQ9Cjx/T0 uaSAFBwKk79iSQUV6UkVe4k0Yzrx7rQJSFUf8ScOvQha+T =bx24 (You may or may not be able to see this line, depending on your newsreading software.) Of the two postings of this note, the first has the X-Auth line and the second does not. My concern is that you, the reader, can properly see newsgroup messages with this new feature added. I therefore request that, if you see only one posting of this message or if posting #1 is garbled, you let me know. An attempt to post your response will work well, I will filter such responses out. If there is no serious problem here we will be using the PGPMoose process on a regular basis. I will then post a fuller report on what the PGPMoose actually does, who wrote it, and its security aspects. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- 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: shabbir@vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar, VTW) Date: 26 Nov 1995 13:48:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious ... Thanks for taking the time to comment on VTW's alert. Let me clarify some points. Note that taking the time to read the legislation would assist anyone examining this issue to conclude that the threat is very real. Paul Robinson writes: CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT The Religious Right has proposed shutting down speech on the net more tightly than ever before. Their activities could succeed, resulting in To me, it seems, this sort of hysteria and fear-mongering serves no useful purpose, since it apparently ignores reality. 1. There has never been an (anti) abortion law passed since _Row v. Wade_ that went into effect until a substantial amount of time after it was passed. Why? Because the courts would suspend the effect of the law until the issue was tried in court, seeing that the law would clearly be in contravention to that case. I've spoken with the folks at the ACLU who are following these bills. They say it's not necessarily true that such a bill can be tested immediately. (also known as being found "unconsitutional on its face") Most of the Internet Service Providers I've spoken to are not afraid of being arrested and sent to jail. That, they can handle. They're more afraid of having their equipment seized and being dragged into a long legal battle which they don't have the money for. In that case, it doesn't help you any if you're right. 2. What does this have to do with the above proposed law? While the courts have generally taken the stand that most laws passed by congress are constitutionally valid, when it comes to restrictions on speech and press, the courts have generally taken the exact opposite stand, that a restriction on speech is generally invalid lacking a foundation that there is some damn good reason to allow such a restriction. This would take a considerable amount of time. There's actually a long history of encroachments against expression. (This is a long discussion which I won't go into here..) 3. Most laws which are created in Congress never even get very far. Mostly these laws are written for bargaining points, or for political capital, since someone can say they are attempting to be "tough on..." something the voters don't like, even if the law never gets out of committee. I would be more concerned if this was regulation to be passed which was to appear in the {Federal Register}. Most of that _does_ get passed, and, because of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1949, _has_ the force and effect of law in most cases. This is, exactly, what the law enables. One of the proposals being negotiated right now would give the FCC the power to determine what is "decent" and "indecent" speech in cyberspace. They would then be able to make these decisions through administrative regulations. Putting the FCC in charge of defining speech standards in cyberspace is generally viewed as a bad thing. 4. I suspect those who are reporting the law are misstating what it actually says, either accidentally or on purpose. During protests over the motion picture "The Last Temptation of Christ," people were protesting over some issues that they claimed were degraded or defamed by the movie. My brother, who saw the film, said that some of the things that they complained about weren't even in the film. I am not saying the law isn't providing exactly what the original poster alleges that it does. I am just wondering what their biases are. VTW's bias is in support of free speech. Interactive media has the unique qualities of significant user control. This means that many of the traditional arguments for "indecency standards" (such as those in broadcast media) should not be applied. I thought our point of view very clear. 5. Why is it that it is presumed to be some organization or group called the "religious right" that wants this sort of law passed? I guess because it is "Politically Correct" to bash on that group. Or perhaps the poster didn't think "Skinhead Neo-Nazis" or "Fascists" was a strong enough term this week. The most extreme of the current proposals to censor the net was presented in a letter to Congress by many, including: Edwin Meese III, Ralph Reed - Christian Coalition, Donald E. Wildmon - American Family Association, Phyllis Shafly - Eagle Forum, Beverly LaHaye - Concerned Women for America, and Reverend Louis P. Sheldon - Traditional Values Coalition. When people refer to the "Religious Right" they are often talking about people in the above groups. The letter they sent to Congress can be found at URL:http://www.vtw.org/archive/5NOV95_213243.html. 6. Common Carrier law has an incredibly long history - hundreds of years - the rules go back to the creation of the term in the 1400s. I find it highly unlikely that the entire system of common carrier law, which includes lack of liability for content, is going to be trashed. To hold a system operator such as AOL or Compuserve liable for the material transmitted over their facilities when they have no knowledge or awareness of this content means that AT&T could be held liable for messages in voice-mail using their "store and forward" system which is available by dialing *123 when placing a telephone call that doesn't complete. This would be ridiculous, and it would overrule hundreds of years of settled case-law as well as make a mess. Internet Service Providers and Bulletin Boards are not considered common carriers, and therefore don't enjoy the same protection as telephone service providers. 7. Further, it would not just be applicable to Prodigy, or MCI, if it applies to those who transport "message traffic" or electronic material, then it is applicable to Federal Express and UPS, too! (A CD-ROM, a diskette or a book with the above probably qualify too, if the law is written as sloppily as the writer apparently claims it is.) The law treats different media differently. To equivocate Internet traffic and Federal Express is obtuse. 8. In short, first this bill must be passed by both houses of congress, then signed by the President, then survive the inevitably certain court challenges, then, and only then - assuming there hasn't been significant public outcry to have the law repealed - is there anything to worry about, if there is at all, that is. The "bad legislation" has been passed by both houses of Congress. It's currently in conference, and if it survives, it will almost surely be signed by the President, since it's attached to the Telecommunications Deregulation bill. At that point, it's too late. All it takes nowadays to shut down an Internet Service Provider or Bulletin Board (or a small email/Web publisher) is to arrest them and seize their equipment. The threat of legal fees and the inability to perform their business will weaken any willpower they might have had to withstand a four year court battle. 9. This also presumes people don't implement new ways to go around the law, such as using gateways in other countries, using ftp sites to allow people to take material, using mailing lists through remailers, and other things. Unless the sender can be identified, and traced to somewhere in the U.S., there is no means to enforce the law no matter how strict it is. Note that the Justice Department has already carried out child porn stings with the assistance of a Dutch bulletin board to catch people in the US. While those who produce child pornography are criminals, imagine if the Justice Department were given the charge to extend their investigations to people that provided or downloaded "indecenct content", as the legislation proposes. 10. There are lots of ridiculous laws on the books that, if enforced at face, would effectively grind society to a halt: There are many laws on the books that are not enforced at face, but still have the effect of imposing their will on society. You only need one or two well-publicized ISP raids to gain the desired effect. 12. I would seriously doubt that the bill, if it even becomes law, would mean much of anything, anyway, there is too much material being transmitted to have such a law be effective. It would most likely become just another law that is only enforced if someone complains, or plainly is ignored and isn't enforced at all, like the one that makes consentual oral sex between husband and wife in the privacy of the bedroom of their home, if in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a felony punishable by imprisonment exceeding three years. This is an inappropriate analogy. Under the proposed laws, the person who notifies law enforcement of someone providing "indecent" content is not necessarily themselves subject to prosecution. -- Shabbir ------------------------------ From: david_boshears@il.us.swissbank.com (David Boshears) Date: 26 Nov 1995 22:43:14 GMT Subject: Re: Act Now to Stop the Religious ... Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division Paul Robinson writes CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT [snip] To me, it seems, this sort of hysteria and fear-mongering serves no useful purpose, since it apparently ignores reality. [snip points 1 thru 4, "laws don't necessarily become enforced"] Paul, The reality that it seems you claim is ignored, is that "stupid" laws are not enforced. This is mostly true, and you alluded to it in your description of Virginia sodomy laws in point 12. That being, these laws are *sometimes* enforced, as you put it: "if someone complains." That is the real danger here! Yet another chance for the state to participate in arbitrary judgement of "some" people--those with little power, those who are easy to "demonize," those for which there is already a predisposition to cast judgement against. This is why the law must never exist at all. We cannot become complacent just because we can (or might be able to) say "it won't affect me." If the government really has no business making this law, then they shouldn't be allowed to--telling ourselves that their efforts are ineffective does not negate that which they have done, instead it prepares us for a mighty sorry day. In between points 4 and 5, you make a rhetorical question about biases. The trouble with leaning on concepts such as "bias" is that it gives too much credence to the majority opinion. It makes it seem "right" or "moral" when really it is nothing more than one particular position. Today that bias has the force of a majority, but in the past or the future, it may have seemed or may yet seem to be a "bias." You, me, everyone has a position, so please don't paint the original poster as some fringe kook and yourself as the "voice of objectivity"--cause there is no such thing. I am interested in your point 6. What sources can you give me to look this up--I've never heard of this before and would like to know more. It seems odd that there would have been laws protecting paper-message couriers from the content of said messages--any litigation against a courier regarding that which was actually delivered would seem almost obviously frivolous and I can't imagine that a judge would allow it! ========================================================================= C. David Boshears | My opinions are mine, and bosh@swissbank.com | mine ALONE! Swiss Bank Corporation | *You can't have them!* ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Date: 26 Nov 1995 15:30:46 -0500 Subject: Re: GE Capital Offer of Personal Information Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) JF_Brown@pnl.gov (Jeff Brown) wrote: 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? TRW offers a similar service for $30+ per year. It's called their Credentials Service. But TRW neglects to tell its Credential Services subscribers that TRW sells those subscribers to the junk mail and junk call industry for `direct marketing' victimization. -- Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK ------------------------------ From: halfbree@rapidnet.com Date: 27 Nov 1995 03:53:18 GMT Subject: Re: SSN for CA DL renewal Organization: Very Little wayne@localnet.org writes: The SSN cannot be printed on the drivers license ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Emphasis, Halfbreed's) when is required ( it can be used if it is requested) and can only be disclosed for legitmate law enforcement purposes. *snip* That is an intresting statement as South Dakota and several other states use your SSAN as the Drivers License #. -- The Halfbreed ------------------------------ From: Kevin Kadow Date: 27 Nov 1995 10:44:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: Common Carrier Paul Robinson said: 6. Common Carrier law has an incredibly long history - hundreds of years - the rules go back to the creation of the term in the 1400s. I find it highly unlikely that the entire system of common carrier law, which includes lack of liability for content, is going to be trashed. Actually- this is part of the problem. Under current law, service providers are _not_ protected by the "Common Carrier" laws. To hold a system operator such as AOL or Compuserve liable for the material transmitted over their facilities when they have no knowledge or awareness of this content means that AT&T could be held liable for messages in voice-mail using their "store and forward" system which is available by dialing *123 when placing a telephone call that doesn't complete. This would be ridiculous, and it would overrule hundreds of years of settled case-law as well as make a mess. This never stopped Congress before... 7. Further, it would not just be applicable to Prodigy, or MCI, if it applies to those who transport "message traffic" or electronic material, then it is applicable to Federal Express and UPS, too! (A CD-ROM, a diskette or a book with the above probably qualify too, if the law is written as sloppily as the writer apparently claims it is.) Are FedEx and UPS currently liable for material they carry? Personally I'm more concerned with the chilling effect on free speech that would result from restricting content, regardless of who is held liable. As I've stated in other forums, the question isn't HOW to make the Internet safe for children (one proposed goal of this bill) but WHETHER it should be done at all. The Internet is no longer a publically funded resource, if the politician's want their own safe and censored network, let them start one for that purpose. ------------------------------ From: leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Peter Leppik) Date: 27 Nov 1995 11:59:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Mark Twain Bank and DigiCash Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana (Bradley Ward Allen) wrote: Why is Chaum in the Wired article (written first) looking for heavy privacy, and then later affirming the Bank's choice of a system which is "With ecash, however, all the amounts each person receives are known to their bank" which indeed seems to me to have a large amount of tracabilty (is it in that the bank doesn't know where it's coming *from*??), and "irrefutably identify blackmarketeers, extortionists, and acceptors of bribes"? Is the irrefutably some sort of proof that cannot be made-up (i.e. framing someone)? Pardon me for stating the obvious, but the bank needs to know how much you withdrew in order to properly debit your account. As for the other (not so obvious) points....My understanding of the Digicash scheme is that it allows the bills to be traced if any two of the three parties (bank, payer, payee) cooperate. So, if someone extorts money from you, you need merely cooperate with the bank to trace that cash. Or, if you attempt to buy drugs anonymously, it can be traced if the other person cooperates with the bank (thus opening the risk that the other person will turn out to be a cop). Or, both the payer and payee could cooperate, but that's sort of a null result (presumably, you already know what bank you use). On the other hand, if nobody cooperates, then the money is untracable. So, in theory, if the bank wants to trace the money, they can't--without convincing one of the other two parties to play along. Or, if you want to find out who redeems the digicash, you can't--without convincing the bank to help. All told, I think digicash strikes an excellent balance between protecting privacy and protecting the interests of society. -- Peter Leppik leppik@seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu Lost in the Information Supercollider http://seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu/ ------------------------------ From: Michael Shreeve Date: 27 Nov 1995 22:14:18 GMT Subject: Re: Telemarketing Organization: Technical Consulting Continuum My parents have been going on and on about a deal in Florida, under the Department of Agriculture. If you give them your name, a startup fee of $10, and $5 per year, you are off-limits to the lists of the telemarketers. If you get unsolicited marketing calls, you can complain, and the company will lose their license. (Sigh, I would rather have $500 ;-) ) There are certain exemptions for non-profit organizations and others. I am basing this off memory of conversations a couple months old, just reminded of by this thread. I _DO_ like the idea though. Wish it were in my state. Has anyone else heard of this program, and has more details? --Michael Disclaimer: In addition to disclaimer about my memory above, standard disclaimers apply. My opinions are my own and free. You get what you pay for. ------------------------------ From: stevew@teleport.com Date: 27 Nov 1995 23:59:44 GMT Subject: Microsoft and Privacy Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Hi all! Recall the stink about Windows 95 and the ability for Microsoft personnel to allegedly inspect the contents of someone's hard drive under the pretense that it is for "technical support" reasons? I'm curious about the growing size of Microsoft in terms of buying the intellectual rights to art work, music, and many other forms of media and how might impact us worker ants in our own daily lives. Should we be concerned about Microsoft (or any other mega-corp) ultimately infringing on our rights to privacy? Just some thoughts... ---------------------------------------------------------- --- Steve Williamson --- WILLIAMSON IMAGINEERING stevew@teleport.com Information Technologies and Computer Training Specialists ------------------------------ From: kmcguire@omni.voicenet.com (Kevin McGuire) Date: 28 Nov 1995 03:01:55 GMT Subject: Re: Private Property References Please Organization: Voicenet - Internet Access - (215)674-9290 BCTSMARCOS (bctsmarcos@aol.com) wrote: I am looking for references to a court case filing that is based on the theory that if a company that sells a product or service sells my name as a result of that tranaction such as subscribing to a magazine that they have established a value for my name and associated information. Therefore, it becomes private property and the seller of my information must make a deal with me to use, rent, lease, or sell my private property. If anybody has any information on this issue please forward to me thanks Business Week, Dec.4, has an article regarding legal action against junk emailings where they cite the case you may be looking for. I'm not sure whose names are actually on the suit, but it is U.S. News & World Report against Ram Avrahami, and was filed in Arlington, VA. Mr. Avrahami contends that in selling his name & address to the Smithsonian Institution, USN&WR invaded his privacy because "everyone has a property interest in his or her identity and that to profit from it without approval is an illegal invasion of privacy." -- Kevin S. McGuire | "I wish that every human life might be Philadelphia, PA | pure, transparent freedom." -- Simone de Beauvoir ------------------------------ From: Froggy Date: 26 Nov 1995 23:29:00 GMT Subject: Solid Clipper/Clipper2/communication Fact Sources Needed Organization: Case Western Reserve University In preparation for a research paper into the topic of the government intrusion in the current ways we communicate, I am in need of solid references that address the following issues : - The rise and fall of the Clipper Chip proposal - The current Clipper Chip II proposal - Wiretapping - Current/past legislation dealing with the means of our communication over telecommuncation devices - Right to privacy laws - Solutions - Why they haven't worked - Solutions that might work This is a serious academic paper and serious replies would be *most* appreciated. I would also be greatly interested in interviewing an individual who has first-hand or relevant experience with any of these topics. Such interview would be easiest for me over the IRC or through an e-mail question/answer session. I am currently a freshman at Case Western Reserve University and have been a member of the Usenet/Internet community since 1991. This paper will fulfill my English 150 requirements and accuracy, as well as detail is needed. Thanks in advance for all help. E-mail responses would be most appreciated. -- Paul M. Schneider pxs3@po.cwru.edu ce399@cleveland.freenet.edu paul.schneider@flipflop.org (last resort) ------------------------------ From: tfoucher@orion.oac.uci.edu (Trevor Foucher) Date: 27 Nov 1995 14:37:30 GMT Subject: Data Encryption and the Future Organization: University of California, Irvine I am doing a research paper on the future and data encryption and was wondering if anyone wants to share thoughts about this subject. Specifically, I am wondering how people feel about the following questions: Will the government eventually force us to use only "crackable" encryption? Even if the government does regulate encryption heavily, is it possible for the government to prevent people from using the technology despite laws against such use? Is data encryption threat enough to the national security that we should be worried about its development and/or use? Thank you for your input. Please post replies here or email them to "tfoucher@orion.oac.uci.edu". -- Trevor Foucher ------------------------------ From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills) Date: 27 Nov 1995 06:38:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Survey on Privacy in Business In CPD 09:46 robrienr@aol.com (ROBRIENR) wrote: > Please complete survey and E-mail reults to ROBRIENR@aol.com > SURVEY PRIVACY IN THE WORKPLACE > > PERSONAL INFORMATION > ...snip... The request containts no identification of the requestor other than robrienr@aol.com. Earlier this month I complained about a similar request to CPD from nahe@aol.com (Nahe) Re:Arrest Records and Employment. It seems that readers of this forum are being singled out as particularly gullible marks willing to voluntarily sacrifice their privacy and give personal information to anyone purporting to collect it for purposes of privacy advocacy. ROBRIENR, if I remember right, was the name of a comedic character and practical jokester on the Dick Van Dyke TV show, (actually Karl Reiner). The name may be real, but @aol.com effectively blocks me from checking. ROBRIENR could be my employer or one of my competitors trying to dig up dirt, or even me trying to play a joke on you. Can fellow readers of CPD suggest ways that con artists could profit from the information disclosed in similar requests? Is there reason to continue to complain about these survey requests, or is everyone sufficiently aware already? -- Dick Mills +1(518)395-5154 http://www.albany.net/~dmills [moderator: I am interested also in whether or not I should filter such items out of the stream. The two postings before this one are cases in point.] ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 22 Nov 1995 14:25:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95] 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 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 #046 ****************************** .