Date: Wed, 07 Feb 96 07:39:29 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V8#013 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 07 Feb 96 Volume 8 : Issue: 013 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Telecomm Bill Translation First USA Bank & Telemarketing Re: Computer policy from American Library Association AOL Mail Retention Telecomm Bill and Indecency Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gmcgath@mv.mv.com (Gary McGath) Date: 04 Feb 1996 12:26:47 GMT Subject: Re: Telecomm Bill Translation Organization: Conceptual Design References: (B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications; Monty Solomon wrote: So, when that bill collector from Shylock Finance calls, simply tell him that you will consider any further phone calls to be a clear indication of an intent to harrass you. This may already be the case. A few years ago, I naively paid a house painter in full when there was still a little work to do. That was the last I saw of him, and I made a number of phone calls demanding satisfaction. I got a call from the cops telling me that I could take him to court, but couldn't call him any more. -- Gary McGath gmcgath@mv.mv.com http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath This message void in Germany, China, and other places where free speech is prohibited by law. ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Date: 04 Feb 1996 18:00:24 -0500 Subject: First USA Bank & Telemarketing Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) If you have notified First USA Bank to put you on their do-not-call list, and you received two or more telenuisance calls from them within a subsequest 12 month period, I would like to know about it. We are assembling a list of people who have been victimized by such calls. If you meet the above criteria, it could mean you are due anywhere from $500 to $1,500 from First USA Bank (pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Please respond by e-mail -- Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK ------------------------------ From: gmcgath@mv.mv.com (Gary McGath) Date: 05 Feb 1996 12:41:38 GMT Subject: Re: Computer policy from American Library Association Organization: Conceptual Design References: "Carl M. Kadie" wrote: According to a mailing list posting, the American Library Association (ALA) just approved the enclosed statement on applying the Library Bill of Rights to computers and networks. ... All library system and network policies, procedures or regulations relating to electronic resources and services should be scrutinized for potential violation of user rights. This "bill of rights" has considerable potential for violating the privacy of electronic service providers. The ALA refers to "inalienable rights," and thus either is guilty of sustained hyperbole or is suggesting that the principles it enumerates should be legally enforceable. Its advocacy of scrutiny against violations of these "rights" is particularly ominous. Users should not be restricted or denied access for expressing or receiving constitutionally protected speech. Users' access should not be changed without due process, including, but not limited to, formal notice and a means of appeal. Although electronic systems may include distinct property rights and security concerns, such elements may not be employed as a subterfuge to deny users' access to information. "Constitutionally protected speech" means speech which is not actually illegal. It includes insults, profanity, inappropriate but legal promotion of one's product, and some forms of deception. The ALA is, in effect, demanding that service providers allow its users to say anything for which they can't be taken to court. In the case of a large organization, "means of appeal" within the organization is meaningful, but for an individually operated BBS, this "right" would mean partially surrendering control of one's system to an outside arbitrator; and concern about the loss of one's property rights in this case might be deemed merely a "subterfuge." Users have the right to be free of unreasonable limitations or conditions set by libraries, librarians, system administrators, vendors, network service providers, or others. Contracts, agreements, and licenses entered into by libraries on behalf of their users should not violate this right. Users also have a right to information, training and assistance necessary to operate the hardware and software provided by the library. This implies that contracts are subject to limitations on the basis of an ill-defined "right." If implemented in law, this would mean that the courts can decide whether a service provider's policies have "unreasonable limitations" in them, and compel the provider to change them. Libraries have an obligation to provide access to government information available in electronic format. Libraries and librarians should not deny access to information solely on the grounds that it is perceived to lack value. The first of these points would allow governmental bodies to compel private libraries to carry material which they provide. The second effectively makes the selection process as such a "rights" violation, since any information provider must apply some standard of value in allocating finite resources. I want to stress again that the ALA repeatedly ascribes the status of "rights" to its claims. Much of what it says would be good policy if offered as recommendations; some I would disagree with in any event. But a right is a principle for which one has, or should have, legal recourse. If privacy includes the freedom to deal with people or not as one chooses, then the ALA's "bill of rights" is a declaration of war on privacy. Perhaps the ALA means only to issue recommendations, and is using the word "rights" only to call attention to itself. But this rhetorical device, if that is all it is, trivializes the concept, and can promote a backlash against the concept of rights. Just as inflationary money drives out good money, inflated rights drive out actual rights. -- Gary McGath gmcgath@mv.mv.com http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath This message void in Germany, China, and other places where free speech is prohibited by law. ------------------------------ From: Aaron Zaugg Date: 05 Feb 1996 12:37:58 -0700 (MST) Subject: AOL Mail Retention While this may be skirting the true issue with AOL's mail retention without user's consent, I wonder if there isn't an easy way around this. I do not use AOL, but more than likely a user should be able to edit their e-mail messages. I doubt that AOL is going to save a back up of every message you edit. Therefore replacing any mail you want to delete with a bunch of spaces or any other character you wish should block anyone's attempts to read such e-mail with a very minimal inconvienience. -- Aaron Zaugg relief@indirect.com ------------------------------ From: Monty Solomon Date: 04 Feb 1996 21:37:19 -0500 Subject: Telecomm Bill and Indecency Begin forwarded message: Date: 02 Feb 1996 17:11:29 -0500 (EST) From: Neal J. Friedman Subject: Telecomm Bill and Indecency MEMORANDUM TO: All Internet Clients DATE: February 2, 1996 RE: Telecommunications Act Imposes Controls on Indecent and Obscene Content on the Internet and Online Services The newly-enacted Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that it is the policy of the United States to "promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services." But, for the first time, it puts the federal government in the business of regulating the Internet and online services. The legislation does not go as far as some had feared, but further than others had hoped. The statute prohibits the use of interactive computer services to make or make available an indecent communication to minors. It defines indecency as: "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." This definition has been upheld in other cases involving the broadcast media. The bill's supporters expect that it will withstand the inevitable Constitutional challenge. Indeed, Congress provided that any challenge should first go to a special three-judge panel and then directly to the Supreme Court. The Conference Committee Report accompanying the bill argues that the new indecency prohibition will "pose no significant risk to the free-wheeling and vibrant nature of discourse or to serious literary, and artistic works that can be currently found on the Internet, and which is expected to continue and grow." The language requires that the communication must be knowing and specifically exempts online service providers who merely provide access to the Internet. The Conference Report states that the intent is to focus on "bad actors and not those whose actions are equivalent to those of common carriers." This is good news for those service providers who only host content for others and exercise no control over the content. But, the legislation goes on to state specifically that it is not the intent of Congress to treat online services as common carriers or telecommunications carriers for other purposes. If the online services were to be considered as common carriers, they would be insulated from liability for any content on their systems. Thus, the question of liability of online services for defamation and copyright and trademark infringement remains unclear. The legislation also provides a "Good Samaritan" defense for service providers who have taken "in good faith, reasonable, effective and appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access by minors" to prohibited communications or have restricted access to indecent content by means of a verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number. The role of the Federal Communications Commission is restricted under the new law. The FCC is only permitted to describe measures that are reasonable, effective and appropriate to restrict access to prohibited communications, but it cannot give its approval to such measures nor can it penalize any service provider for failing to use the measures. The new law also prohibits states from exercising control over content of online services. States can control content entirely within their borders so long as the control is not inconsistent with the federal law. Some state legislatures had, in reaction to publicity over alleged pornographic and indecent content online, considered bills that would have put tight restrictions on content. The full text of the entire Telecommunications Act of 1996, incorporating the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and the Conference Report are available on our World Wide Web site: http://www.commlaw.com. Sincerely yours, PEPPER & CORAZZINI, L.L.P. By:___________________________ Neal J. Friedman _____________________________________________________________ |Neal J. Friedman | Pepper & Corazzini, LLP |Voice: | | njf@commlaw.com | 1776 K Street, N.W. | 202-296-0600| |Telecommunications| Suite 200 |Fax: | |& Information Law | Washington, D.C. 20006 | 202-296-5572| | | | Web Server: http://www.commlaw.com/ | |____________________________________________________________| ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 30 Jan 1996 18:45:30 -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 V8 #013 ****************************** .