Date: Sun, 07 Apr 96 10:46:34 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V8#030 Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 07 Apr 96 Volume 8 : Issue: 030 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Computer Privacy Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns Re: Finding Lost Money Re: Finding Lost Money USPS Address Change Plan Increasingly Intrusive Capability Re: Individual RTP vs. Corporate FOS A Bar Copied my Drivers License AARP Privacy Invasion Privacy and Computer Technology Privacy and Computer Technology DoubleClick: 'We're No Peeping Toms' CFP96 Audio Sessions AVailable on the Web Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David J. Crook" Date: 02 Apr 1996 22:16:11 -0800 Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Organization: epix.net References: Calls may be monitored; the contents of computer disks and files may be inspected, with no legal recourse to the employee. Lesson: Don't discuss or have anything on corporate communications media that you wouldn't want to wind up on your boss's desk. Does anyone doubt that we've reached the following point. Anyone working for any large corporation (and maybe a majority of small corps & businesses) is naive to not consider that ANYTHING said on a company telephone, sent in an email on a company computer, mailed in inter-office correspondence, written/stored on a company computer is accessible to and commonly accessed by the employer? That, of course, doesn't make it right or healthy for the individual, business or American society, BUT it is reality. My policy has become to not to say anything on any of these modes of communication that would cause me or my employer (and therefore me) problems if it were published in a newspaper. As technology evolves, our society will have to require relegislation of the right privacy and it's boundaries. Technology (both existing and upcoming) if left uncontrolled will completely denude everyone of privacy and any expectation of it. ------------------------------ From: jcr@mcs.com (John C. Rivard) Date: 03 Apr 1996 10:17:17 -0600 Subject: Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns Organization: very little References: hrick@gate.net (Rick Harrison) wrote: When you post a message to Usenet, you are giving implied permission for all Usenet feed-takers to redistribute messages. [...] I imagine this principle will eventually be tested in court. Personally I hope messages posted to Usenet will be proven to be public domain material unless the authors attach a copyright notice to their messages. The current copyright law states that any item fixed is automatically copyrighted by the author, copyright notice or not. The act specifically states that copyrighted items do NOT fall into the public domain unless specifically placed their by the copyright holder. In other words, the law is opposite to what you propose: Messages posted to Usenet are proven copyrighted material unless the authors attach a notice to their messages specifically placing it in the public domain. The law is quite specific on this matter, and I doubt that it could be completely reversed to work the opposite way by a simple court ruling. -- John C. Rivard  "Stay off that highway: word is it's not so safe  The grasses that hide the green-backs, http://www.mcs.net/~jcr/ the amber waves of growing grain" --R.E.M. ------------------------------ From: jcr@mcs.com (John C. Rivard) Date: 03 Apr 1996 10:26:15 -0600 Subject: Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns Organization: very little References: sgs@access.digex.net (Steve Smith) wrote: As a silly example, Alan Sherman copyrighted middle C. Anybody who played middle C was playing his "song". Anybody who played any other note was playing his song transposed. Needless to say, it never hit the courts. The courts have an established precedent to guide them on this specific example called "The Eight-Bar Rule." Essentially, it is a legal rule of thumb which states that if more than eight measures of a song is substantially (melodically) identical to a pre-existing copyrighted work, the new work is considered derivative work, and royalties must be paid to the copyright holder of the original work. If the "identical" parts of the song are less than eight bars, it is generally considered an original (non-infringing) work. This is not spelled out in the law, it is a gauge that the courts have established through rulings on cases of (mis)appropriation of music. Needless to say, a single C note is very unlikely to continue for eight bars, and this could explain why Alan Sherman never attempted to pursue infringement in court. -- John C. Rivard  "Stay off that highway: word is it's not so safe  The grasses that hide the green-backs, http://www.mcs.net/~jcr/ the amber waves of growing grain" --R.E.M. ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Date: 03 Apr 96 22:37 EST Subject: Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. References: andypajta@aol.com (AndyPajta) wrote: If anything I write is copyrighted as soon as it is "fixed" and I choose to "publish" it on a newsgroup for other SUBSCRIBERS, ... Well, maybe. The idea of a newsgroup "subscriber" is a pretty vague one, defined only by entries in each user's own configuration files. Not only do authors of messages have no idea of who'll be reading them, even the managers of the users' systems don't, and who subscribes to what changes from minute to minute, with no way for anyone to tell who's doing what. Also don't forget that usenet works by flooding, with each node sending everything to all of its neighbors. If usenet is like a magazine, it's like a most peculiar one, where you run down the street giving copies to everyone you pass, and with a message on the front cover saying "PLEASE GIVE COPIES OF THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW". To claim that someone is somehow not authorized to give away electronic copies of a usenet message is just silly. Arguments about commercial use are equally unpersuasive unless you plan to sue every commercial ISP in the world. Finally, remember that copyright is a civil, not a criminal law. Unless you've registered your copyright, which requires a paper form and $20, you can only claim actual damages from an infringer. This means that even were you to take someone like DejaNews to court, what could you claim? That they gave copies to people who weren't allowed to have them? Hardly. All they've done that's new is to make an index, and indices have been around and quite legal for centuries. Unlike some people I don't believe that sending a usenet message puts it totally in the public domain. There is a useful distinction between electronic distribution and other forms. For example, a couple of years ago Wired magazine took a usenet message of mine, stripped off the attribution, and published it in the paper version of their magazine. I think that was wrong. You might even make a case if someone appropriated your words and passed them off on the net as their own. But claiming that making a index of usenet messages somehow infringes? No way. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 05 Apr 1996 11:09:49 EST Subject: Re: USENET Reposters: Privacy and Copyright Concerns Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA andypajta@aol.com (AndyPajta), wrote If anything I write is copyrighted as soon as it is "fixed" and I choose to "publish" it on a newsgroup for other SUBSCRIBERS, that doesn't give any individual subscriber (the search engine, in this case), the right to re-publish it (i.e., to charge advertisers for space on their web page and allow the viewing of my composition beyond what I originally intended). I think you would have a hard time arguing this. The historical operation of Usenet is to send an article to all sites that collect it, to allow them to transmit it to recipients, either as bulk downloads (ala UUCP), as single articles (rn, trn and tin newsreaders), or as articles transmitted to a further site (NNTP). Showing an article via the World Wide Web seems to me, to be no different than a user logging onto a site and using, say, tin to read that article. I use tin, and it has a rudimentary search feature to examine posted articles in a newsgroup for certain texts. It can also search for specific authors and show articles from them. I believe that the legal doctrine of "fair use" and "implied license" would apply here: by posting a message on usenet you are permitting its distribution to other sites that carry it. Also, because disk space has, until recently, been very expensive so newsgroup articles tended to be purged rapidly. There is no requirement that this be done, however; if a place has the disk space to store everything, it would be permissible for it to do so. It could be argued that you gave permission for the article to be placed on the network and thus made available as part of the regular message traffic to be used in the 'usual and customary' activities of that traffic, which include the storing of messages for display as requested. Would it have made any difference if they had simply offered a telnet site and allowed people to use, say, tin, rn or any other news reader to read the articles and simply never expired them? Would it be considered an infringement to use a web site to display messages 'live', (i.e. during the first week after it was posted) instead of using, say, a modem connection, rlogon or telnet to connect to the host computer? It's merely a different way of displaying the information, *if it is infringement*, doing so in this manner makes it no less infringement than doing so by telnet, rlogin, dial-up line via modem, NNTP delivery or UUCP feed, and *if it is not infringement*, then the method of delivery does not change the non-infringing display via a news reader into an infringing one simply because a web server is used. Where is the infringement occurring? If it is legitimate for a site to carry your messages ten minutes or ten days after you posted them, how does the same action ten months later, without any intervening pause, become infringement, i.e. they continue keeping all articles available forever instead of purging them? Why is there a difference? If a site archived everything on Usenet at the end of each day to CD-ROM and distributed that, I believe it is no more infringing (and no less infringing) than copying onto tape or delivering via wire in real-time. Nor does the issue of whether a place makes a profit is relevant to the issue: every Internet Provider that sells Internet access is a for-profit enterprise and the fact they make money selling access to Usenet is irrelevant to whether infringement has or has not occurred. If it is infringement to reproduce something ten months after its production, it was still infringement to reproduce it ten *minutes* after. Further, federal law makes it clear that if someone has legitimate ownership of a copy of a work, they have every right to dispose of that copy by resale, or to keep it. If you posted an article that you are the owner, it would presume that you gave permission for its distribution. Since any provider can give any of its customers any number of copies of the article (anyone can read an article multiple times), I can't see where there is any specific legal reason they can't keep the copy permanently. If you sent a letter into USA today, you would own the copyright in that letter, but I would expect you would have no right to prevent University Microfilms from copying your letter as part of that issue of the newspaper, or to prohibit them from making for-profit reproductions of the film your letter is in. Or if it was in an on-line service, is there any legal right to prohibit them from including your letter as one of the items that full-text searches could be done? I don't think so. The person who created the article still owns it, and may exploit it as they see fit, including preventing others from using it beyond fair use. But there is probably good grounds to argue that those who take a full feed, in presenting it are doing so as part of fair use, since they take everything as it comes. I could therefore argue that anyone receiving a usenet feed has, under implied license and fair use provisions, every right to archive, index and reproduce that feed, or parts thereof when requested. Such actions are part and parcel of the current system for distributing Usenet and thus should be considered appropriate as "fair use". I can determine no means to declare such a system as DejaNews is running and the common, ordinary operation of usenet article storage and use of newsreaders in a manner that it is possible to differentiate between the two for purposes of infringement. If what DejaNews is doing constitutes infringement, then, the actions of *every site in the world that carries usenet news* is also infringing *in the exact same way*. This is my opinion as a non-lawyer, which is my right to make under the 1st Amendment. -- Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. -- Among Other things, we sell and service ideas. Call 1-800-TDARCOS from anywhere in North America if you are interested in buying an idea to solve one of your problems. ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu () Date: 03 Apr 1996 15:59:07 GMT Subject: Re: Finding Lost Money Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia References: Todd W Burgess (tburgess@uoguelph.ca) wrote: I find it hard to believe that a third party can circumvent all the bank's security procedures for a small fee. As well, I also find it hard to believe that the bank would permit access to its customer database. I would hope the only people who have access to my customer information is the bank and nobody else. I don't know about Canada, but here in Virginia there is a state program that searches for the owners of "abandoned" bank accounts. There is a state agency that maintains list of names and the bank and town for each of the accounts that have been reported to them as inactive. Of course, there is a state regulation that requires the banks to report the inactive accounts. The state is required to try to locate the rightful owner of the account, and occasionally they publish lists of names in various newspapers. They will give anyone a full list of the names if asked. I can easily see one of those deals where a company takes free governement published information and then sells it. ********************************************************************** * Bill Ranck 540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu * *Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center * ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Date: 03 Apr 96 17:25 EST Subject: Re: Finding Lost Money Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. A couple of week ago, I heard a disturbing radio commercial. The ad said that there is over 200 million dollars of inactive bank accounts across Canada and you may be entitled to it. All you had to do is call a 1-900 number and they would do a search for you I don't know what the rules are in Canada, but in the U.S. abandoned bank accounts are eventually forfeited to the state. You'll see large ads in the paper every once in a while with a list in small type of the account names forfeited. You can get your money (or more likely, your ancestors' money you inherited) back from the state, but without interest. Assuming that the situation is analogous and they're compiling data from the newspaper ads or equivalent, I can't see much privacy problem. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof ------------------------------ From: D.Rinewalt@tcu.edu (Dick Rinewalt) Date: 04 Apr 1996 22:38:29 -0600 Subject: USPS Address Change Plan According to a wire report quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on April 3, Postmaster General Runyon announced that by the end of the month the agency will send confirmation notices to both the old and new addresses of individuals who file change notices. The notice sent to the old address will not include new address information. ------------------------------ From: Robert Ellis Smith <0005101719@mcimail.com> Date: 05 Apr 96 09:15 EST Subject: Increasingly Intrusive Capability How can people who work daily with computers and know their capabilities simply shrug whenever a new application comes along that threatens privacy? "So, what else is new?" they ask. Like Michael McClennen, who sees nothing new in the capacity now to se arch at a keyboard for the names, phone numbers, home addresses, and e-mail addresses of anybody throughout the U.S. What's new is that - even though that information has always been available - to get it you would have had to search directories in publi c libraries - or phone booths - in hundreds of cities. It was simply impractical. Now it isn't. What else is new is that we were not aware of this capability when we provided the information in the first place. Something else that is "new": In the 19 90s, one's home address is no longer an innocuous piece of information, especially if you are a woman. It can be a matter of life or death. Likewise, Dean Ridgeway has no objection to a company with an 800 number being able to display his name, address, phone number, "AND CREDIT RATING" when he calls. I hope that he will concede that many of us do object - especially those who have been the victims of credit-card fraud or who have experienced inaccurate credit reporting. Remember, his credit report most likely includes his Social Security number. Would he like to call an 800 number simply to inquire about a product and have his credit repo rt available to the telemarketing sales person? Does it matter to him that accessing a credit rating at that point is illegal? Would he like to call an 800 hotline for confidential counseling about a personal crisis and have his name and address display ed for the counselor? Does he object if the display includes demographic data about his neighborhood, as it does in Southwest Bell's service area? (It's fair for a company to store the phone numbers of people calling into an 800 number because it's esse ntially a collect call, but that doesn't mean that every employee answering the phone needs to see that information. Too many possibilities for abuse.) Federal Communications Commission rules, by the way, prohibit the secondary use of that incoming ANI information - that is, use of the information for a purpose incompatible with the purpose for which the information is provided. On another matter, Jack Quinn asked whether an employer could get access to PERSONAL discs and use them as a basis for discipline. An employer may use anything as the basis for discipline, even if it is procured illegally (unless the basis is related to race, sex, age, handicap, or religious discrimination). It's the police who must use only legally-procured evidence. Still, for an employer to seize computer media that is clearly marked PRIVATE or PERSONAL may violate the Electronic Communications Priv acy Act or a state computer-crime law. It is not a violation to access or seize computer materials related to the business. -- Robert Ellis Smith, Publisher, Privacy Journal newsletter, Providence RI. Send a message if you would like an electronic sample of the newsletter. 5101719@mcimail.com. ------------------------------ From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) Date: 05 Apr 1996 15:54:31 GMT Subject: Re: Individual RTP vs. Corporate FOS Organization: Gnu World Order References: sybesma@netcom.com (Steven D. Sybesma) writes: I am posting here an e-mail message I just sent to Deja News about their business practices. I didn't find out about what their service consisted of (although I had vaguely heard of them) until I read the Rocky Mountain News article from 3/10/96 entitled "Searched, stalked on Internet"). I think you have a legitimate issue here that deserves some play, and has been dismissed a bit too easily by others who have responded. FYI, there have been at least two other threads with similar discussion ("All Brothers May Be Watching Us" and "The Stalker's Home Page"). I think "stalking" provides an interesting analogy. If someone observes you going into a certain store or restaurant or whatever, that's fine because it's in a public place. But if they follow you around enough to know everything you do, then that's considered to be stalking, and you can get a restraining order. Just because it's observable publicly doesn't mean it's OK to track a particular person. This fact provides a precedent that may be relevant in the DejaNews case. Another angle that makes DejaNews look questionable depends on whether or not you think it's OK for any organization to give out personal information about an individual without that individual's informed consent to that particular information transaction (or type of transaction). Considering that public information becomes personal (though perhaps not private) when collated by person, if an organization does a search on your name, and then supplies the result of that search to a third party, then I'd say they're engaged in the transacting of personal information. It's bad manners to transact personal information behind people's back, and that's about the best thing I can say about it. -- Hans Lachman ------------------------------ From: macrohead@aol.com (MacroHead) Date: 05 Apr 1996 14:34:29 -0500 Subject: A Bar Copied my Drivers License Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) A bar here in Michigan (Macomb County), checks ID's at the door and photo copies them. They did it before I had a chance to see what was going on. I objected and was told it was for their Mailing list of upcoming events. I said I didn't want to be on there mailing list. They still didn't give me the copy back and said they also needed it because of trouble they've been having. Can they do this? It had my Driv. Lic. #, addresss, photo and signature. I admit if I write a check to a supermarket they have the same info, except photo, but at least it's being done with my consent. Opinions? Do I have any recourse? Please post to the newsgroup(not to me) as I'll be deleting this screen name later to protect my privacy from all the junk mailers who may find me here. ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Date: 05 Apr 1996 17:35:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: AARP Privacy Invasion Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Adam Starchild wrote: It seems obvious to us: Postcards and privacy don't go together. So why do bit-time mailers keep asking consumers to put private information -- like credit card numbers -- on postcard reply devices? The latest offender is Retired Persons Services, an organization sponsored by the American Association of Retired Persons. Interesting tie-in here to the AARP Pharmacy Service, which is also sponsored by AARP. Seems there are some more privacy issues that apply to these folks in addition to those explicitly involving privacy of personal health care information. And AARP P.S. doesn't tell its customers about the practices in question, thus precluding their ability to make informed choices. AARP P.S. appears to capture the originating numbers of callers to their 800 number, with the ANI provided by MCI; although the P.S. states this is only done after the customer has already "voluntarily" provided this info. Requests to delete this data are apparently not complied with, and, as indicated, there is no prior disclosure to the caller. Same with their other practice--call "monitoring" or "service observing"--aka eavesdropping. A company exec. would neither confirm or deny they do this. Some employees who take these calls are much clearer about this practice, however.... It all seems to add up to a rather un-pretty picture, and one that does no credit to sponsoring org. AARP. Communicate with your pocketbook -- so it would seem. -- Peter Marshall. ------------------------------ From: rkarp@accessone.com Date: 07 Apr 1996 04:01:02 GMT Subject: Privacy and Computer Technology Organization: AccessOne While I hesitate to recomend any actions which impinge upon any individuls's privacy,(it would be hypocritical) I do wonder what would happen if some one had the time and energy to post, (make a web page) or Email to the News services, a listing for ALL of our congress critters, enumerating their credit rating, medical history, property registrations, scholastic histories, census statistics, financial position records (as requires by law), and arrest records. All such are (unfortunatly) available, often through "computers". A revelation of such info to the press (though personally distasteful) might cause our [U.S.A.] congress critters to pay attention. I suspect that having the amount of personal information available displayed, might result in some speedy legislation promoting the issues of respect for privacy and individual rights. The "Critters" only act when they feel, or percieve the potential for, pain. -- Rein Karp ------------------------------ From: aldoane@aol.com (Al Doane) Date: 03 Apr 1996 08:51:56 -0500 Subject: Privacy and Computer Technology Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I am prepairing a colege paper on personal privacy and modern computer technology. What I am looking for are a few good examples of where private personal information is available to anyone with a computer and the desire to find out private/confidential information on anybody they choose. I am familiar with lawenforcement controlled systems, such as NCIC maintained by the FBI. I would like to know more about the medical (insurance industry?), financial Banking and credit), business and realestate ownership and other types of services that make available this kind of information. Anyone having knowledge of where I can get some basic information on this type of available services/information please respond. I do not wish to retrieve the information, just reference it in my paper. -- Thanks, Al. ------------------------------ From: firebird@exit109.com (firebird) Date: 06 Apr 1996 21:04:04 GMT Subject: DoubleClick: 'We're No Peeping Toms' Organization: Alantic Internet Technologies, Inc. Review of On The Record column, page 11 of DIRECT Magazine, April 1, 1996 "DoubleClick: 'We're No Peeping Toms'" "Privacy cops say new Poppe Tyson service is too nosy" by Lynn Jones An article by Lynn Jones in DIRECT, a trade magazine for the Direct Marketing industry, describes DoubleClick, a new service by Poppe Tyson (New York) that monitors Web visitors. It apparently uses the Netscape "Cookie" to obtain true email addresses and then reverse matches the email addresses to true names and addresses. "Unlike the list rental business, 'DoubleClick;s data isn't based on transactional or public information,' ...'It basically records every time you look in a store window, and that's nobody's business'" "The program patterns every visitor, recording what sites they view the most and how many times they've seen a particular ad." "...DoubleClick uses Netscape's Magic Cookie technology which is located on computer hard drives. DoubleClick accesses individual's hard drives without permission and retrieves the recorded data with the help of unique codes captured by Magic Cookie..." The article includes a denial by DoubleClick president Kevin O'Connor who says his company is doing nothing wrong, a statement that a DIRECT staff member visit to a monitored site resulted in changes to the Cookie file, and an assertion that Netscape will remove the technology from its software. Netscape, according to the article, denies having such a redesign in the works. For additional information or to register complaints: Direct Magazine web site: http://www.mediacentral.com/Direct Direct Magazine email address: rsdirect@aol.com Direct Marketing Association web site: http://www.the-dma.org/welcome.html Direct Marketing Association email: president@the-dma.org Poppe Tyson Web Site: http://www.poppe.com/poppe/newyork/overview.html Poppe Tyson email: webmaster@sv.poppe.com Bozell, Jacobs, Kenyon & Eckhardt (owner of Poppe Tyson): Restricted web page. Not open to general public. Electronic Frontier Foundation: http://www.eff.org Federal Communications Commission: http://www.fcc.gov/Consumer_Week.html#How Federal Trade Commission: http://www.fraud.com/ DoubleClick information: http://altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&what=web&fmt=.&q=DoubleClick ------------------------------ From: hal@murren.ai.mit.edu (Hal Abelson) Date: 07 Apr 1996 00:06:31 GMT Subject: CFP96 Audio Sessions AVailable on the Web Organization: MIT Project MAC The Sixth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy was held last week at MIT. Over the next few weeks, the web site web.mit.edu/cfp96 will be edited to contain the on-line conference proceedings. Presently, the site contains audio recording of all the plenary sessions as well as brief session summaries. -- Hal Abelson Phone: (617) 253-5856 Fax: (617) 258-8682 Email: hal@mit.edu URL: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~hal/hal.html MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Room NE43-429 545 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 07 Apr 1996 02:30:00 -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 #030 ****************************** .