Date: Tue, 18 Oct 94 10:10:08 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V5#050 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 18 Oct 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 050 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine SSN on Drivers Licence in Alaska Privacy over the Internet: Myth or Reality Psycho-Social Factors in Info Security Helping Teach Kids CyberEthics Re: Helping Teach Kids CyberEthics CompuServe Ethics Guide Re: How to Verify Your Phone Number Mail Preference Service EFF Statement on Passage of Digital Telephony Act Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Dolan Date: 15 Oct 94 18:07:27 -0800 Subject: SSN on Drivers Licence in Alaska Up here in Alaska the slot for your SSN says optional. Or at least it did when I got my license 6 years ago. I don't think it's changed since then. ------------------------------ From: AB0448A@american.edu (Amadou D. Barry) Date: 15 Oct 94 22:58:12 EDT Subject: Privacy over the Internet: Myth or Reality Organization: The American University The Internet is ubiquitous and everybody is using it (students, experts in different fields of research, businessman/woman, etc). Because of this free flow of information over the Internet, many people are concerned about privacy over the Internet. Furthermore, the Internet has been viewed by US Vice President Gore as the backbone of the future NII(National Information Infrastructure). Therefore, it is important before adopting this new facility to consider the privacy issue over the Internet. Being a netter, do you think that your privacy is protected or compromised? Are you aware that personal information can be tapped or viewed by someone else without your knowledge? Do you compromise your privacy rights in exchange to the Internet services? -- Amadou Barry Free flow of information with responsibility . ------------------------------ From: Bob Bales <74774.1326@CompuServe.COM> Date: 16 Oct 1994 14:12:17 GMT Subject: Psycho-Social Factors in Info Security Organization: National Computer Security Association When implementing an information security program, it is important to achieve the appropriate balance between policy and procedure, education and awareness, and the implementation of technical safeguards. Fail to achieve this balance and your program is doomed. Another issue that can spell disaster is failure to consider how your program will be received by your people. At last years National Computer Security Conference in Baltimore, the best paper went to Dr. Mich Kabay, for his work on the psycho-social factors in InfoSec. His paper provides an outstanding framework for understanding the issues, as well as providing concrete recommendations for dealing with them in an appropriate manner. If you have not seen this paper, I'd be happy to send it to you upon request. Just send me an EMail that I can simply "reply" to and you'll have a copy forthwith. -- Bob Bales | CompuServe InfoSec Forum: GO NCSA Natl Computer Security Assoc| Phone: 717-258-1816 10 South Courthouse Avenue | Fax: 717-243-8642 Carlisle, PA 17013 | Email: 74774.1326@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Bob Bales <74774.1326@CompuServe.COM> Date: 16 Oct 1994 16:12:17 GMT Subject: Helping Teach Kids CyberEthics Organization: National Computer Security Association The National Computer Security Association and the Computer Ethics Institute are among the sponsors of the National Computer Ethics and Responsibilities Campaign (NCERC). The NCERC Guide to Computer Ethics has been developed to provide useful information on a wide range of ethical issues. Among the articles is one entitled "Ten Questions Parents Should Ask Their Children". It is intended to help parents overcome the communications barrier with their cyber-literate offspring. Many parents are intimidated by the technology, and too often abdicate their oversite responsibility in this crucial area of their childs life. To receive a copy of this interesting article, send me an EMail to which I can reply. I'll respond promptly. -- Bob Bales | CompuServe InfoSec Forum: GO NCSA Natl Computer Security Assoc| Phone: 717-258-1816 10 South Courthouse Avenue | Fax: 717-243-8642 Carlisle, PA 17013 | Email: 74774.1326@compuserve.com [moderator, I asked permission to post the response. Mr Bales responded with the following, which I took for assent. The posting follows this post.] Our real interest is to get the information to as many people as possible. On the other hand, we depend on a certain level of support/funding to allow us to keep producing good stuff. I'd say let's post it so it gets max distribution; if you are able, include reference to the campaign and "for more information about the complete NCERC Guide to Computer Ethics, send an EMail request to Bob Bales at 74774.1326@compuserve.com "; how's that sound? -- Bob ------------------------------ From: "(NCSA) Bob Bales" <74774.1326@compuserve.com> Date: 17 Oct 94 09:52:57 EDT Subject: Re: Helping Teach Kids CyberEthics Computer Ethics Campaign Information and Article The National Computer Security Association (NCSA) and the Computer Ethics Institute are co-sponsors of the National Computer Ethics and Responsibilities Campaign (NCERC). Information about the NCERC can be obtained in a dedicated display area, GO CETHICS, on the CompuServe Information Service. In addition to the display area, NCSA has established a section within the NCSA InfoSecurity Forum (GO NCSAFORUM) for discussion of issues and concerns relating to ethics and privacy. Your involvement is encouraged! The NCERC Guide to Computer Ethics has been developed to support the campaign. All files within the guide are available as individual files within Library 2 of the NCSA InfoSecurity Forum. In addition, the guide (including 16 informative articles) is available as a paper document. If you are interested in receiving more information about purchasing this document, and providing support for the campaign, send your request via EMail to: 74774.1326@compuserve.com TEN QUESTIONS PARENTS SHOULD ASK THEIR CHILDREN Peter S. Tippett, Ph.D., M.D. Symantec's Peter Norton Group Board Member, Computer Ethics Institute 1. Do you legitimately own all of the software, games, and programs you have or use? Software Piracy, Clarifying Questions: Are any of your programs or software bootlegged or pirated copies? Where are the manuals, boxes, license agreements for the programs you have or use? Where did you get that game? (program?, floppy?, software?) When programs first start running on your computer, whose name comes on the screen as the "owner" or "licensed-to." 2. Where did the contents of your report / project / homework come from -- does any of it belong to someone else? Did you write/create/author what you're passing off as your own work? Where did you get the text and images you're using? If you copied text and images from another source, did you have permission? If you didn't need permission from the "owners" of the information you're using, did you credit them for the material? 3. Do you ever use other people's computer, disk-space or processing capability, or look at or copy their files or information, without their knowledge or permission? 4. Do you have any prank programs, computer viruses, worms, trojan horse programs, bombs, or other malicious software? Malicious Software: Clarifying Questions: Do you use bulletin boards or systems that contain these things, or have friends or acquaintances who do? Do you write or create any software like this or deal with people who do? Malicious Software: Explanation of the Problem 5. Do you have any computer graphics files, clips, movies, animations or drawings that you would be embarrassed about? Do you have them legitimately (Piracy) Are they things you would be comfortable showing me? Showing your grandmother? Do you have any pictures, video clips, sound clips, articles, text, or other software or files which contain pornography, violence, dangerous instructions other distasteful material? Do you access or view any of these kinds of things when using the net? 6. Do you have any newsletters, plans, guidelines, or "how-to" documents or files that you would not be comfortable showing to your mother? Making Bombs, breaking into systems, stealing telephone access, stealing computer access, stealing passwords, pornographic or violent text, guides, descriptions, ...... Do you create, contribute to or receive anything like this? 7. Do you ever connect your computer to a telephone, use a modem, or otherwise use a network? Clarifying Questions: Do you use E-Mail (electronic mail)? Do you use Bulletin Boards (BBS) (electronic bulletin board systems)? Is your computer ever connected to other computers? Do you use a Modem? Explanation: There is nothing either unethical or illegal about using networks or connecting computers to telephones. But, you should be aware that when computers are somehow part of a computer network, then they are not just used for "computing," but also for "communication" in a very broad sense of the word. Since "communication," by definition, always includes someone else, and since ethics, or lack of it, relates mainly to our interactions with others, the networking of computers, by any means, leads to many, many more potential ethical dilemmas for a computer user, than non-network computing. The Questions above this one are all possible with both networked or non-networked computers. Whereas the questions below this mostly make sense for people who use networked computers. But, even for those issues related to the questions above, being connected to a network makes it easier to stray into trouble. 8. Who do you associate with when you use the Net? BBS, Internet, CompuServe, Delphi, Fidonet, America On-line... E-Mail, Discussion Groups, Gangs, Influence Just as you would like to steer your children (and friends) away from bad influences in their daily lives, so should you attempt to discern the character of their cyber-friends 9. Do you ever use an assumed name, a handle, or an alias instead of your real name? Do supply a false information about yourself when using a bulletin board, a news group, a message group, or forum, any part of the net, or when using e-mail or when otherwise communicating? Do you use your real age & sex when communicating with your computer? Do you use any false information like addresses, or phone numbers or use someone else's credit card number when using your computer? Do you ever send messages or e-mail in such a way that the recipient cannot tell that you sent it? Have you ever modified data, text, messages, or other computer information so that it looks like someone other than you created it or made the changes? What are you trying to hide by not using your real name? Are you trying to pretend you are something or someone you are not? 10. Do use telephone, video, cable-TV, computer network, bulletin board, or other network services without paying for them? ------------------------------ From: "(NCSA) Bob Bales" <74774.1326@compuserve.com> Date: 17 Oct 94 09:53:58 EDT Subject: CompuServe Ethics Guide Info about the entire ethics guide: National Computer Ethics and Responsibilities Campaign (NCERC) Guide to Computer Ethics Table of Contents The National Computer Security Association (NCSA) and the Computer Ethics Institute are co-sponsors of the National Computer Ethics and Responsibilities Campaign (NCERC). Information about the campaign can be obtained in a dedicated display area, GO CETHICS, on the CompuServe Information Service. This area features a wide variety of information about such issues as establishing an EMail policy, software piracy, The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics, and information about what you can do to become involved. In addition to the display area, NCSA has established a section within the NCSA InfoSecurity Forum (GO NCSAFORUM) for discussion of issues and concerns relating to ethics and privacy. Your involvement is encouraged! The NCERC Guide to Computer Ethics has been developed to support the campaign. All files within the guide are available as individual files within Library 2 of the NCSA InfoSecurity Forum (GO NCSAFORUM) as follows: File Name Article Description ETH00.TXT NCERC Overview and Guide Introduction ETH01.TXT Ten Questions Parents Should Ask Their Children ETH02.TXT End User's Five Basic Tenets of Responsible Computing ETH03.TXT Four Values for Computing ETH04.TXT Considerations for Conduct ETH05.TXT Unacceptable InterNet Activity ETH06.TXT Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics ETH07.TXT Code of Fair Information Practices ETH08.TXT Electronic Commerce - Business CyberEthics ETH09.TXT Privacy Policy for Corporate Electronic Messaging ETH10.TXT Computer Ethics Theory ETH11.TXT Common Fallacies of the Computer Generation ETH12.TXT New and Improved Marketing Rules for the InterNet ETH13.TXT Personal Responsibility in the On-Line World ETH14.TXT Protecting Privacy ETH15.TXT Ethics and Virtuality ETH16.TXT Teaching Computer Ethics to Children To order the paper copy of the Guide to Computer Ethics, complete the order form below: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BOOK ORDER FORM Item No. Book Title Price ETHICSGD NCERC Guide to Computer Ethics $ 12.00 Tax (PA residents only add 6%): ________________ Shipping Charges (See below): ________________ Total: ________________ Shipping: US - UPS ground $3/book Next Day $20/book Second Day $15/book Canada - $15/book Other - Air $20/book Name: ____________________________________________________ Org: ____________________________________________________ Street Address: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Ci/St/Zip: ____________________________________________________ Phone: ________________________ Fax: ____________________ Make checks payable to NCSA, or Charge to ( ) VISA or ( ) MasterCard ( ) AMEX Number: ____________________________________________ Exp date: ______________________ MAIL TO: National Computer Security Association 10 South Courthouse Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone 717-258-1816 or FAX 717-243-8642 ------------------------------ From: dawson@world.std.com (Keith Dawson) Date: 16 Oct 1994 21:28:23 GMT Subject: Re: How to Verify Your Phone Number Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA otto@vaxb.acs.unt.edu wrote: 1-800-MY-ANI-IS ... worked just fine for me in 817 land. from 508 land dialing that number got me "We're sorry, we cannot complete your call as dialed." -- Keith Dawson dawson@world.std.com On the Internet no one knows you're a Turing machine. ------------------------------ From: hudspeth@jarhead (Todd Hudspeth) Date: 18 Oct 94 09:14:51 CDT Subject: Mail Preference Service Can anyone give any direction as to how to contact (address, telephone number, etc.) the Direct Marketing Association's Mail Preference Service (MPS)? Are there several MPSs' or is there a primary focal point? Todd A. Hudspeth Security Administrator CSC MSFC/NASA hudspeth@jarhead.msfc.nasa.gov telephone: (205) 544-8649 fax: (205) 544-8990 [moderator: this was covered in issue 48 of volume 5 Wed, 12 Oct 94. It is in the third item. I am sending a copy of that number to you as a separate mailing. I will post your question however, with a short reply since the second part of the question still needs to be asked.] ------------------------------ From: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) Date: 08 Oct 1994 14:23:09 -0500 Subject: EFF Statement on Passage of Digital Telephony Act Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway EFF Statement on and Analysis of Digital Telephony Act ------------------------------------------------------ October 8, 1994 Washington, DC - Congress late Friday (10/7) passed and sent to the President the Edwards/Leahy Digital Telephony Legislation (HR 4922/S 2375). The bill places functional design requirements on telecommunications carriers in order to enable law enforcement to continue to conduct electronic surveillance pursuant to a court order, though the bill does not expand law enforcement authority to conduct wiretaps. Moreover, the design requirements do not apply to providers or operators of online services such as the Internet, BBS's, Compuserve, and others. The bill also contains significant new privacy protections, including increased protection for online personal information, and requirements prohibiting the use of pen registers to track the physical location of individuals. Jerry Berman, EFF's Policy Director, said: "Although we remain unconvinced that this legislation is necessary, the bill draws a hard line around the Internet and other online networks. We have carved cyberspace out of this legislation". Berman added, "The fact that the Internet, BBS's, Prodigy, and other online networks are not required to meet the surveillance capability requirements is a significant victory for all users of this important communications medium." Privacy Protections for Online Personal Information Increased ------------------------------------------------------------- The bill adds a higher standard for law enforcement access to online transactional information. For maintenance and billing purposes, most online communications and information systems create detailed records of users' communication activities as well as lists of the information, services, or people that they have accessed or contacted. Under current law, the government can gain access to such transactional records with a mere subpoena, which can be obtained without the intervention of a court. To address this issue, EFF pushed for the addition of stronger protections against indiscriminate access to online transactional records. Under the new protections, law enforcement must convince a court to issue an order based on a showing of "specific and articulable facts" which prove that the information sought would be relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. Berman said: "The new legal protections for transactional information are critical in that they recognize that these records are extremely sensitive and deserve a high degree of protection from casual law enforcement access. With these provisions, we have achieved for all online systems a significantly greater level of protection than exists today for any other form of electronic communication, including the telephone." EFF to Continue to Monitor Implementation ----------------------------------------- Berman added: "There are numerous opportunities under this bill for public oversight and intervention to ensure that privacy is not short-changed. EFF will closely monitor the bill's implementation, and we stand ready to intervene if privacy is threatened." In the first four years, the government is required to reimburse carriers for all costs associated with meeting the design requirements of the bill. After four years, the government is required to reimburse carriers for all costs for enhancements that are not "reasonably achievable", as determined in a proceeding before the FCC. The FCC will determine who bears the costs in terms of the impact on privacy, costs to consumers, national security and public safety, the development of technology, and other factors. If the FCC determines that compliance is not reasonably achievable, the government will either be required to reimburse the carrier or consider it to be in compliance without modification. Berman said: "EFF is committed to making a case before the FCC, at the first possible opportunity, that government reimbursement is an essential back-stop against unnecessary or unwanted surveillance capabilities. If the government pays, it will have an incentive to prioritize, which will further enhance public accountability and protect privacy." EFF Decision to Work on Legislation ----------------------------------- Since 1992 EFF, in conjunction with the Digital Privacy and Security Working Group (a coalition of over 50 computer, communications, and public interest organizations and associations working on communications privacy issues, coordinated by EFF) has been successful at stopping a series of FBI Digital Telephony proposals, which would have forced communications companies to install wiretap capability into every communications medium. However, earlier this year, Senator Leahy and Rep. Edwards, who have helped to quash previous FBI proposals, concluded that passage of such a bill this year was inevitable. Leahy and Edwards stepped in to draft a narrow bill with strong privacy protections, and asked for EFF's help in the process. "By engaging in this process for the last several months," Berman noted, "we have been successful in helping to craft a proposal that is significantly improved over the FBI's original bill in terms of privacy, technology policy, and civil liberties, and have, in the process, added significant new privacy protections for users of communications networks. We commend Representative Edwards, Senator Leahy, and Representatives Boucher and Markey for standing up for civil liberties and pushing for strong privacy protections." The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a non-profit public interest organization dedicated to achieving the democratic potential of new communications technology and works to protect civil liberties in new digital environments. Other Privacy Protections Added by the Bill ------------------------------------------- The bill also adds the following new privacy protections * The standard for law enforcement access to online transactional records is raised to require a court order instead of a mere subpoena. * No expansion of law enforcement authority to conduct electronic surveillance. * The bill recognizes a citizen's right to use encryption. * All authorized surveillance must be conducted with the affirmative intervention of the telecommunications carrier. Monitoring triggered remotely by law enforcement is prohibited. * Privacy advocates will be able to track law enforcement requests for surveillance capability, and expenditures for all surveillance capability and capacity added under this bill will be open to public scrutiny. * Privacy protections must be maintained in making new technologies conform to the requirements of the bill, and privacy advocates may intervene in the administrative standard setting process. * Information gleaned from pen register devices is limited to dialed number information only. Law enforcement may not receive location information. Analysis of and comments on major provisions of the bill -------------------------------------------------------- A. Key new privacy protections 1. Expanded protection for transactional records sought by law enforcement Senator Leahy and Rep. Edwards have agreed that law enforcement access to transactional records in online communication systems (everything from the Internet to AOL to hobbyist BBSs) threatens privacy rights because the records are personally identifiable, because they reveal the content of people's communications, and because the compilation of such records makes it easy for law enforcement to create a detailed picture of people's lives online. Based on this recognition, the draft bill contains the following provisions: i. Court order required for access to transactional records instead of mere subpoena In order to gain access to transactional records, such as a list of to whom a subject sent email, which online discussion group one subscribes to, or which movies you request on a pay-per view channel, law enforcement will have to prove to a court, by the showing of "specific and articulable facts" that the records requested are relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. This means that the government may not request volumes of transactional records merely to see what it can find through traffic analysis. Rather, law enforcement will have to prove to a court that it has reason to believe that it will find some specific information that is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation in the records that it requests. With these provisions, we have achieved for all online systems, a significantly greater level of protection than currently exists for telephone toll records. The lists of telephone calls that are kept by local and long distance phone companies are available to law enforcement without any judicial intervention at all. Law enforcement gains access to hundreds of thousands of such telephone records each year, without a warrant and without even notice to the citizens involved. Court order protection will make it much more difficult for law enforcement to go on "fishing expeditions" through online transactional records, hoping to find evidence of a crime by accident. ii. Standard of proof much greater than for telephone toll records, but below that for content The most important change that these new provisions offer, is that law enforcement will (a) have to convince a judge that there is reason to look at a particular set of records, and (b) have to expend the time and energy necessary to have a US Attorney or DA actually present a case before a court. However, the burden or proof to be met by the government in such a proceeding is lower than required for access to the content of a communication. 2. New protection for location-specific information available in cellular, PCS and other advanced networks Much of the electronic surveillance conducted by law enforcement today involves gathering telephone dialing information through a device known as a pen register. Authority to attach pen registers is obtained merely by asserting that the information would be relevant to a criminal investigation. Courts have no authority to deny pen register requests. This legislation offers significant new limits on the use of pen register data. Under this bill, when law enforcement seeks pen register information from a carrier, the carrier is forbidden to deliver to law enforcement any information which would disclose the location or movement of the calling or called party. Cellular phone networks, PCS systems, and so-called "follow-me" services all store location information in their networks. This new limitation is a major safeguard which will prevent law enforcement from casually using mobile and intelligent communications services as nation-wide tracking systems. i. New limitations on "pen register" authority Law enforcement must use "technology reasonably available" to limit pen registers to the collection of calling number information only. Currently, law enforcement is able to capture not only the telephone number dialed, but also any other touch-tone digits dialed which reflect the user's interaction with an automated information service on the other end of the line, such as an automatic banking system or a voice-mail password. 3. Bill does not preclude use of encryption Unlike previous Digital Telephony proposals, this bill places no obligation on telecommunication carriers to decipher encrypted messages, unless the carrier actually holds the key. The bill in no way prohibits citizens from using encryption. 4. Automated remote monitoring precluded Law enforcement is specifically precluded from having automated, remote surveillance capability. Any electronic surveillance must be initiated by an employee of the telecommunications carrier. 5. Privacy considerations essential to development of new technology One of the requirements that telecommunications carriers must meet to be in compliance with the Act is that the wiretap access methods adopted must protect the privacy and security of each user's communication. If this requirement is not met, anyone may petition the FCC to have the wiretap access service be modified so that network security is maintained. So, the technology used to conduct wiretaps cannot also jeopardize the security of the network as a whole. If network-wide security problems arise because of wiretapping standards, then the standards can be overturned. 6. Increased Public Accountability All law enforcement requests for surveillance capability and capacity, as well as all expenditures paid by law enforcement to telecommunications carriers and all modifications made by carriers to comply with this bill, will be accountable to the public. The government is also required to pay for all upgrades, in both capability and capacity, in the first four years, and all costs after four years for incorporating the capability requirements in the costs for meeting those requirements are not 'reasonably achievable'. A determination of whether compliance after four years is reasonably achievable will be made by the FCC in an open and public proceeding. Government reimbursement for compliance costs will permit the public the opportunity to decide whether additional surveillance capability is necessary. In all, the reimbursement requirements combined with the reporting requirements and the open processes built in to this bill, law enforcement surveillance capability, capacity, and expenditures will be more accountable to the public than ever before. B. Draconian provisions softened In addition, the surveillance requirements imposed by the bill are not as far-reaching as the original FBI version. A number of procedural safeguards are added which seek to minimize the threatens to privacy, security, and innovation. Though the underlying premise of the Act is still cause for concern, these new limitations deserve attention: 1. Narrow Scope The bill explicitly excludes Internet providers, email systems, BBSs, and other online services. Unlike the bills previously proposed by the FBI, this bill is limited to local and long distance telephone companies, cellular and PCS providers, and other common carriers. 2. Open process with public right of intervention The public will have access to information about the implementation of the Act, including open access to all standards adopted in compliance with the Act, the details of how much wiretap capacity the government demands, and a detailed accounting of all federal money paid to carriers for modifications to their networks. Privacy groups, industry interests, and anyone else has a statutory right under this bill to challenge implementation steps taken by law enforcement if they threaten privacy or impede technology advancement. 3. Technical requirements standards developed by industry instead of the Attorney General All surveillance requirements are to be implemented according to standards developed by industry groups. The government is specifically precluded from forcing any particular technical standard, and all requirements are qualified by notions of economic and technical reasonableness. 4. Right to deploy untappable services Unlike the original FBI proposal, this bill recognizes that there may be services which are untappable, even with Herculean effort to accommodate surveillance needs. In provisions that still require some strengthening, the bill allows untappable services to be deployed if redesign is not economically or technically feasible. Background Information ---------------------- * The Bill: ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Digital_Telephony/digtel94.bill gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Digital_Telephony, digtel94.bill http.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Digital_Telephony/digtel94.bill All other files available from ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Digital_Telephony/Old/ gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Digital_Telephony/Old http.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Digital_Telephony/Old/ * EFF Analysis of Bill as Introduced: digtel94_analysis.eff * EFF Statement on Earlier 1994 Draft of Bill: digtel94_old_statement.eff * EFF Analysis of Earlier 1994 Draft: digtel94_draft_analysis.eff * EFF Statement on Announcement of 1994 Draft: digtel94.announce * EFF Statement on Announcement of 1993 Draft: digtel93.announce * Late 1993/Early 1994 Draft: digtel94_bill.draft * EFF Statement on 1992 Draft: digtel92_analysis.eff * EFF Statement on 1992 Draft: digtel92_opposition.announce * Late 1992 Draft: digtel92_bill.draft * Original 1992 Draft: digtel92_old_bill.draft For more information Contact ---------------------------- Jerry Berman Policy Director Jonah Seiger Project Coordinator +1 202 347 5400 (voice) +1 202 393 5509 (fax) ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:45:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc. 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. 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 generally are acknowledged within 24 hours of submission. An article is printed if it is relevant to the charter of the digest. If selected, it is printed within two or three days. The moderator reserves the right to delete extraneous quoted material. He may change the subject line of an article in order to make it easier for the reader to follow a discussion. He will not, however, alter or edit or append to the text except for purely technical reasons. A library of back issues is available on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp" with password identifying yourid@yoursite. The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy". People with gopher capability can most easily access the library at gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Older archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu | Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu levine@cs.uwm.edu | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #050 ****************************** .