TUCoPS :: Privacy :: priv0816.txt

Privacy Digest 8.16 11/21/99

<head><TITLE>PRIVACY Forum Archive Document - (priv.08.16) </TITLE></head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#660099" alink="#ff0000">

<table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width=100%>

<td bgcolor="#ffffcc" width=30%>

<table border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width=100%>

<a href="/reality.html"><img src="/spkr1.gif" border=0 align=middle></a>
<font size=-1 face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>RealAudio</b></font><br>
A Moment of Sanity & Fun!<br>

<font size=-1 face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<font color="#ff0000"><b>& UNREALITY TRIVIA QUIZ!</b></font>

<table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width=100%>

<table border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0>

<a href="/reality.html"><i>LISTEN</i> or <i>INFO!</i></a></td>







<td align=center>

<font size=+2><b>PRIVACY Forum Archive Document</b></font><br>

<A href="/privacy"><h3>PRIVACY Forum Home Page</h3></A><p>
<A href="http://www.vortex.com"><h4><i>Vortex Technology Home Page</i></h4></A><p>
<A href="/privmedia"><h4>Radio, Television, and Press Contact Information</h4></A><p>



PRIVACY Forum Digest     Sunday, 21 November 1999     Volume 08 : Issue 16


            Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)         
              Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A.
                       ===== PRIVACY FORUM =====              

                 The PRIVACY Forum is supported in part by
               the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery)     
	         Committee on Computers and Public Policy,      
		 Cable &amp; Wireless USA, Cisco Systems, Inc., 
                           and Telos Systems.
                                 - - -
             These organizations do not operate or control the     
          PRIVACY Forum in any manner, and their support does not
           imply agreement on their part with nor responsibility   
        for any materials posted on or related to the PRIVACY Forum.

	Barnesandnoble.com Defends Use of Invasive "Mail Sniffers"
	   (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
	Mattel Partner's Collection of Customer Social Security Numbers
	   (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
	UK Electronic Communications Bill (David Flint)
	Fact Sheet on Financial Services Modernization (Monty Solomon)
	CFP Workshop on Freedom and Privacy by Design (Lenny Foner)
	Shaping the Network Society - DIAC-00 (Susan Evoy)

 *** Please include a RELEVANT "Subject:" line on all submissions! ***
            *** Submissions without them may be ignored! ***

The Internet PRIVACY Forum is a moderated digest for the discussion and
analysis of issues relating to the general topic of privacy (both personal
and collective) in the "information age" of the 1990's and beyond.  The
moderator will choose submissions for inclusion based on their relevance and
content.  Submissions will not be routinely acknowledged.

All submissions should be addressed to "privacy@vortex.com" and must have
RELEVANT "Subject:" lines; submissions without appropriate and relevant
"Subject:" lines may be ignored.  Excessive "signatures" on submissions are
subject to editing.  Subscriptions are via an automatic list server system;
for subscription information, please send a message consisting of the word
"help" (quotes not included) in the BODY of a message to:
"privacy-request@vortex.com".  Mailing list problems should be reported to

All messages included in this digest represent the views of their
individual authors and all messages submitted must be appropriate to be
distributable without limitations. 

The PRIVACY Forum archive, including all issues of the digest and all
related materials, is available via anonymous FTP from site "ftp.vortex.com",
in the "/privacy" directory.  Use the FTP login "ftp" or "anonymous", and
enter your e-mail address as the password.  The typical "README" and "INDEX"
files are available to guide you through the files available for FTP
access.  PRIVACY Forum materials may also be obtained automatically via
e-mail through the list server system.  Please follow the instructions above
for getting the list server  "help" information, which includes details
regarding the "index" and "get" list server commands, which are used to access
the PRIVACY Forum archive.  

All PRIVACY Forum materials are available through the Internet Gopher system
via a gopher server on site "gopher.vortex.com".  Access to PRIVACY Forum
materials is also available through the Internet World Wide Web (WWW) via
the Vortex Technology WWW server at the URL: "http://www.vortex.com";
full keyword searching of all PRIVACY Forum files is available via
WWW access.


     Quote for the day:

	"I have a very low threshold of death."

		Jimmy Bond (Woody Allen)
		"Casino Royale" (Columbia; 1967)


Date:    Sun, 21 Nov 99 12:54 PST
From:    lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
Subject: Barnesandnoble.com Defends Use of Invasive "Mail Sniffers"

Greetings.  A customer of Barnesandnoble.com, the online branch
of the famous book retailer, contacted me recently with his concerns
about the promotional e-mail that he was receiving from the firm.

He believed that he had found "invisible" image tags within the e-mail,
which would typically be used to inform the sender as to when, and how,
that e-mail was being read (if the e-mail were read within
an html-compatible program).  I reported on the rapidly rising 
tide of these issues recently in "'Spies' in Your Software?" within
PRIVACY Forum Digest Volume 8 Issue 14,

After an initial query, I received a call from the manager for
corporate communications for Barnesandnoble.com.  She admitted
that they had been testing the use of these "sniffers" (as she
called them), and had not determined if they would keep using them.
She did however feel that their use was completely legitimate,
and claimed that among the large firms "everybody did it."  While
she was unwilling to reveal exactly which mail package was being
used, she listed four major commercial packages that she believed
all supported this function.

She said (in a refrain PRIVACY Forum readers will have seen
many times in the past) that they didn't release or do anything
"bad" with the data collected, and that they only used it to determine
if the reader could view html-enhanced e-mail.  If so, the firm could
automatically start sending them graphics and other "brand building"
materials within their promotional e-mail.  "After all," she asserted,
"that's what the Web was built for..."  Hmmm.

I suggested that (outside of the fact that many people consider
such probes to be intrusive) it was unwise to simply *assume* that
someone wanted to receive fancy, graphics-rich e-mail simply because
their mail reading software had that capability.  In fact, the
Barnesandnoble.com customer who had originally contacted me was in
exactly this situation--he switched frequently between graphics-capable
and text-based mail software.  I asked her why they simply couldn't
*ask* customers if they wanted to receive other than text versions
of the e-mail, like some newsletters do now?

She responded, in essence, that she felt users could not be relied upon to
*know* whether or not their software had that capability, so it had to be
done automatically without asking them.  She seemed particularly concerned
about AOL users' abilities to understand such issues.

Even though she felt that they were following a standard industry practice,
she made sure to mention that other firms (she named Amazon.com, their main
online competitor) had been accused of some privacy-related problems as
well...  Not exactly a news bulletin.

She did agree that they should update their privacy policy to point out that
such sniffing went on, and she later e-mailed me their "official" statement
on the matter, which was basically a short, completely vague paragraph
expounding on how strongly they felt about protecting their customers'

All in all, the conversation served to reinforce my impression that
many firms "just don't get it" when it comes to privacy issues,
and that the viability of many self-regulation arguments in these matters
is increasingly called into question.

Lauren Weinstein
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Co-Founder, PFIR: People for Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy


Date:    Sun, 21 Nov 99 12:32 PST
From:    lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
Subject: Mattel Partner's Collection of Customer Social Security Numbers

Greetings.  In one of the stranger sagas to cross my screen recently,
I learned that a Web site (and phone order desk) accepting orders
for "Hot Wheels" and "Barbie" branded computer systems were requiring
customers to provide their Social Security Numbers for orders.

After a PRIVACY Forum reader pointed this out, I examined the site in
question.  Not only did the web forms *require* provision of SSN, but that
information, and other address/telephone data, were being submitted
on unencrypted pages (not SSL).

This all seemed like a very odd situation to say the least.
Within a few minutes, I was on the phone with the webmaster for
the site, which turned out actually to be operated by Patriot
Computer Corporation of Canada, who built and shipped to consumers
the Mattel-branded computer systems.  

The webmaster immediately acknowledged the lack of encryption on the page
(though apparently a separate credit card page was encrypted), and agreed
that it needed to be fixed.  He also admitted confusion about the collection
of the customer SSNs--he only knew that he had been ordered to collect them,
under direction from their customs brokers.  He agreed with me that this
seemed to be an unusual element of data to be collecting from end consumers
for an order, and decided on the spot to cease collecting that information
until he received further guidance from the firm's owners.  Within minutes,
the SSN collection had ceased (and the page in question was SSL encrypted
shortly thereafter).  He informed me that the site in question was new,
but that the same information, including SSN, had long been required by
their phone order desk, with only a few persons out of *many* orders ever
questioning the process.

A few days later, I was informed that while no official decisions
had been made, he felt it unlikely that SSN information would again
be collected with customer orders, and confirmed that their
phone order desk had also stopped collecting this data.

Patriot's rapid response to my query was exemplary.  But this still
left the nagging question of why they felt they needed the SSN
from customers in the first place.  Some research yielded a
possibility--oddly enough, it was NAFTA--the North American Free
Trade Agreement.  Under NAFTA, it appears that Canadian firms
shipping to the U.S., who wish to avail themselves of tariff
exemptions, have to deal with a "Certificate of Origin" form.
This form asks for both the shipper's and recipient's identifying
info, which in the case of an individual, according to the form,
would typically include their SSN.

While I can perhaps understand the provision of this information in
situations where multiple shipments are moving between parties (as in an
ongoing export/import commercial relationship) it is more difficult to
envision that it was really intended that random firms would be required to
collect SSN from end-consumers for one-time purchases of consumer items.
This is especially troublesome given that abuse of SSNs is the single most
frequent basis for identity fraud.  It also seems odd that if such a
requirement existed, this practice would not be more widely reported and

Overall, it seems a confusing situation at best.  While Patriot has taken
independent action on this matter, I would be very interested in hearing
from anyone who can throw further light onto the details regarding this
entire issue, as it relates to NAFTA and consumers.  

Lauren Weinstein
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Co-Founder, PFIR: People for Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy


Date:    20 November 1999 21:12
From:    David Flint &lt;DF@MacRoberts.co.uk&gt;
Subject: UK Electronic Communications Bill

Recipients of these e-mails will be aware that we have commented
critically on the UK government's proposals for electronic commerce/
communications. (see the Publications division at

Many of these criticisms have been echoed by others including the
Trade and Industry Committee of the House of Commons.

We are therefore pleased to advise you that the UK presented the
Electronic Communications Bill to parliament on 19th November in a
form which takes into account many of these criticisms. In particular
part III of the October draft which dealt with the rights of the
police and security services to demand private encryption keys no
longer appears - although it will undoubtedly be included in another
Bill in due course.

The Bill is available online at:
004/2000004.htm and we will continue to monitor its progress and
comment on issues where we believe the proposals are erroneous or

We hope you will find these comments of assistance.

David Flint                              Tel: +44 141 332 9988
IP &amp; Technology Law Group 		 Fax: +44 141 332 8886
MacRoberts, Solicitors
152 Bath Street                          E-Mail: df@macroberts.co.uk
Scotland UK                              URL: http://www.macroberts.co.uk


Date:    Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:14:25 -0500
From:    Monty Solomon &lt;monty@roscom.com&gt;
Subject: Fact Sheet on Financial Services Modernization

                            THE WHITE HOUSE

                     Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release                                  November 12, 1999

                           November 12, 1999

President Clinton today will sign historic legislation to modernize our
banking and finance laws. For the first time, financial firms will be
able to offer a full range of banking, securities, and insurance
products, stimulating greater innovation and competition.  This
legislation will have the following benefits:

-      Consumers, as well as businesses small and large will have
greater choice, more innovative services, and the possibility of
one-stop shopping for financial products.
-      Prices will be lower as a result of increased competition.
Americans spent $367 billion in 1997 on fees and commissions for
brokerage, insurance and banking services.  If deregulation in other
industries is any guide, it is reasonable to expect that increased
competition will yield lower prices and billions in savings for American
-      American financial institutions will be more efficient and thus
better able to compete in the global marketplace.
-      Low- and moderate-income communities will receive new loans and
investment spurred by a preserved and strengthened Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA).
-      Individual privacy will be better protected by new limitations on
the sharing of personal financial information.
-      The economy will grow stronger as competition lowers the cost of
capital for American businesses -- spurring growth.


Technological change is revolutionizing how financial products are
delivered to consumers and how firms manage financial risks.  But our
financial services firms are still governed by depression-era laws that
limit competition and place unnecessary barriers between banks,
securities firms, and insurance companies.   This new legislation will:

-      Repeal the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which has separated banks
from other financial firms, and other laws separating banking and
-      Permit the creation of new, more efficient financial holding
companies, which can offer banking, insurance, securities, and other
financial products to consumers;
-      Allow banks to choose the corporate structure for many new
activities that best meets their customers' needs -- either a
financial subsidiary or a bank holding company affiliate;
-      Regulate banking, securities, and insurance activities along
functional lines, with each activity overseen by the regulators that
know them best;
-      Protect the safety and soundness of our banking system by
requiring that non-banking activities be conducted separately within an
organization, subject to funding limitations; and
-      Maintain the separation of banking and commercial activities, so
that loans are made on merit, not relationship, avoiding risks that have
caused trouble for some banking systems around the world.


President Clinton insisted that the legislation not weaken CRA or allow
banks with an unsatisfactory CRA record to take advantage of the new
powers authorized.

-      The bill establishes an important prospective principle: banking
organizations seeking to conduct new non-banking activities, or to merge
with or acquire a firm engaged in such activities, must demonstrate a
satisfactory record of meeting the credit needs of all the communities
that they serve.
-      Each and every time a bank or holding company commences a new
activity, such as securities, insurance underwriting, or merchant
banking, or acquires a company in these new areas, all of its banks and
thrifts must have a satisfactory CRA rating.  Thousands of transactions
involving securities activities and other non-banking activities,
previously exempt from CRA, will now be covered.
-      CRA continues to apply as it has to all banks and thrifts,
without exception; existing procedures for public comment on
applications to acquire or merge with banks or thrifts remain in effect.
-      The CRA examination cycle for small banks and thrifts with
outstanding or satisfactory ratings is extended, but the bill preserves
the ability to regulators to examine at any time for reasonable cause or
in connection with an application.
-      Harmful exemptions from CRA were eliminated in conference, as was
a provision that would have blocked community comments on most bank's
CRA applications.
-      To spur community investment, the bill also authorizes a new
program, known as PRIME, to provide technical assistance to low- and
moderate-income micro-entrepreneurs.


Under current law, a financial institution can share with or sell to
anyone, including telemarketers and nonfinancial firms, information on
everything from account balances to credit card transactions, without a
customer's knowledge or consent.  On May 4th, President Clinton proposed
strong and enforceable Federal privacy protections for consumers'
financial information.  The bill includes a number of these provisions.

-      Financial institutions must clearly disclose their privacy
polices up front and annually, allowing consumers to make informed
choices about privacy protection.  Consumers will know if their bank,
insurance, or securities firm intends to share or sell their financial
data, within the corporate family or to third parties.
-      Consumers will be able to "opt-out" of information sharing with
unaffiliated third parties.
-      These restrictions have teeth.  Regulators have full authority to
enforce these protections and new rulemaking authority under existing
Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements.
-      New penalties are available to prevent pretext calling -- when
someone uses trickery or impersonation to discover the consumer's
financial assets.

These protections represent an important step forward, but they are not
enough. Legislation that the President is signing today requires the
Treasury to study the privacy practices of the financial services
industry and recommend further legislative steps.

-      President Clinton will today direct the National Economic Council
to work with the Treasury and OMB to complete a legislative proposal by
early next year.  He is committed to ensuring that consumers have
choices about how their financial information is shared between
different affiliated companies.

The bill includes other important consumer protections.

-      Banking agencies are directed to adopt consumer protections to
govern bank sales of insurance products, including: clear and
conspicuous disclosure that insurance is not FDIC-insured; prohibitions
on tying credit to insurance products; and other protections against
coercive sales practices.  Consumer protections for bank sale of
securities products are also strengthened.
-      Important State consumer protection laws governing insurance
sales are preserved.
-      Banks are required to make full and conspicuous disclosure of
fees on ATM machines.



Date:    Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:58:18 -0500 (EST)
From:    Lenny Foner &lt;foner@media.mit.edu&gt;
Subject: CFP Workshop on Freedom and Privacy by Design





	      --&gt; Submissions due November 30, 1999 &lt;--

			    April 4, 2000
			   Toronto, Canada

       [Please feel free to redistribute to appropriate lists.
	This announcement is http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop]


CFP has traditionally focused strongly on legal remedies as essential
instruments in the fight to ensure freedom and privacy.  But law is
often very slow to catch up to technology, and has limited reach when
considering the global scope of modern communication and information

This workshop instead explores using -technology- to bring about strong
protections of civil liberties which are guaranteed by the technology
itself---in short, to get hackers, system architects, and implementors
strongly involved in CFP and its goals.  Our exploration of technology
includes (a) implemented, fielded systems, and (b) what principles and
architectures should be developed, including which open problems must
be solved, to implement and field novel systems that can be inherently
protective of civil liberties.

We aim to bring together implementors and those who have studied the
social issues of freedom and privacy in one room, to answer questions
such as:

 o Implementation
   o How can we avoid having to trade off privacy for utility?
   o What sorts of tools do we have available?
   o What sorts of applications may be satisfied by which architectures?
   o What still needs to be discovered?
   o What still needs to be implemented?
   o Is open source software inherently more likely to protect civil
     liberties, or not?  Should we push for its wider adoption?
 o Motivation
   o How do we motivate businesses to field systems that are inherently
     protective of their users' civil liberties---even or especially when
     this deprives businesses of commercially-valuable demographic data?
   o How can we encourage users to demand that implementors protect users'
 o Evaluation criteria
   o Given some particular goal(s) for a particular project or technology---
     such as protecting privacy---can we tell in advance if the end result
     is likely to help?
   o How can we tell if a system, once fielded, has achieved its goal(s)?

The intended end products of this workshop are:
 o Ideas for systems that we should field, and
 o Implementation strategies for fielding them.

We will publicize the outcome of the workshop to encourage others who
were not at CFP to help in design or implementation of whatever we
come up with.

If you do not have something to submit to the workshop, you may attend
as a spectator, by registering and paying for the workshop in the
tutorial registration section.


The Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference takes place at the
Westin Harbor Castle hotel in Toronto, Canada, from April 4 to
April 7, 2000.  This workshop runs during the first day.


This is a workshop, not a panel discussion.  It will be several hours
long, with occasional breaks and refreshments.  Workshop members are
expected to actively participate.  In addition, we will welcome
spectators, who will also have occasional opportunities to ask
questions and provide feedback.

The goal is to discuss a small number of real systems that we should
build, and how to go about building and deploying them.  Careful
technical discussion---whether of software or social factors---will be
encouraged.  Participants are strongly advised to carefully consider
some starting projects and/or methods before attending, perhaps as
part of their submissions for membership in the workshop (see below).
This will help to focus the discussions and provide us with some seed
ideas to be considered.

We will attempt to keep careful notes of the entire session, and we
will have various media (whiteboards, overhead projectors, computer
projection, etc) to make it easy to draw pictures, keep agendas and
outlines visible, and so forth---this will not be a collection of
talking heads.


The primary participants will be programmers, cryptographers, and
systems architects, because we intend real systems to be implemented
and must know how to do so.  However, we encourage participation from
other disciplines, such as:
 o Lawyers
   [Architects and implementors must know how not to be
   bogged down by existing legal strictures.]
 o Social scientists
   [Fielded systems must understand sociological lessons
   from the past.]
 o Writers who have addressed the intersection of privacy and
   other civil liberties and technology
   [Architects and implementors can use guidance on which
   problems to tackle first.]
 o Participatory design and accessibility experts
   [Systems are useless if their intended audience cannot
   understand and use them.]


Submissions DUE:    --&gt; Tuesday, November 30, 1999 &lt;--
Submission format:  --&gt; flat ASCII (plain text)  &lt;--
Submission length:  Short paper (1200 words) or abstract (600 words)
Notification of acceptance:  Friday, January 7, 2000

See below for a CHECKLIST of what you must include in a submission.

If you do not have something to submit to the workshop, you may attend
as a spectator, by registering and paying for the workshop in the
tutorial registration section.


If you would like to attend, you must submit a short paper or extended
abstract on some issue related to the workshop.  Short papers should
be limited to 1200 words (about 4 pages); extended abstracts should be
limited to 600 words (about 2 pages).

Submissions must be in -flat ASCII- (no HTML or Latex markup, no Word
documents, no rich text).  Use the electronic submission system at
http://www.cfp2000.org/submissions/ to submit your entry.  You may
either cut and paste your submission into the form or follow the
instructions to email in your submission.  If you wish, you may -also-
make available a version with nicer formatting, links, or anything
else you wish, by giving us a URL to some version on the web, but you
- -must- ensure that the flat ASCII version can stand on its own, in
case you submit in some format which is inconvenient for us to read.

If you already have a long paper available, by all means point us at
it---preferably by giving us a URL---but we -also- require that you
submit a short paper or extended abstract.  This can either be a
summarization of the longer paper, or something completely different,
but it must stand on its own.

Checklist for submissions:

A submission must include the following:
 o Name
 o Affiliation, if any
 o Email address
 o Phone number(s), including area code or country code
 o Flat ASCII text of the submission

Optional elements that may help us:
 o Homepage URL or other pointer to your work
 o Biographical information
 o Other information you feel may be relevant
 o URL of submission or of related longer works, in a common web
   format such as HTML, Postscript, or PDF.  (No guarantees we will
   look if it requires proprietary software such as PowerPoint, Word,
   or Shockwave to read it.) 


Date:    9 Nov 1999 18:48:59 -0000
From:    sevoy@quark.cpsr.org
Subject: Shaping the Network Society - DIAC-00

                        Shaping the Network Society
               The Future of the Public Sphere in Cyberspace
    A Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing (DIAC) Symposium
       Sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
                     First Call for Abstracts / Papers
                           May 20 - May 23, 2000
                          Seattle, Washington, USA
   Cyberspace may become the dominant medium through which people create
   and share information and ideas. How their conversations about the
   environment, culture, leisure, and political decisions, are conducted
   and how they are resolved are likely to have major social implications
   in the new millennium. What directions and implications does
   cyberspace foretell for community, democracy, education and culture?
   Addressing those questions may be among the most urgent tasks facing
   humankind today.
   The objective of DIAC-00 is to integrate many perspectives,
   conversations, and people from around the world on the topic of public
   space in cyberspace: What is it? What should it be? What would we do
   with it? What can we do about it?
   While DIAC-00 will present "best practices" and other lessons learned
   "from the field" there is an urgent need for theoretical work (or
   "condensed practice") as well. For that reason, DIAC-00 is strongly
   encouraging reflective work on strategic and policy levels. There is
   enormous energy found at the grassroots level and it is growing. The
   big problem today is framing the idea of public space in cyberspace in
   a way that engages intellectuals, decision-makers, artists, and
   citizens. This can only be done by combining "best practice" stories
   with strong provocative conceptualizations of what is happening in our
   world and how public cyberspace can play a role. We need theories,
   concepts that can help us discuss, reflect, and take action on these
   critical matters. As an integral part of the DIAC-00 conference social
   scientists, engineers, computer scientists, artists, journalists, and
   other members of the research community will contribute their thinking
   on these pressing issues:
     * Community Informatics
     * Civic Knowledge, Civic Infrastructure
     * New Tools, Applications, Services, and Institutions
     * Theoretical Frameworks
     * Methodological Frameworks
     * Critical Theory
     * Social Economy of the Internet
     * Computers, Work, and Cyberspace
     * New -- and Retooled -- Media
     * Participatory and Community-Centered Design
     * Community Initiatives
     * Public Access and Community Networks
     * Practitioner and Researcher Co-Learning
     * Bridging the Digital Divide
     * Cyberspace Policy -- Social Policy -- Cultural Policy
     * Computer-Supported Community Work
     * Localism and Globalism
     * International Perspectives and Partnerships
     * Social Movements and Collaborations
   DIAC-00 will be a multifaceted event. This call for abstracts / papers
   addresses the research or academic component of the symposium. There
   are other opportunities for participation within this framework. The
   guidelines for workshop proposals will be released soon.
   DIAC-00 will be the seventh symposium sponsored by Computer
   Professionals for Social Responsibility in the "Directions and
   Implications of Advanced Computing" series. DIAC-00 is intended to
   broaden the discussion and awareness about the future of cyberspace
   both in terms of topics and in terms of participation. It is also our
   intent to provide visibility to topics and perspectives that are often
   neglected by the media.
   Each extended abstract should contain a description and outline of the
   work, supporting evidence and data, and references. Abstracts and
   papers should be written in English. All extended abstracts should be
   submitted (in plain text only!) electronically to Peter Day
   (p.day@btinternet.com). Abstracts should be fewer than 2,000 words.
   Authors should remember that they will be addressing non-academics as
   well as academics at this conference and avoid jargon whenever
   possible. Citations should follow the Harvard Citation guidelines.
   Academic Program Committee: Phil Agre (US), Amy Bruckman (US), Natasha
   Bulashova (Russia), Peter Day (co-chair; UK), Fiorella de Cindio
   (Italy), Greg Cole (US), Steve Cisler (US), Susana Finquelievich
   (Argentina), Michael Gurstein (Canada), Toru Ishida (Japan), Peter
   Mambrey (Germany), Kate.ODubhchair (UK), Volkmar Pipek (Germany),
   Jenny Preece (US), Lodis Rhodes (US), Douglas Schuler (co-chair; US),
   Lisa Servon (US), Erik Stolterman (Sweden), Peter van den Besselaar
   (Netherlands), Murali Venkatesh (US), Ken Young (Australia).
   Important Dates: February 15, 2000 extended abstracts due; March 15,
   2000 feedback given to authors; May 1, 2000 revised abstracts due. May
   20 - May 23, 2000 DIAC-00. The final papers, ready for book / journal,
   will be due sometime in summer 2000. We are planning to publish all
   submitted abstracts on our web site. We are planning to publish
   accepted papers in a book or journal. The academic program will be
   thoroughly integrated with the rest of DIAC-00.
   We are pleased to be a member of the Global 2000 Virtual Community
   Coalition. The Global 2000 Virtual Community Coalition is a loosely
   affiliated group of people, organizations, and events all over the
   world who are working together in the year 2000 to help promote
   democratic use of communication technology and discourage social
   exclusion due to inequitable access to communication. 
   DIAC-00 is sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social
   Responsibility and co-sponsored by Friends and Partners. Please
   contact us if your organization would like to become a co-sponsor or
   We thank the Morino Foundation for their support.

   For more information about the symposium, please see the web site
   (http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00) or contact conference organizer Doug
   Schuler, douglas@cpsr.org, 206.634.0752.

Susan Evoy   *   Deputy Director                     
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
P.O. Box 717  *  Palo Alto  *  CA *  94302         
Phone: (650) 322-3778    *
Email: evoy@cpsr.org   


End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 08.16
<A href="/privacy"><h3>PRIVACY Forum Home Page</h3></A><p>
<A href="http://www.vortex.com"><h4><i>Vortex Technology Home Page</i></h4></A><p>
<A href="/privmedia"><h4>Radio, Television, and Press Contact Information</h4></A><p>

<font size=-2>Copyright &copy; 2000 Vortex
Technology.  All Rights Reserved.</font> 

TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2023 AOH