TUCoPS :: Privacy :: priv_309.txt

Privacy Digest 3.09 4/29/94

PRIVACY Forum Digest      Friday, 29 April 1994       Volume 03 : Issue 09

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

   	  The PRIVACY Forum digest is supported in part by the 
	      ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy.

	Re: Internet White Pages (John R. Levine)
	FCC Issues Decision on Caller ID [Finally] (Monty Solomon)
	Medical Privacy Bill Introduced in Congress (Dave Banisar)
	Government-Assisted Housing (Joseph A. Drain)
	Alt.sex newsgroups.... (Elizabeth Chestney)
	Preserving Federal Electronic Mail (Barbara Simons)
	NTIA Privacy Notice of Inquiry - Deadline Extended, Act Now!
	   (Monty Solomon)
	Data Escape from Prison (Mich Kabay)
	Singapore IS pro-privacy --- about executions etc ([Name Withheld])
	Clipper Petition Delivered to White House (CPSR National Office)

 *** 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 by an automatic "listserv" 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
"list-maint@vortex.com".  All submissions included in this digest represent
the views of the individual authors and all submissions will be considered
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 listserv system.  Please follow the instructions above
for getting the listserv "help" information, which includes details
regarding the "index" and "get" listserv commands, which are used to access
the PRIVACY Forum archive.  All PRIVACY Forum materials are also
available through the Internet Gopher system via a gopher server on
site "gopher.vortex.com".

For information regarding the availability of this digest via FAX, please
send an inquiry to privacy-fax@vortex.com, call (818) 225-2800, or FAX
to (818) 225-7203.


   Quote for the day:

	"Heavenths to Mergatroid!"

	     -- "Snagglepuss"; Animated; Hanna-Barbera (1959-1962)


Date:    Thu, 14 Apr 94 14:18 EDT
From:    johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Internet White Pages

I happen to know the people who published the "Internet White Pages",
since it's a branch of the same people who publish my Dummies books,
and have had some discussions with them about the book.  As far as I
can tell, the authors created the list by collecting usenet return
addresses, perhaps enriched with addresses collected from people's
signature lines.

I see two separate issues here:

* Should there be listings available of Internet mail addresses?

* Is collecting usenet return addresses an appropriate way to make the

The answer to the second question is simple: No, and the reason is
equally simple: it gives you a lousy list.

The book lists six addresses for me, including johnl@iecc.uucp, an
address that I don't recall ever using, and that I certainly wouldn't
have used any time in the last five years.  (It is a valid address,
though.)  They also list me as both John R Levine and John R. Levine,
suggesting their software could still use some work.  But listing
only usenet addresses gives you a very one-sided list.  For example,
none of the board members of the Internet Society appear.  I have
suggested to the publisher some ways they could round out the list by
using other public listings of addresses.

The more interesting question is what sort of white page listings
should exist.  Like telephone white pages, on the one hand these
listings make it easier for people from whom we'd like to hear to get
in touch with us, but they also make it easier for people from who we
don't want to hear to get in touch with us.  Online white pages have
the particular problem that, given the current state of the net, we
can expect bozos who have access to large numbers of mail addresses
to use them for random junk mail.  This is particularly annoying to
people on services like Compuserve where incoming Internet mail costs

I suspect that we'll end up with something roughly parallel to paper
mail, with the sender paying all the charges, and a lot of mail being
sent that nobody reads.  I currently get about 100 messages a day,
which I deal with by using a lot of automation, e.g. mail from known
mailing lists are filed as pseudo-usenet messages for later perusal.
It would be technically simple to arrange for mail from known
annoying addresses to be thrown away, although I haven't had to do
that yet.  It would also be fairly easy to arrange public and private
e-mail addresses, with messages to the two addresses handled
differently.  I happen to be using a Unix box, but facilities like
this are quite common.  The inexpensive Eudora mail program for the
PC and Mac has filtering features at least as nice as these.

But to return to the white pages question, to make e-mail useful in
the "real world", you've got to have some sort of white pages,
probably both on-line (just telnet to 555-1212, however you spell
that in X.500) and on paper.  Sure, some people may prefer to be
listed, just like people have unlisted phone numbers.  But if we
don't come up with reasonable designs for white pages pretty soon,
we'll have a profusion of unreasonable ones thrust upon us.

John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com


Date:    Fri, 15 Apr 1994 02:32:38 -0400
From:    Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: FCC Issues Decision on Caller ID (Finally)

Excerpts from CPSR Alert 3.06

[3]  FCC Issues Decision on Caller ID (Finally)

After three years of deliberation, the FCC in April finally issued its
rules on Caller Number Identification. The FCC mandated that telephone
companies that use Signaling System 7 offer Caller ID for interstate
calls and that interstate carriers carry the signals at no charge.

The FCC ruled that telephone companies provide free per call blocking
for interstate calls, preempting the decisions of over 30 states public
utility commissions, many of which have opted for greater privacy
protections. It adopted a controversial brief by the Department of
Justice brief, which decided that Caller ID does not violate the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibition of "Trap and Trace
Devices," which capture the numbers of incoming telephone calls.
Previously, the Congressional Research Service and several states found
that Caller ID was a trap and trace device.

The FCC rules also require that users of ANI services, such as 800
and 900 number services, which do not currently have a blocking
capability, obtain consent from callers before passing on the
information. Telephone companies must institute public education 
campaigns about ANI and Caller ID.

A copy of CPSR and the US Privacy Council's brief to the FCC 
and other materials from CPSR on Caller ID are available at the 
CPSR Internet Library. 

	[ The full impact and meaning of this decision, especially
	  in regards to states which have already established
	  their own stricter rules for INTRAstate CNID, has yet to be
	  determined.  Will we see different forms of blocking applied
	  to in-state vs. out-of-state calls (e.g., per-line for
	  in-state, per-call for out-of-state?)  Also, the possibility
	  of actions by state PUCs or other interested groups
	  (including Congress) challenging this decision is still
	  an open question.  -- MODERATOR ]


Date:    Thu, 14 Apr 1994 23:28:17 -0700
From:    Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Subject: Medical Privacy Bill Introduced in Congress

	[ Extracted from CPSR Alert 3.06 by MODERATOR ]

[4] Medical Privacy Bill Introduced in Congress

Congressmen Gary Condit (D-CA), has introduced a comprehensive bill
protecting the privacy of medical records in the House of
Representatives. HR 4077, the Fair Health Information Practices Act of
1994, is a free standing bill but is intended to be an amendment to HR
3600, the Clinton Administration's health reform bill and other bills
currently pending in Congress.

The bill creates fair information practices for the collection and use
of personal medical information. It mandates that holders of health
information keep that information confidential unless there is
authorization for its release by the patient or other limited
exceptions. Each person who obtains private medical information becomes
a trustee. Patients will also have the right to access, and correct
their own personal files.

The bill also creates criminal and civil penalties for improper access
or disclosure of records. For criminal access, penalties are up to a
$250,000 fine and 10 years in jail. Civil penalties are available
against any private company, individual or state or local government for
damages, including punitive damages in some cases, and attorney fees.

One area that has caused some concern is the law enforcement access to
medical records. As currently written the bill allows law enforcement
access to patient records with only a written certification by a
supervisor that access is being obtained for a lawful purpose. Privacy
advocates are concerned that a low threshold for obtaining records will
encourage "fishing expeditions" for information by law enforcement

HR 4077 was also cosponsored by John Conyers (D-MI) and Maria Velazquez
(D-NY). Congressional hearings will be held on April 20, 27 and 28. 
CPSR has been asked to testify on April 28. HR 4077 and supporting 
materials are available from the CPSR Internet Library.


Date:    Sun, 17 Apr 1994 14:37:05 -0400
From:    eo891@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Drain)
Subject: Government-Assisted Housing

If the Clinton Administration's new proposal, whereby agreeing to
unannounced searches of one's residence is to be a condition to obtaining
federal housing assistance, does not shock us (as it should), perhaps
because (though we'd never admit it) it will principally affect poor
minorities, be on guard because we are next.  It is predictably ironic that
the most determined assaults upon the priniples this country once stood for
have come from the left flank more often than not.  Apologies to anyone
offended by the use of the royal "we" and "us"; I know I don't speak for all
of you.

Since Clinton lives in public funded housing, anyone care to guess whether
he'll agree to unannounced raids?  Or does the new policy apply only to
people who count for nothing in this world?


Date:    Tue, 19 Apr 1994 17:34:34 -0400 (EDT)
From:    Elizabeth Chestney <ecchestn@watarts.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: alt.sex newsgroups.... 

Greetings fellow internetwits... I am a grad student at U of Waterloo, in
Ontario, Canada. Recently, five newsgroups were banned on campus:
alt.sex.bondage, alt.sex.bestiality, alt.sex.stories, alt.sex.stories.d, and
alt.tasteless. A resulting flurry of email and newsgroup activity has
criticised and discussed the ban's implications. Newsgroups have had a long
history of problems at UW. In 1988 "rec.humor was banned for containing
racist and sexist jokes, and "alt.sex.bondage," one of the five banned on
Feb. 1, was originally banned in 1990. In April of that year, all "alt"
newsgroups were banned, allegedly due to the cost of running them. They were
later restored after a massive student outcry.  

Although obscene or offensive subject matter cannot be ignored, this recent
directive has heady censorship and privacy protection implications. 

I am currently working on this story for a "net" assignment. If any RISKS
subscriber has criticisms or related info to share (as email or otherwise),
I would greatly appreciate it.
Elizabeth Chestney ecchest@watarts.uwaterloo.ca  


Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 14:00:15 PDT
From: "Barbara Simons" <simons@VNET.IBM.COM>


The National Archives and Records Administration has asked for public
comment on proposed standards for management of federal records created or
received on electronic mail systems.  The proposed standards were published
in the March 24 _Federal Register_, pp. 13906-10.  When finalized, the
standards are for all federal agencies on the proper means of identifying,
maintaining, and disposing of federal records created or received on an E-
mail system.  The same standards the federal government applies to managing
paper documents would apply to managing records created or received via
electronic mail.  The guidelines apply to electronic mail sent over
networks like the Internet as well as within office systems.

NARA has been working with the Executive Office of the President to develop
specific records management policies and procedures for their E-mail
records to comply with court rulings in _Armstrong v. Executive Office of
the President_.  In 1989, ALA joined a coalition of researchers and groups,
including the National Security Archive, Public Citizen, the American Civil
Liberties Union and the American Historical Association, in suing the
government when the Reagan Administration tried to remove records from the
computers of the National Security Council.  The case has been working its
way through the legal system during the Bush and Clinton Administrations.
NARA's proposed rules are an outgrowth of the settlement negotiations in
the case.

Comments must be submitted by June 22, 1994 to: Director, Records Appraisal
and Disposition Division, National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi
Road, College Park MD 20740-6001.  Comments may be sent by fax: (301) 713-
6852, or by e-mail: ooa@cu.nih.gov.  For further information contact: James
Hastings, Director, Records Appraisal and Disposition Division, (301) 713-


Date:    Thu, 21 Apr 1994 11:27:43 -0400
From:    Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: NTIA Privacy Notice of Inquiry - Deadline Extended, Act Now!

Excerpt from EFFector Online Volume 07 No. 07

   Subject: NTIA Privacy Notice of Inquiry - Deadline Extended, Act Now!

Earlier this year, NTIA issued a Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comment
from the public on "privacy issues relating to private sector use of
telecommunications-related personal information associated
with the National Information Infrastructure."  The comments will have
bearing on an upcoming National Telecommunications and Information
Administration report "which may make recommendations to the Information
Infrastructure Task Force and Congress in the area of telecommunications
and information policy".

Last week, EFF called NTIA asking when their privacy report would be made,
and were told that the scheduling was still somewhat flexible, but that
surprisingly few comments had been received before the March 30 deadline. 

We've worked with NTIA's Carol Mattey to reopen the Request for Comments,
with successful results:

"Taking into account your expressed interest, and inquiries from
several others, we have decided to formally reopen the record in
NTIA's inquiry on privacy issues for additional comments. 

Attached to this message is a statement formally inviting
additional comments to be filed on or before May 23, 1994.  (This
statement will be sent out in a press release and published in
the Federal Register sometime next week.)  Please disseminate
this statement, with the NOI, immediately to all who you think
might be interested.  We want to hear a wide range of views, but
have to rely on groups like yours to spread that message, as we
just do not have the resources to personally seek out all
potentially interested parties.

Carol Mattey, NTIA"


CONTACT:  Larry Williams           NTIA EXTENDS NOTICE OF 

(202) 482-1551                     INQUIRY ON PRIVACY ISSUES

TECHNICAL NEWS ADVISORY            April 19, 1994

     The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) has extended the deadline for filing
comments in its privacy Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to May 23, 1994.

     On February 11, 1994, NTIA published a Notice of Inquiry and
Request for Comments in the Federal Register entitled "Inquiry on
Privacy Issues Relating to Private Sector Use of
Telecommunications-Related Information."  59 FR 6842.

     NTIA has received comments from 30 parties in this
proceeding.  Those comments can be reviewed in NTIA's Openness
Room, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4092, 14th St. and
Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, between the
hours of 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.  For further information about NTIA's
Openness Room, contact Norbert Schroeder at (202)482-6207.

     Since the comment deadline date, NTIA has received several
requests for extension of time to file comments.  In the interest
of fairness to all potentially interested parties, and to provide
an additional opportunity to develop the record in this
proceeding, NTIA will allow additional time in which to file

     Additional comments should be filed on or before May 23,
1994, to receive full consideration.  Please submit seven copies
to the Office of Policy Analysis and Development, NTIA, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 4725, 14th St. and Pennsylvania
Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.  20230.  Comments also may be
submitted electronically via Internet to cmattey@ntia.doc.gov.

     For further information, please contact Carol Mattey or Lisa
Leidig, Office of Policy Analysis and Development, NTIA, at (202)


In discussion with Ms. Mattey, she advised that NTIA would prefer to
receive comments specifically responding the issues raised in the notice,
outlined clearly where possible, and that it would be useful for lengthy
comments to have a short summary at the top.

The easier you make it for them parse your comments the easier it is
for them to take your comments into consideration.  This holds true for
any submission of comments to goverment agencies or legislators.

A selection from the original Notice of Inquiry is below:


National Telecommunications and Information Administration
[Docket No. 940104-4004]
Inquiry on Privacy Issues Relating to Private Sector Use of
Telecommunications-Related Personal Information
Administration (NTIA), Commerce

ACTION:  Notice of Inquiry; Request for Comments

SUMMARY:  NTIA is conducting a comprehensive review of
privacy issues relating to private sector use of
telecommunications-related personal information associated
with the National Information Infrastructure.  Public
comment is requested on issues relevant to such a review.
After analyzing the comments, NTIA intends to issue a
report, which may make recommendations to the Information
Infrastructure Task Force and Congress in the area of
telecommunications and information policy, as appropriate.

DATES:  Comments should be filed on or before March 30,
1994, to receive full consideration.
[This has now been extended to May 23, 1994]

AUTHORITY:  National Telecommunications and Information
Administration Organization Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-
538, 106 Stat. 3533 (1992) (to be codified at 47 U.S.C.
^U 901 et seq.).


For detailed and important information detailing the specifics of the 
issues, see full copy of NOI at end of file: 

ftp.eff.org, /pub/Alerts/ntia_privacy.noi
gopher.eff.org, 1/pub/Alerts, ntia_privacy.noi
Outpost--EFF Online, BBS +1 202 628 6120, "Alerts" file area, NTIAPRIV.NOI
which will include the updated information.]


Date: 26 Apr 94 12:13:52 EDT
From: "Mich Kabay / JINBU Corp." <75300.3232@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Data Escape from Prison

       [ From RISKS-FORUM Digest; Volume 15 : Issue 79  -- MODERATOR ]

>From the Associated Press newswire via Executive News Service (GO ENS) on

   Inmates-Computers, By MARIA S. FISHER, Associated Press Writer 

   KANSAS CITY, Kan. (AP, 18 Apr 1994) -- The letter startled Nick Tomasic. It
   was from a prison inmate; other fellow prisoners, assigned to computerize
   records, had taken a Social Security number from an accident report and
   tried to sell it.  Tomasic is the district attorney for Wyandotte County.
   It was his number.

The author makes the following key points:

o    29 states and the federal government use prisoners for data entry.

o    The National Correctional Industries Association in Belle
Mead, NJ scoffed at the potential risk of misuse, saying that in 12
years, there have been no cases of abuse.

o    Tomasic warned that criminals could determine addresses and phone
numbers of witnesses and victims during data entry.

o    In Johnson City, KS, Sheriff Kent P.  Willnauer is looking into
allegations that a prisoner passed Social Security numbers and other
data to a confederate who opened fraudulent bank accounts.

o    Kansas State government officials insist that the data entry program
saves taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and that there is no
danger to privacy or safety of residents.

Michel E. Kabay, Ph.D./ Dir. Education / Natl Computer Security Assoc.


Date:    Wed, 27 Apr 1994
From:    [Name Withheld]
Subject: Singapore IS pro-privacy --- about executions etc

  [ The party sending this message expressed concern that if
    they were identified publicly, their ability to conduct
    future business in Singapore might be severely impacted.  -- MODERATOR ]

The following information was gathered from the news media and
personal contacts while working in Singapore.

It's not true that the government of Singapore is always against
privacy; they are quite private about executions and official info.

In mid-August 1993, it came out that 2 people had been executed at
the end of July.  There was nothing in the English-language papers
at the time.  The government was quite annoyed at the suggestion
that the executions had been secret.  They'd told the prisoners'
families and embassies, and there'd been a small story in a
Chinese-language paper.  It wasn't their fault that it took 2
weeks for the English press to find out.

There is the death penalty for many crimes, such as using a gun
during a felony with intent to wound.  It was felt too hard to
prove intent, so last year death was proposed for being part of a
group committing a felony where anyone fired a gun, unless you
tried to stop it.  That is, you could get death for being the
getaway driver in a bank robbery if someone inside fired once into
the ceiling.

Singapore is also very pro-privacy concerning secret info.  When
the leading business paper printed some official economic stats a
little early, everyone involved was charged (leaker, reporter,
editor).  It's not even claimed that the government official even
intended to leak; he just left the papers on his desk while the
reporters were in the room.  The trial just finished, and they
were lucky not to be imprisoned, only fined.

Singapore is also pro personal rights when the right is the
good name of the PAP (governing party).  If you publish what
the government considers to be a libelous story about the
government, or the governing party, or about politicians'
relatives, then you can be charged with libel.  For example,
last July someone was arrested for distributing libelous
handbills and given 2 weeks in jail.

If a paper, such as the Asian Wall Street Journal, Time, or
Economist, to pick three examples, should publish what the
government considers to be a slanted story about such a case,
not presenting the government's side in as much detail as the
government requires, then the publication can be fined,
sanctioned, or banned, since publications must be licensed.

In July 1993, the Economist magazine reported on one libel
case, in a fashion that suggested that the libel was correct.
Singapore invoked a law giving it the right of reply.  The
Economist printed 1/2 the reply, but said that the rest was
just repetitive.  Singapore threatened to limit the Economist's
circulation, and also to require a deposit amounting to about
$20US per Singaporean subscriber in case of a future judgement
against the Economist.  Singapore then added a new demand that
the Economist publish a letter replying to another story.  The
Economist caved in completely, while, the last I heard of this
story, Singapore was still proposing to apply the penalties.

The justification is that a small country is more vulnerable than
a large one to defamatory lies about the government.

The anti-graffitti law was apparently established more to stop
political graffitti than general vandalism.

Some government decisions are interesting.  Pornography, even
Cosmo, is illegal.  However prostitution is said to be ok, and
rich people are said to have mistresses with second families
across in Malaysia.

As they say in Singapore, "It's a fine, fine society, fines for

The government is always right.  If you get a fine in the mail
because a camera said that you ran a red light, you pay it.
There's a fee for getting a copy of the photo, which is not
refunded even if the photo shows you innocent.  If the photo shows
you guilty, then, besides the fee, the fine is increased.

Finally, note that most Singaporeans seem to support all this,
although more educated people may feel claustrophobic.  It's hard
accurately to gauge, however, since you need permission to run in
at least some elections, and unfit candidates are refused.  In
last fall's Presidential election, the two leading opposition
figures were not allowed to run.  The PAP selected the official
candidate, and also the official opposition candidate (you
couldn't have a 1-man election, it wouldn't be democratic).  The
official opposition candidate did not campaign, since, as he said,
the official candidate would make a fine president.  Still, the
opposition guy won about 45% of the vote.


Date:    Fri, 29 Apr 1994 17:12:07 +0000
From:    CPSR National Office <cpsr@cpsr.org>
Subject: Clipper Petition Delivered to White House

                          CPSR PRESS RELEASE
             Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
                             P.O. Box 717
                         Palo Alto, CA 94301
                           415-322-3778 (voice)
                           415-322-4748 (fax)




	Washington, DC -- A national public interest organization today 
delivered to the White House a petition asking for withdrawal of the 
controversial Clipper cryptography proposal.  The Clipper plan would provide 
government agents with copies of the keys used to encoded electronic 

	The petition was signed by more than 47,000 users of the nation's 
data highway.  The petition drive occurred entirely across the Internet.  It 
is the largest electronic petition to date.

	Earlier this year, the White House announced support for the Clipper 
proposal.  But the plan has received almost unanimous criticism from the 
public.  A Time/CNN found that 80% of the American public opposed Clipper.

	Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility began the petition 
drive in January.  In the letter addressed to the President, the organization 
said that if Clipper goes forward, "privacy protection will be diminished, 
innovation will be slowed, government accountability will be lessened, and 
the openness necessary to ensure the successful development of the nation's 
communications infrastructure will be threatened."

	The petition asks for the withdrawal of Clipper.  It is signed by 
many of the nation's leading cryptographers including Whitfield Diffie, 
Martin Hellman, and Ronald Rivest.  Users from nearly 3,000  different sites 
across the Internet are represented.  Responses came from more than 1300 
companies including Microsoft, IBM, Apple, DEC, GE, Cray, Tandem, Sun, SGI, 
Mead Data Central, AT&T, and Stratus. Signatures also came from more than 850 
colleges and universities and 150 non-profit organizations. Many responses 
came from public networks such as  America Online and Compuserve. Nearly a 
thousand came from government and military sites including NASA, the Army and 
the Navy.

	Next week hearings will be held in Congress on the controversial 
cryptography proposal, an initiative developed by the FBI and the National 
Security Agency.  Most of the witnesses are expected to testify against the 

	In a related development, the establishment of the Electronic Privacy 
Information Center was announced today.  EPIC is jointly sponsored by CPSR 
and the Fund for Constitutional Government. It will focus on emerging privacy 
issues surrounding the information data highway.  [see accompanying release].

	CPSR is national membership organization, based in Palo Alto, 
California.  For more information about CPSR, contact CPSR, P.O. Box 717, 
Palo Alto, CA 94302.  415 322 3778 (tel) 415 322 4748 (fax) cpsr@cpsr.org 


End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 03.09

TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2024 AOH