TUCoPS :: Privacy :: priv_405.txt

Privacy Digest 4.05 2/26/95

PRIVACY Forum Digest     Sunday, 26 February 1995     Volume 04 : Issue 05

          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.

	The Networks Meet the Real World 
	   (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
	"S.314?" meet "H.R.1900/S.984" (Tom Zmudzinski)
	Re: More on Mailbox, Etc. wastebaskets (Robin Kenny)
	How can files be 100% wiped? (Gary Martin)
	S.314, Clipper, and so on... (Michael Jones)
	Symposium on medical records (Phil Agre)
	EPIC Legislative Update 2.2 (Dave Banisar)
	Privacy of genetic information (Michael S. Yesley)
	CFP'95 Alert #1 (Curt Bramblett)

 *** 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 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 home
page at the URL: "http://www.vortex.com/".


   Quote for the day:

	"You have all the time in the world."

			-- Filby (Alan Young)
			   "The Time Machine" (1960)


Date:    Sun, 26 Feb 95 10:41 PST
From:    lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
Subject: The Networks Meet the Real World

At this time, a variety of petition drives and other heavily publicized
efforts against S.314 are in process, based largely on the more onerous
interpretations of the bill.  Indeed, it *is* possible that the onerous
possibilities could come to pass, and that in any case it's those possible
outcomes with which many feel they need be most concerned.  However, I
personally believe it would be much more helpful if we could come up with
specific useful *alternatives* to S.314 which might be more acceptable.  For
example, some mechanism to help assure that materials considered unsuitable
for minors will be "reasonably" compartmented when possible, would I
suspect go a long way toward calming some of the more vociferous complaints
regarding the contents of some net materials. 

Just as mail order companies must obtain a declaration of suitable age
before sending out certain types of materials, it seems reasonable that
something of that sort may need to be applied to network providers as well.
This doesn't need to mean that they are held to a 100% error-free
rate--rather that they have made a reasonable effort to keep categories of
materials that are *known* to have largely "unsuitable" contents away from
children without parents' permission--there is certainly a fairly obvious
set of newsgroups and mailing lists that would fall into that category.

Regardless of your personal feelings about the matter, it seems increasingly
unlikely that the arguments that some make which say "they don't have any
control over what they send out" will stand up for long in the current
environment, especially since those types of arguments have been generally
unsuccessful with most other communications media that "broadcast" to large
numbers of persons.

It is inevitable that as the net moves into the masses, the same sorts of
regulations, in some form, that apply to other types of communications and
media will be applied.  There are many in the network community who dislike
this concept--they consider the networks to be a bastion of completely
unlimited free speech unfettered by "real world" concerns.  But with the
real world entry into the network community come real world problems, and the
networks will probably not be permitted to exist completely "outside" of
other cultural constraints, nor, in my opinion, should they be.

So we have basically two choices.  The first is to fight against anything
that even resembles controls or regulations of any sort regarding anything
sent or received on the nets, period.  To take this view is most likely to
leave the regulations that will inevitably come forth in the hands of
persons with much less experience in the realities of these networks than we
ourselves do, and perhaps with their own political agendas.

The second choice is to actively work *with* the concerned communities and
officials to try fashion a situation where the reasonable concerns of all
involved parties are taken into account, while still maintaining a high
level of free speech and open communications on these networks. 
I would opt for this second approach.


Date:    Mon, 13 Feb 95 11:45:19 EST
From:    "Tom Zmudzinski" <zmudzint@CC.IMS.DISA.MIL>
Subject: "S.314?" meet "H.R.1900/S.984"

S.314 would be the backwards of that miserable H.R.1900/S.984 from 1993. 
The "Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act" would have prevented 
employers from even *looking* at graphics files to see if there was any 
pornography present.  I think that "S.314" is an even greater waste of 
time and electrons since no one can define "obscenity" beyond "I know it 
when I see it".  Under this so-called "Communications Decency Act of 
1995", I could file a complaint about the Internet because I *know* that 
every winking smiley, e.g., ";-)", actually has sexual content and is 
therefore de facto pornographic.  (Don't gag too hard, but that's one of 
the handier means of turning off junk mail -- claim it's pornographic 
whether it comes from "Field & Stream" or "Whip & Feather".)

Rhetorical question: Do you think that Senator Paul Simon (sponsor of 
S.984) ever talked with Senator Jim Exon (sponsor of S.314)?  (Does 
anybody *ever* talk to anybody?)

Quoting Will Rodgers, "The trouble with Congress is every time they make 
a law, it's a joke, and every time they make a joke, it's a law!"


Date:    Tue, 14 Feb 95 9:57:25 EDT
From:    Robin Kenny <robink@hatchet.aus.hp.com>
Subject: Re: More on Mailbox, Etc. wastebaskets 

Now my understanding of the operation of "Mailbox, Etc." is that it is a
letter box, fax and photocopying facility. Customers come inside and pay to 
use the machines themselves: it is not a over-the-counter shop or service.
If that is so, then the company's unwillingness to place a sign or shredder

To illustrate: if your property has a dangerous bridge on it and there is a
could sue the pants off you, even if trespassing. The same is true for a 
"Beware Of The Dog" sign - it is an admission you knew the dog was a threat 
to public safety.

Extending this to "Mailbox, Etc."; the ACT OF PLACING A WARNING SIGN could
be taken as an admission that the operators knowingly placed an individual's
privacy or confidentiality at risk... conversely, if the photocopies were 
done over the counter by the employees only, then THE LACK OF SUCH A SIGN 
for the employess would be negligence by the owners (isn't law neat?)

Certainly this is the law in Australia and Britain ("Duty Of Care"). 
You'd need to check out the law for the U.S..  Besides, shouldn't such a 
commercial operation make the user PAY to use the shredder?

Robin Kenny 


Date:    Tue, 14 Feb 1995 02:34:42 -0500 (EST)
From:    G Martin <gmartin@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: How can files be 100% wiped?

     I am very confused about something and I'm hoping that
someone on this list can help me get to the truth.  I'm going to
be teaching a class on Internet to a group of parents in a few
months.  These parents have indicated to me that security/privacy
issues are a big deal to them (and truthfully they're a big deal
to me too).  One area where I keep getting mixed signals on is
how to *REALLY* remove old data from hard drives, floppies and
backup tapes.  

     First I was told that reformatting the drives would make the
data unrecoverable.  Then I was told it wouldn't.  I've heard
different stories about what really needs to be done to
absolutely assure that private, personal information can be
safely wiped from these devices.  Do any of you know of a
shareware, freeware or commercial product than can prevent
companies like the one below from retrieving wiped data?

I got the following messages in a Gopher search for the word
"wipe" and thought that they would be a good place to help kick
of this discussion.  Thanks.


If you only write zeros over the old data, then it can be
recovered. There are several data recovery firms which can
recover the original data from a disk even if it has been
overlaid with completely new data.

Fed standards require multiple passes with different patterns.

Daryl V. McDaniel             Micronetics
(503) 591-1869                Aloha Research Group
darylm@Mnet.com                    Aloha, Oregon USA  97007-1640


In article <trimmC8JIMC.56u@netcom.com>, trimm@netcom.com (Trimm
Industries) writes:
> In article

> > It is not sufficient to overwrite the file system with data. 
> > There are companies that can retreive overwritten data. A
> > company in Norway claims they can retreive data that have
> > been overwritten nineteen (!) times. The previous suggestion
> > about a big hammer is most appropriate. 
> Could you please post the name of this company?
> Thanks!
The company is "ibas Laboratorier". Their address is:

Arkoveien 14
Postboks 1250

(Note: {\AA} has the same meaning as in LaTeX.)

> Gary Watson
> trimm@netcom.com
Thor Kristoffersen   -   Oslo, Norway   -   thork@ifi.uio.no


In article <1v0st1$61m@gatekeeper.qualix.com> bcoll@qualix.com
(Barbara Coll) writes:
   This all seems very extreme :>} 
Yeah, but it's fun.  We used to use sandblasters.

 We sell a product that has been approved by DOD, NSA, etc to
irretrievably deletes one or more files and obliterates the data
contained in those files beyone recovery. The product name is  
UNISHRED PRO. It is available for UNIX systems including Sun, HP,
SEC, and DEC.

The big problem with such software is how it deals with things
like partially-bad blocks remapped by the SCSI controller.
If the controller is intelligent enough, you'll never see them,
and if it's not quite that intelligent, it still won't let you
overwrite blocks that come up with bad checksums, even though
most of your TOP SECRET data is there undamaged.

Sure, it keeps non-superusers from getting the data, but if the
KGB steals your disk (assuming there still is a KGB), they won't
have much trouble recovering the data.

#                   Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs
4M312 Holmdel NJ

I see this as a privacy issue because most of us will eventually loan a
diskette to someone, throw away an old backup tape, or sell our PC when we
upgrade.  Each of those activities presents an opportunity for us to
unknowingly give someone else personal information about us that was
stored on those mediums.  



Date:    Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:49:58 -0500
From:    3mj13@qlink.queensu.ca (Michael Jones)
Subject: S.314, Clipper, and so on...

What surprises me about American legislative and executive measures
concering the Internet and the infamous 'Information [enter superlative
here]-highway' is the fact that these legislative measures seem to ignore
that the Internet, although finding its roots in American military research
and development, is no longer an American entity.

S.314 simply does not address this -- neither did Clipper/Skipjack.  With
regard to Clipper, there is nothing (even in the context of NAFTA, I
believe) that would force Canadians to purchase electronic equipment which
operates in accordance with US encryption methods.  (In fact, I can think of
many political, social and economic benefits NOT to follow the US
administration on this...)

As for S.314, the Communications Decency Act, not only will it be
implausible to monitor all transactions for lewd and obscene material WITHIN
the US, monitoring (and attempting to control) international data flows is
next to impossible.  What's to stop a Seattle resident from accessing a
pornographic wWW site in Vancouver?  In Tokyo?  In Amsterdam?

Another scenario -- Say I wished to send pornographic material to Australia
through email.  As I understand the transmission backbone system, my
information would be transmitted from Kingston, down the north shores of
Lake Ontario to Toronto, where I believe it hooks up with NSFnet, which
transports the message to southern California and off to Australia via
satellite.  Would the NSF (or, after privitization, the owners of the
network) be charged with dissemination/trafficking of pornography?

Michael Jones
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada


Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 18:24:50 -0800
From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: symposium on medical records

A symposium is coming up that has tremendous consequences for the privacy 
of sensitive personal medical records -- Toward an Electronic Patient Record
'95, 14-19 March 1995 in Orlando, Florida.  The basic idea is to put all
of your medical records on-line in a centralized repository, accessible to
any medical professional who needs them.  This is great when the folks in 
the emergency room need your records in a hurry, but it's not so great when
your records are also available to insurance companies and marketers, not 
to mention private investigators who are willing to push the law a little 
bit.  Right now the outlook for serious privacy protections on computerized
medical records is not so good.  As a result, I think it would be excellent 
if any net citizens were to attend this symposium and report back to the net

I would particularly direct your attention to a meeting of the Standards
Subcommittee on Access, Privacy and Confidentiality of Medical Records,
which is to be held on Sunday March 12th and will be open to the public.
It isn't good enough for privacy to be protected by vague principles and
guidelines after the systems have been designed.  Privacy capabilities such
as patients' control over their personal information must be built into the
technical standards, and if you can be in Florida in March then you can help
out by informing the net community about the progress of those standards.

More generally, the standards for a whole generation of privacy-sensitive
systems are being set right now -- Intelligent Transportation Systems are
another example -- and I think it's important for the net community to 
track the standard-setting process, publicizing problems and intervening 
to make sure that the new generation of standards makes full use of the 
new generation of privacy technologies -- especially technologies such as
digital cash that are based on public-key cryptography.  In the case of
medical records, some of the people designing the systems actually are aware
of the existence of these new privacy technologies.  The hard part is making
sure that real privacy protection is actually built into the standards
despite the probable pressure of various economic interests to the contrary.

The symposium is organized by the Medical Records Institute.  MRI is on 
the Web at http://www.nfic.com/mri/mri.html   But I particularly recommend 
the 36-page paper version of the conference announcement since it includes
information about the exhibitors -- valuable raw material for research by
privacy advocates.  MRI's e-mail address is 71431.2030@compuserve.com and
their paper address is 567 Walnut Street, PO Box 289, Newton MA 02160 USA.

Phil Agre, UCSD


Date:    24 Feb 1995 01:09:25 -0500
From:    "Dave Banisar" <banisar@epic.org>
Subject: EPIC Legislative Update 2.2

Privacy Legislation 104th Congress
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Last updated 2.23.95

An updated version of this document and the text of the
bills are available from cpsr.org /cpsr/privacy/epic/104th_congress_bills/

Quality Assurance in Drug Testing Act (HR 153). Introduced by Rep. Solomon.
Prohibits random drug tests, requires that employers have explicit written
policies and education, use certified labratories. Referred to Committee on

Individual Privacy Protection Act of 1995 (HR 184) Introduced by Rep. Collins
(D-ILL).Creates national Privacy Commission with authority to oversee
enforcement of Privacy Act. Referred to Committee on Government Reform and

Antitrust Reform Act of 1995 (HR 411). Introduced by Rep. Dingell (D-MI). 
Telecommunications reform bill. Includes section ordering FCC to conduct
privacy survey of new technologies and places limits on use of Customer
Propriety Number Information (CPNI). Referred to Committee on Commerce.

Postal Privacy Act of 1995 (HR 434) Introduced by Rep. Condit (D-CA).
Prohibits Post Office from selling personal information to direct marketers.
Referred to Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

Fair Health Information Practices Act of 1995 (HR 435). Introduced by Rep.
Condit (D-CA). Health Care privacy bill. Sets limits of access,use and
dissemination of personal medical information. Referred to Committee on
Commerce and 2 other committees.

Consumer Reporting Reform Act of 1995 (HR 561). Introduced by Rep. Gonzales
(D-TX). Updates 1970 Fair Credit Reporting Act to require better accuracy,
less expensive credit reports, limit use of credit records for direct
marketing and prohibit most uses of reports by employers. Referred to the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

***Bills that will negatively affect privacy***

The Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995 (HR 3). Introduced by Rep. McCollum.
Republician Crime Bill. Includes provision to substantially limit judicial
sanctions for illegal searches (exclusionary rule). Referred to Committee on
the Judiciary. Hearings held 1/19/95

FBI Counterintelligence Act of 1995 (HR 68). Introduced by Rep. Bereuter.
Authorizes easier access to credit reports by FBI for "national security
purposes." Referred to Committee on Banking and Financial Services

Interstate Child Support Enforcement Act (HR 195) Introduced by Rep. Roukema
(R-NJ).  Extends access to federal, state, local and commerical databases for
purposes of enforcing child support. Increases use of Social Security Numbers.
Creates database of new hires. Referred to Committee on Ways and Means and 3
other committees.

Social Security Account Number Anti-Fraud Act (HR 502). Introduced by Rep.
Calvert (R) Amends the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to establish a program to verify employee social security
information, and to require employers to use the program using 800# to verify
employee. Referred to Ways and Means.

Immigration Reform Act of 1995 (HR 560). Introduced by Gallegly. Requires
introduction of new tamperproof id cards for immigrants.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Act to enforce Employer Sanctions law (HR 570). Introduced by
Beilenson. Requires issues of new Social Security Card which is
"counterfeit-resistant ... contains fingerprint identification,
barcode validation, a photograph, or some other identifiable feature."
Card will be sole identification allowed for work authorization. Referred to
Committee on Ways and Means and Judiciary Committees.

Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 (HR 666). Introduced by Rep.
McCollum (R-FL). Allows introduction of evidence obtained by
illegal search or siezure that violates 4th Amend, statute or
rule of procedure if "objective belief" that search or siezure legal.
May allow illegal wiretaps, house searches to be used. Does not 
apply to IRS and BATF. Rejected amendment by Watt (D-NC) to replace language
with that of 4th Amendment. Passed by House Feb 8, 1995.

Criminal Alien Deportation Improvements Act of 1995 (HR 668). Introduced by
Smith (R-TX). Authorizes wiretaps for investigations of
llegal immigration. Passed by House Feb 10. Referred to Senate 
Judiciary Committee.

Illegal Immigration Control Act of 1995 (HR 756). Introduced by Hunter.
Authorized Wiretaps for illegal immigration investigations,
false id. Requires issuence of "enhanced" Social Security cards to
all citizens and resident aliens by year 2000 that will include photo, SSN,
and are machine readable. Orders Attorney General to create databases for
verification. Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995 (HR 785). Introduced by Johnson
(R-Conn). Makes SSN of parents public record by requiring their use on birth
cirtificates and marriage liscenses. Referred to the Committee on Ways and

Paperwork Reducation Act of 1995 (HR 830). Introduced by 
Controversal provision to benefit West Publishing limiting access
to public records removed after Internet campaign by TAP. Passed
by House Feb. 22 (418-0). House Report 104-37. See S. 244 below.

Communications Decency Act of 1995 (HR 1004). Introduced by Johnson
(SD). Same as Exon bill (see S. 314 below). Referred to Commerce and
Judiciary Committees.

Senate Bills

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 1995 (S. 3).
Senate Republician Crime Bill. Introduced by Dole. Includes provision to
substantially limit judicial sanctions for illegal searches (exclusionary
rule). Allows wiretapping for immigration, and false documents, allows
participation of foreign governments in domestic wiretapping and disclosure of
info to foreign law enforcement agencies.   Referred to Committee on the

Family Health Insurance Protection Act (S. 7). Introduced by Senator
Daschle(D-SD). Democratic Health Care Bill. Sets national standards for
transfer, privacy of medical records. Referred to Committee on Finance.

Exclusionary Rule Limitation Act of 1995 (S. 54). Introduced by Thurman. (See
HR 666 above).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (S. 244) Introduced by Sen. Nunn (D-GA).
Renews 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act. Sets OMB as controller
of information policy in government. Sets standards for collection, use,
protection of statistical information.  Referred to Committee on Government
Affairs. Approved by Committee Feb. 14.

Immigrant Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1995 (S. 269).
Introduced by Sen. Dole and Simpson. Creates national registry for 
workplace verification. Increases use of wiretaps for immigration
purposes. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Communications Decency Act of 1995 (S. 314). Introduced by Sen. Exon
(D-NE). Revises Communications Act to make transmittal of sexually
oriented communications a crime. Makes anonymous communications that 
are "annoying" a crime. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation. See EPIC alert 2.03 for more information.

Interstate Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995 (S. 456). Introduced by
Bradley (D-NJ). Creates databank of new hires. Allows datamatching with SSA
for verification. Increases use of SSN.
Referred to the Committee on Finance.

David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org)       * 202-544-9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301  * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org 
Washington, DC 20003                * HTTP://epic.digicash.com/epic


Date:    Fri, 24 Feb 1995 13:11:00 MDT
From:    YESLEY_MICHAEL_S@ofvax.lanl.gov
Subject: privacy of genetic information

ELSI Bibliography (1993) and Supplement (1994):

A bibliography of publications relevant to the ethical, legal and 
social implications (ELSI) of the Human Genome Project, compiled in 
1993, and a 1994 supplement to the bibliography are available, free 
on request, from the undersigned compiler.  The bibliography (265 p.) 
and supplement (88 p.) include sections on privacy of genetic 
The bibliography and supplement, published by the ELSI Program of 
the U.S. Department of Energy, are drawn from a database (7000 
entries) that we will make accessible and searchable on the World 
Wide Web in the near future, but at present the bibliography is 
available to the public only in post-tree, pre-landfill format.
Michael S. Yesley, J.D.
Mailstop A187
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, New Mexico  87545
Tel: (505) 665-2523
Fax: (505) 665-4424
Internet: msy@lanl.gov


Date:    Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:21:06 -0500
From:    zzbramblettc@acad.winthrop.edu (CURT BRAMBLETT 
Subject: CFP'95 Alert #1



Never has the need for a conference on computers, freedom, 
and privacy been so urgent.

New laws are being proposed. New commercial ventures are 
being launched. New arrests are being made. New conceptions 
(and misconceptions) are being spread by newspapers, 
magazines, books, and broadcast media. New lawsuits are being 
filed. New databases are being created.

In short, new threats are emerging and new crises are brewing,
all while new opportunities are evolving.

Exploring and better understanding the definition of our 
rights at this crucial crossroads of the Information Age 
requires a balanced public forum that includes participants from 
computer science, law, business, research, information, 
library science, health, public policy, law enforcement, 
public advocacy, and others.

That's the Fifth Conference on Computers, Freedom and 
Privacy. March 28-31, 1995. Burlingame, California.


If you have attended a previous Conference on Computers, 
Freedom and Privacy, you have some idea of the high quality 
and diversity of people the conference attracts as speakers 
and attendees. CFP'95 continues that tradition, but breaks 
new ground as well.

Topics: CFP'95 covers the critical issues of the day, 
including those that touch on freedom of speech, privacy, 
access to public records, freedom of association, and fair 
access to computer and telecommunications technologies. The 
program gives particular emphasis to how the growth of 
computer and data communications into the mainstream expands 
and threatens our freedoms.

Speakers: With more than half of the CFP'95 Program Committee 
new to organizing the conference, it should come as no 
surprise that CFP'95 is far from a gathering of the usual 

Among this year's featured speakers are John Morgridge, chairman 
of Cisco Systems; Roger Wilkins a Pulitzer Prize-winning 
commentator for National Public Radio and Professor of History 
and American Culture at George Mason University; Margaret Jane 
Radin, a Stanford Law School professor and expert on property 
law and political philosophy; and Esther Dyson, founder of EDventure 
Holdings, editor of Release 1.0., co-chair of the National
Information Infrastructure Advisory Council's Information Privacy 
and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, and among the leading 
experts on computers, software, and computer communications in 
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Also included in the CFP'95 program are

  *  Kent Walker, the Assistant United States Attorney who
     led the investigation and arrest of Kevin Mitnick.

  *  Brock Meeks, the journalist who defended himself from
     an Internet libel lawsuit earlier this year.

  *  Pamela Samuelson, the University of Pittsburgh law professor
     who co-authored the manifesto urging a radical redefinition
     of legal protection for computer software.

  *  Roger Karraker, the director of the Santa Rosa Junior
     College journalism program where the tension between
     free speech and sexual harassment on computer bulletin
     boards became a national news story.

  *  Virginia Rezmierski, the advisor on policy to the Vice
     Provost for Information Technology at the University of
     Michigan where Jake Baker was indicted for publishing a
     story on the Internet.

Formats: The issues discussed at CFP'95 have two or more 
sides, and rather than have panel of speakers after panel of 
speakers, the session formats have been designed to showcase 
different perspectives and stimulate audience interaction.

For example, Thursday afternoon features a Socratic forum on free 
speech and responsibility, led by professional moderator Professor 
Kim Taylor-Thompson of Stanford Law School. A Socratic forum assembles 
experts from various disciplines who role play themselves in a 
hypothetical scenario. The moderator fires questions and stokes 
discussion between the experts to create a bright light of information 
(as well as some white hot heat of controversy).


Register this week to save as much as $175 in registration 
fees. You can do this by mail, phone, fax, or electronic 
mail. See the contact information below for how to get 
registration information.


Each Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy is a non-
profit, non-commercial event. CFP'95 is no exception. 
Volunteer Coordinator Judi Clark has already assembled a 
remarkable corps of volunteers who will be staffing the 
registration desk, making sure sessions go smoothly, taking 
photographs, and a host of other indispensable functions.

Many thanks in advance to Judi and the rest of the volunteers 
for making CFP'95 possible.


Media Coordinator Scott Nicholas reports active press interest in CFP'95.
Requests for press credentials have already been received from national
newspapers, newsweeklies, broadcast media, foreign publications, and a
variety of trade magazines. Past CFPs have attracted CNN, the New York
Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today.  


Registration and other information about CFP'95 is readily 
available from many sources:

By WWW:        URL=http://www-techlaw.stanford.edu/CFP95.html
By Gopher:     www-techlaw.stanford.edu
By FTP:        www-techlaw.stanford.edu
By Email:      Info.CFP95@forsythe.stanford.edu
By Fax:        (415) 548-0840
By Telephone:  (415) 548-9673


End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 04.05

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