TUCoPS :: Privacy :: priv_415.txt

Privacy Digest 4.15 7/7/95

PRIVACY Forum Digest     Friday, 7 July 1995     Volume 04 : Issue 15

            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,
     		     and the Data Services Division 
	           of MCI Communications Corporation.

	Caller-ID for psychic knowledge (Rita C. Summers)
	Re: Why can't I see Equifax medical records? (Stanley Quayle)
	Re: Comedy Central - why have a password? (Martin Minow)
	Thermal imaging (Beth Givens)
	MasterCard Asks America [fwd] (Lance J. Hoffman)
	Do Readers Have a Right to Be Left Alone? (Thomas C. Leonard)
	V-Chip (Stephen Nelson)
	Re: V-Chip (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
	Tracking parolees (Phil Agre)
	International Cryptography Institute 1995: Global Challenges
	   (Dorothy Denning)
	Sixth Conference on Comupters, Freedom, and Privacy (Hal Abelson)
	National Privacy & Public Policy Symposium 

 *** 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

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 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 
server at the URL: "http://www.vortex.com".


   Quote for the day:

	"Those who are late will not get fruit cup."
			-- Nurse Diesel (Cloris Leachman)
			   "High Anxiety" (1977)


Date:    18 Jun 95 18:02:12 EDT
From:    "Rita C. Summers" <71461.2174@compuserve.com>
Subject: Caller-ID for psychic knowledge

Philip Yam, writing in the July Scientific American, mentions an innovative
use of Caller-ID. The context is a profile on James Randi, who specializes in
debunking "pseudoscientific and paranormal claims." Yam writes: "[Randi]
cites a self-proclaimed psychic who calls himself 'The Great Samaritan.'
Advertising on Spanish-language television, he asks viewers to dial a
900-number for psychic advice. With caller-identification technology and
banks of networked computers at their disposal, operators can obtain
financial and health records, convincing their unsuspecting callers of their
astrological prowess."

Rita Summers

		[ Of course, if they were *real* psychics, they
 		  wouldn't need Caller-ID anyway--they'd
		  already *know* the number you were calling from...
						-- MODERATOR ]


Date:    Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:22:51 -0400 (EDT)
From:    Stanley Quayle <squayle@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re:  Why can't I see Equifax medical records?

> He told me that there was a general convention in the credit business that
> medical creditors _only_ looked at your _medical_ credit entries, and that
> all other types of creditors customarily _ignored_ your medical credit;
> there's (according to him) a kind of Chinese Wall between the two sides of
> the house.
> We'd all, I'm sure, be interested to know if this is really the answer,
> though.

It's not the answer.  Medical records can only be released to a physician.
The theory is that you wouldn't understand the content of your records,
and professional help might be required in case the records indicate a
disease or condition of which you aren't aware.

And there's no separate category of "medical credit".  Your creditors,
medical or otherwise, are the same.


Stanley F. Quayle	N8SQ	+1 614 276-7507     Fax:  +1 614 276-2439
3375 Fisher Rd., Columbus, OH  43204-1412  USA
Internet:  squayle@pobox.com


Date:    Mon, 19 Jun 95 11:45:19 -0700
From:    minow@apple.com (Martin Minow)
Subject: re: Comedy Central - why have a password?

fc@all.net (Dr. Frederick B. Cohen) notes in Privacy V04 #13 that the
Comedy Central cable channel has a password protected Web Site with a
publicly-available password, and wonders why this would be needed. Here
are a few speculative answers:

-- They don't know better (this is my choice).
-- They want to give their viewers a sense of belonging (i.e., a "secret
   decoder ring") that gives them a sense of superiority/community.
-- They publish different UserID/Password combinations on different uplinks,
   or at different times, to get a better sense of their demographics.
   (If you read the computer trade magazines, you'll notice that the major
   mail-order companies use a great number of 800 numbers -- the one you use
   tells them where you read their advertisement.)

Martin Minow

		[ Demographics are probably the key.  The issues involved
		  in gathering even moderately accurate statistics
		  regarding user populations accessing web pages are
		  non-trivial.  "Registration" of various sorts, even
		  if only to force a person to "login" once during
		  a session so they may be counted as having taken
		  that specific action, is one technique being tried
		  in various quarters.  -- MODERATOR ]


Date:    Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:    Beth Givens <bgivens@pwa.acusd.edu>
Subject: thermal imaging

The most recent issue of _The John Marshall Journal of Computer
and Information Law_ has an article about thermal imaging:
"Thermal Imaging and the Fourth Amendment: Pushing the Katz
Test towards Terminal Velocity" by Daniel J. Polatsek (vol. 13,
no. 3, spring 1995)

Beth Givens				Voice: 619-260-4806
Project Director			Fax: 619-260-4753
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse		Hotline (Calif. only):
Center for Public Interest Law		   800-773-7748
University of San Diego			e-mail: bgivens@pwa.acusd.edu
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110

			[ Thanks for the "hot" tip!  -- MODERATOR ]


Date:    Thu, 22 Jun 1995 15:46:39 -0400 (EDT)
From:    "Lance J. Hoffman" <hoffman@seas.gwu.edu>
Subject: MasterCard Asks America (fwd)

Forwarded message:

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 11:40:16 -0700
From: Susan Evoy <evoy@pcd.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: MasterCard Asks America

Dear CPSR Privacy and Civil Liberties Expert,

	CPSR received a mailing from MasterCard today that looked 

The subtitle of the Press Release is "MasterCard Stops
on Information Super-Highway to Get Directions."  The program runs
until Independence Day.  "The goal of the program is to find out how
consumers feel about marketing practices that involve the collection,
sale and use of consumer information."


MasterCard Asks America

MasterCard wants to hear your views about the use of consumer 
information by business.  What are the benefits you see from 
targetted offers and special mailings?  How do you feel when 
businesses provide information on products and services through 
the mail or over the phone?  What would you like to know that 
would give you more control over the offers you receive?  

We welcome your thoughts on these or any other aspect of consumer
privacy by mail, phone or e-mail.

Call Toll Free  1-800-MC-AK-U-1 (1-800-622-7581)

Write to MasterCard Asks America
PO Box 27972, Washington, DC  20038-7972

Or e-mail

or http://www.mastercard.com
Professor Lance J. Hoffman
Dept of Elec Eng and Comp Sci, The Geo Washington U, 801 22nd St NW
Wash DC 20052   (202) 994-4955   Fax: (202) 994-0227  hoffman@seas.gwu.edu


Date:    Fri, 23 Jun 1995 10:53:18 PST
From:    <LEONARD@rosebud.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Do Readers Have a Right to Be Left Alone?

Privacy Forum has frequently cast a worried eye over the direct mail
industry but has rarely looked at the commercial media that have greater
potential to gather information about citizens-- newspapers and magazines.
PUBLISHERS FIND GOLD IN DATABASES, Advertising Age has announced. Outside
marketing circles, however, the discovery is little noted.  The nuggets here
are information about the reader, especially the subscriber's name and
address.  There is a brisk trade in these lists.  Your name on the
subscription record of an upscale magazine is worth a dime or two, every
time it is sold.  A single magazine may sell your name twenty-five times a
year.  Many of the most respected American magazines, such as the Atlantic
and the New Yorker, hawk reader's names in the trade press.  Names are not
in short supply.  Conde Nast has collected eleven million names; Times
Mirror had fifteen million; Hearst had fifty million; Meredith had fifty-six
million; and Reader's Digest had data on line for one hundred million
people, worldwide.  
Beyond the bare facts of subscription, the database gold mine that the press
is staking out consists of information that the public may never have of
thought of as a commodity:  their own names when they write letters to the
editor or pay for their subscription with a credit card; births, deaths,
marriages and divorces that come into the news; job switches; degrees and
licenses that people have earned; donations to local events and charities.
Seen this way, a great deal of local news is saleable data that marketers
would like to have.  Crime reports, for instance, can become names and
addresses of people who will be good customers for burglar alarms and
security lights.

List building is a new imperative of the newspaper business.  The Cowles
Publishing Company in Spokane, Washington has pioneered in segmenting its
readers.  Thanks to contests, the daily paper knows who owns dogs and who
has young children (they were flushed out in a drawing for circus tickets).
In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Gazette's MediaStar software allows reporters to
use customer profiles in writing stories and the marketing staff to use news
items in the search for more customers.  With a click on a desktop computer,
any street in Cedar Rapids can be summoned up, and every dwelling will glow
with a color that reveals the resident's social and economic position.  The
Washington Post, like other papers with the CityLine audiotex, gives
information to readers for free and in return builds a valuable database.
The names and numbers of callers with specific interests--stock quotes,
skiing conditions, sports scores--are used in the paper's own promotions and
sold to direct mail entrepreneur.  The trade journal Editor & Publisher has
noted that "when readers call a phone number for a survey of information, it
gives newspapers an unprecedented opportunity to capture information about
who those might be and what the key might be to their wants and desires."
This is truly uncharted territory for journalism.  What will happen when
papers have comprehensive, detailed databases on their community and can
trade this information for good will--a process that has begun.  Which
charities, which religions, which political interest groups will be favored
with this information?  Citizens may feel that their voluntary association
is being guided by the press.  With the integration of news and marketing,
the press will know more than anybody else about everyone's business.  And
journalists may also gain the suspicion that goes with comprehensive
knowledge.  The press will have the public relations problem of credit
agencies, motor vehicle registries, and tax collectors.  
I hope, too, that the press will get critical attention from people who
contribute to Privacy Forum.  The much-watched Direct Marketers, after all,
have a published ethical code and field questions about what they are up
to.  The American press has no such industry code for list building and
rarely lets readers in on the secret of what it is doing with their names.
This challenge to privacy is discussed more fully, with a literature review,
in the book Oxford University Press will publish this fall: News for All:
America's Coming of Age with the Press (ISBN 0-19-506454-2).  I would be
glad to hear from other investigators of this marketing trend in American

Thomas C. Leonard
Assoc. Dean, Graduate School of Journalism
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-5860

Fax (510) 643-9136
Tel (510) 642-8867


Date:    Tue, 27 Jun 95 14:14:00 PDT
From:    "Nelson, Stephen  I-Net   SSB" <snelson@b856s3a.ssc.af.mil>
Subject: V-Chip

The V-Chip may be the best thing to happen to us all in years. It really 
makes concrete a glaring hole in the "Community standards" argument that has 
been developing for awhile.

As I understand it, the "community standards" test was designed in reaction 
to broadcast media that couldn't be blocked from coming into every home. 
However, with the development of cable (which scrambles channels until you 
subscribe to them), people didn't have to be exposed to obscene material 
unless they requested it. Now we have on-line services, which you have to go 
looking for and in certain cases (Usenet news groups, for example) subscribe 
to. Now, we are seeing the possibility of blocking ALL content that a 
household finds objectionable.

If I ask for something that no one else can get except me in the privacy of 
my home, what community am I part of? and whose standards will I be 

	[ For those unfamiliar with the term, "V-Chip" refers to a concept
	  which is part of the recently passed U.S. Senate Telecommunications
	  rewrite bill (though not so far in the House version) which would
	  mandate a device to be included in new television receivers to
	  theoretically allow parents to "block" programming tagged as
	  "violent" from being seen by their children.
	  More on this below.  -- MODERATOR ]


Date:    Tue, 27 Jun 95 12:26:35 PDT
From:    lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
Subject: Re: V-Chip 

Stephen Nelson <snelson@b856s3a.ssc.af.mil> writes:
> The V-Chip may be the best thing to happen to us all in years. It really 
> makes concrete a glaring hole in the "Community standards" argument that has 
> been developing for awhile.

This is one of those cases where what seems reasonable in theory may
be quite undesirable in practice.

The problems of defining what would cause a program to be labeled as
"violent" or otherwise offensive is a very difficult one.  The MPAA (the
motion picture organization which assigns film ratings) has had a hard time
with this for years, and protracted battles are often fought over PG vs.
PG-13 vs. R ratings.  A film getting an R rating can doom its being playable
in many venues.  The problem will be much worse with television, given the
much larger number of shows, types of shows, and the rapid turnover of
programming.  Who is going to make these decisions?  I wasn't being
facetious in a recent digest when I asked if "Road Runner" cartoons will be
considered too violent--or the evening news.  Is the next step to try label
programs as anti-family if they show unmarried persons kissing too
passionately?  Or if they mention abortion?  Or discuss a political party the
parents vote against?

Unlike the online universe with its vast number of potential content
providers, the universe of available television production funding sources
is comparatively small, even when cable and pay channels are considered.
There is a general belief in the television industry, which I suspect is
justified, that due to the relatively small number of major advertisers who
support television programming and production, there will be boycott efforts
and related attacks against advertisers who support or buy time on shows
classified as "bad" by whatever criteria one group or another cares to use.
This has the effect of reducing the choices for everyone, since advertisers
tend to shy away from *any* controversy.  They'll be concerned about being
labeled as Anti-Whatever for buying time on a show tagged as "violent",
regardless of the real content.  Would a film like "Schindler's List" make
it to an airing on television via this test?  

Advertisers may also feel that they shouldn't spend their money on
programming that can't reach the maximum potential number of
viewers--fearing that parents will just leave "V-blocking" mode always
enabled so that they don't have to bother judging the merits of individual
programs and films.  This could make being tagged as a "V" program pretty
much the kiss of death with many (most?) advertisers.

And of course there's always the problem that by labeling something as
forbidden, you make it even more attractive to children--who most likely
will be much more adept at handling the controls of the V-Chip sets than
their parents will!

Parents rightly are concerned about controlling what their children watch on
television--though most of the same arguments regarding the purported
negative impacts of television were made in the past regarding radio, comic
books, 50's & 60's rock 'n' roll, jazz, and even classic literature.
However, many persons feel that the V-Chip concept is an attempt at coming
up with an overly "simple" solution to a complex problem, a "solution" which
in this case would have significant negative impacts and would in effect
result in the censoring (through non-production and non-airing) of a wide
variety of programming (some of high quality and some not) that adults would
wish to view.



Date:    Wed, 5 Jul 1995 20:31:50 -0700
From:    Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: tracking parolees

From a privacy perspective, many of the most worrisome new technologies are
emerging from projects to "convert" defense technologies to civilian use.
Many of these cases provide grounds for worry that we might be militarizing
civilian life.  An example of this process is found in the following

  Ed Mendel, SD firm seeks a body "bug" to track parolees, San Diego
  Union-Tribune, 1 May 1995, pages A1, A10.

This article reports work by a San Diego area firm, Science Applications
International Corp (SAIC) to produce a tracking device that can be fastened
to the body of a parolee.  The article opens as follows:

  A convenience store is robbed.  Were any parolees present?

  A sex offender stops at a schoolyard.  Can authorities be alerted?

The article rapidly surveys the technical arguments, cites civil liberties
concerns, and closes with an endorsement of such systems by Newt Gingrich.

How can we reason about this?  It's easy to get on a slippery slope.  Given
the choice between keeping someone in jail for an extra year and putting
them on the street with a tracking device, the latter option seems like less
of an invasion of privacy -- not to mention cheaper.  But, beyond parolees,
what is the class of people for whom it is reasonable to prescribe automatic

  * probationers? they're mentioned in the article

  * deadbeat dads? 

  * deadbeat dads who have been caught skipping out on their payments? 

  * other debtors?

  * people who are temporarily in the country on "guest worker" programs?
    (in the US these people are known as "illegal aliens")

  * sex offenders who have served their terms?

  * children whose parents are worried that they might be kidnapped?

  * children whose custodial parent has reason to believe that they might
    be kidnapped by the non-custodial parent?

  * children whose parents are concerned that they might run away?

  * children who have run away repeatedly?

  * gang members?

  * people who have not been convicted of crimes but who have been served
    with restraining orders keeping them away from someone's residence or

  * people who have repeatedly violated such orders, or who have a history
    of violence?

You can probably extend this list.  I would honestly like to know how many
people in the United States fall under each of the descriptions I have just
offered.  Then we can easily total up the percentage of the population that
would be automatically tracked if various criteria were adopted.  The answer
might be scary.

But to speak of "tracking" greatly underestimates the capabilities of these
systems.  If the tracking device is coupled with a cheap communications
device such as a pager then the person being tracked can be submitted to
an arbitrarily complicated control regime.  For example, the person might
be restricted to a certain schedule (at work during certain hours and home
during all other hours, following commuting routes back and forth), and a
protocol might be established to negotiate permission to deviate from the
schedule.  This negotiation might be similar to the clearing of a credit
card in a store.  American Express has an elaborate expert system for this
purpose, and we might imagine a similar scheme for people whose movements
are restricted.  Such schemes would probably be framed in humane terms.
For example, the Union-Tribune article says:

  Backers ... say the option of tracking some parolees and probationers
  could provide more protection for the public, help cut prison costs
  and carefully control offenders as they learn work habits and make
  other social adjustments needed for a productive life.

What habits and other social adjustments do *you* need for a productive

Phil Agre, UCSD

			[ And of course, the application of such systems
			  might be promoted as "voluntary"--meaning that the
			  person involved would be given the "choice" of
			  either entering the control regime or of spending
			  time in jail, not coming into the country, etc.

			  But are such choices truly voluntary, or are they
			  actually highly coercive situations where little
			  or no voluntary choice is actually involved?
							-- MODERATOR ]


Date:    Fri, 23 Jun 95 11:23:07 EDT
From:    denning@cs.cosc.georgetown.edu (Dorothy Denning)


                          September 21-22, 1995
                              Washington, DC

	                       Presented by
	     The National Intellectual Property Law Institute 

The International Cryptography Institute will address the cryptography
challenges associated with meeting the information protection needs of
users and the law enforcement and national security needs of nations.
Topics to be covered include national and international cryptography
policies and regulations, international requirements and approaches,
commercial cryptography, privacy and trust, key escrow encryption,
business requirements, law enforcement requirements, and the use of
cryptography with electronic payments.


September 21

Welcome and Opening Remarks
James Chandler, President, National Intellectual Property Law Institute
Dorothy E. Denning, Chair of Program
David Kahn, Visiting Historian, National Security Agency, U.S.

Cryptography in Business
M. Blake Greenlee, U.S.

Commercial Use of Cryptography
Nick Mansfield, Shell International, The Netherlands

10:20-10:50 Break

Computer Industry Position on Privacy and Trust in an Information Society
Yves Le Roux, Digital Equipment Corporation, France

The International Cryptography Experiment and Worldwide Cryptographic 
   Products Survey
David Balenson, Trusted Information Systems, Inc., U.S.

Export Controls on Encryption Software
Ira Rubenstein, Microsoft Corp., U.S.

12:30-2:00 Lunch With Keynote
Louis J. Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Cryptography and the Information Society: Recent Developments in the
   European Union
David J. Gould, Cabinet Office, U.K.

Encryption Policy and Technology in Japan
Mitsuru Iwamura, The Bank of Japan, Japan

3:30-3:50 Break

Towards an Australian Policy on Encryption
Peter Ford, Attorney General's Department, Australia

International Regulation of Cryptography: An Update
James Chandler, National Intellectual Property Law Institute, U.S.

5:30-6:30 Reception

September 22

U.S. Government Cryptography Policy
Michael R. Nelson, Office of Science and Technology Policy, U.S.
Ronald D. Lee, National Security Agency, U.S.

Law Enforcement Requirements for Encryption
William E. Baugh, Jr., Edward L. Allen, Michael D. Gilmore,
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S.

10:10-10:40 Break

International Key Escrow Encryption
Dorothy E. Denning, Georgetown University, U.S.

Transnational Key Escrow
Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Villanova University School of Law, U.S.

12:00-1:30 Lunch

Commercial and International Key Escrow
Stewart A. Baker, Steptoe & Johnson, U.S., moderator
Stephen T. Walker, Trusted Information Systems, Inc., U.S.
Frank Sudia, Bankers Trust Company, U.S.
Carmi Gressel and Itai Dror, Fortress U & T Ltd., Israel

3:00-3:20 Break

Billing and Paying Over the Internet
Dan Schutzer, Citibank, U.S.

Digital Cash
Ernest F. Brickell, Bankers Trust Company, U.S.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            LOCATION AND FEES

ICI '95 will be held at the National Intellectual Property Law Institute,
1815 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC, third floor.                           

Registration is $695 before September 1 and $795 thereafter ($395/$495
for U.S. Government).  Payment includes all conference materials, two
lunches, and a cocktail reception.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                            REGISTRATION FORM






Fee:                   General         U.S. Gov't

      Before 9/1/95   _____ $695       _____ $395

      After  9/1/95   _____ $795       _____ $495

Payment (check one)
  __  Check payable to The National Intellectual Property Law Institute
  __  MasterCard  __  VISA

      Card #:
      Expiration Date:


Registration by Fax: 800-304-MIND     Phone: 800-301-MIND
                     202-296-4098            202-842-4800

Mail Registration with payment to:

      The National Intellectual Property Law Institute
      1815 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006


Date:    Tue, 27 Jun 1995 21:35:34 -0700
From:    hal@murren.ai.mit.edu (Hal Abelson)
Subject: Sixth Conference on Comupters, Freedom, and Privacy 
	 -- Call for Papers

		      ***Please redistribute***

		Call for Participation (June 27, 1995)


		Massachusetts Institute of Technology
			  March 27-30, 1996

The sixth annual Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy (CFP96)
will be held in Cambridge, MA, on March 27-30, 1996.  The conference
is hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and sponsored
by the Association for Computing Machinery and the World Wide Web
Consortium.  Cooperating organizations include the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, Privacy International, the Center for Democracy and
Technology, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the Harvard
University Institute for Law, Information, and Technology.

CFP96 is the sixth in a series of annual conferences designed to bring
together experts and advocates from the fields of computer science,
law, business, public policy, law enforcement, library science, and
government to explore how information technologies are affecting
freedom and privacy.

Since the first CFP conference in 1991, these concerns have evolved
from the preoccupations of a few specialists to major, controversial
issues of public policy.  Topics to be addressed at CFP96 include:

  - regulation of content on computer networks
  - intellectual property considerations of digital libraries and
    electronic communications media
  - enhanced access to public government information
  - control of cryptographic technology
  - illegal activity in cyberspace and challenges for law enforcement
  - privacy implications of national/personal identification systems
  - standards for transborder data flow and data protection
  - proper secondary uses of information in government and electronic
  - new roles for libraries regarding information access and networking.
  - liability of system operators and network access providers

CFP offers a much-needed neutral ground where people from widely
different backgrounds and positions can learn from one another other.

Presentations at CFP traditionally take the form of interactive panels
and discussions, rather than formal papers.  The CFP96 Program
Committee is currently soliciting proposals for presentations, and we
invite your suggestions.  We especially invite proposals that place
issues in an international context and involve participants from
different countries.

Proposals may be for individual talks, panel discussions, debates, or
other events in appropriate formats.  (We welcome ideas for "other
events".)  Each proposal should be accompanied by a one-page statement
describing the topic and format.  Descriptions of multi-person
presentations should include a list of proposed participants and
session chair.  Proposals should be sent by email to


Proposals should be submitted as soon as possible to allow thorough
consideration for inclusion in the formal program. The deadline for
submissions is 1 September 1995.

For more information on CFP96, consult the conference web page at


or send email with a blank subject line and blank body to


Date:    Wed, 28 Jun 1995 17:24:37 -0400 (EDT)
From:    RAKEROYD@csunet.ctstateu.edu
Subject: National Privacy & Public Policy Symposium 

                            is Sponsoring a
                          November 3-4, 1995
                         Hartford, Connecticut


What and When

The National Privacy and Public Policy Symposium will for the first
time bring together experts from a broad range of professions to
discuss and actually define what privacy is and is not. It will be
held on November 3-4, 1995 at the Aetna Life and Casualty Company's
Conference Center and Home Office in Hartford, Connecticut. Only 250
seats will be available to the general public. So reserve the dates.
Better yet, register now and guarantee your place at this unique

The Program

The symposium will consist of plenary sessions, focused panels and
informal gatherings. The symposium will be led by Claire L. Gaudiani,
President of Connecticut College. Dr. Gaudiani has an expertise in
public policy development, a knowledge of the concepts of privacy and
the facility to lead a diverse group of exceptionally capable people
in a discourse that policy-makers and the public can readily
comprehend. Professor Alan Westin of Columbia University, who wrote
the seminal article on modern concepts of privacy in America, will
present a social and legal history of privacy. Professor Westin's
history, along with individual panel papers and the proceedings of the
symposium, will be published. Vice President Albert Gore and FBI
Director Louis Freeh have been invited as luncheon and dinner
speakers. In addition, an internationally prominent faculty will focus
on key privacy issues in bio-technology and medicine, business, the
economics of information (information as an asset), government
information practices and freedom of information, information and
communications technologies, journalism, law (constitutional,
criminal, intellectual property and tort) and national security and
law enforcement.

The Organizers

The Connecticut Foundation for Open Government (CFOG) is a tax-exempt,
non-profit corporation established to increase public awareness and
understanding of the benefits and importance of open government. Its
board of directors is composed of leaders from business, education,
government and the news media.

What You Can Do

If you would like more information about the National Privacy and
Public Policy Symposium, or would like to pre-register, fill out and
return the Pre-registration Form.  Registration by the general public
is limited and will be accepted on a first-come basis.


Pre-registration Form

Send To:  National Privacy & Public Policy Symposium
          18-20 Trinity Street
          Hartford, Connecticut  06106

(Name)      (Mailing Address)

(Title)      (City, State, Zip Code)

(Organization)     (Telephone and Fax Numbers)

Check the Appropriate Box
[ ] Please register me for the symposium; payment is enclosed; make
    checks payable to CFOG.*
[ ] Please send me further information about the symposium.
[ ] I cannot attend, but would like to obtain symposium publications
    and/or tapes recordings.

*The registration fee is $350 (U.S.) and must be enclosed with this
form to confirm your registration. The fee covers attendance at the
symposium, all printed publications and the cost of two breakfasts,
one lunch and one reception (cash bar) and dinner. Full refunds will
be made for cancellations received before October 25, 1995. A service
charge of $50 (U.S.) will be assessed for any cancellation made
between October 25, 1995 and November 2, 1995. No refunds can be made

The Aetna Conference Center has a number of comfortable and convenient
rooms available at reasonable rates. If you are interested in booking
a room at the conference center, please call Pam Sakow at (203)


End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 04.15

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