TUCoPS :: Privacy :: priv_504.txt

Privacy Digest 5.04 2/9/96

PRIVACY Forum Digest     Friday, 9 February 1996    Volume 05 : Issue 04

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

               The PRIVACY Forum is supported in part by the          
                 ACM (Association for Computing Machinery)
	         Committee on Computers and Public Policy,      
          "internetMCI" (a service of the Data Services Division         
      of MCI Telecommunications Corporation), and Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                 - - -
             These organizations do not operate or control the     
          PRIVACY Forum in any manner, and their support does not
           imply agreement on their part with nor responsibility   
        for any materials posted on or related to the PRIVACY Forum.

	Privacy legislation (Dick Mills)
	Tape recording conversations (David J. Coles)
	Telecomm Bill and Indecency (Neal J. Friedman)
	Internet Censorship Lawsuit (David Sobel)
	Access to DMV records by rental car companies (Paul Robinson)
	E-mail Privacy Policy (Joe Short)
	Privacy Files ABSTRACTS (Pierrot Peladeau)
	Call for Papers (Winn Schwartau)

 *** 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";
full keyword searching of all PRIVACY Forum files is available via
WWW access.


   Quote for the day:

	"Who said anything about heaven?
	 ... this IS the other place!"

		  -- "Pip" (Sebastian Cabot)
	  	     "The Twilight Zone" (original version: 1959-1964)
	              Episode: "A Nice Place to Visit"


Date:    Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:46:24 -0500
From:    rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills)
Subject: Privacy legislation

In Privacy Forum Digest V05 #03, the MODERATOR wrote
   Assuming this service operates as described, it
   but another example of the widespread practice
   of making customer information available with
   minimal or no security provisions by many entities.

   When questioned, firms implementing such systems usually
   claim they can't imagine why anybody would be concerned
   about the release of such information...

   It is unlikely that such systems can be effectively
   controlled without new privacy legislation.

What would such legislation look like?  As I understand it,
the traditions in privacy law are based on the concept of
"reasonable expectations" of privacy.  As the very case
you comment on illustrates, we all have wildly divergent
views of what is reasonable in each scenario.

The accelerating pace of technology creates so many new
and novel scenarios every day, that I despair at the thought
of having to resolve reasonableness disputes case by case
in front of a judge.  Before the ink is dry on one case,
a hundred new scenarios will pop up.  Even a hundred 
Judge Wapners, each disposing of one case every 10 minutes
couldn't keep up :)

How can we formulate privacy laws that:

a)  transcend the inventiveness of new technology?

b)  are simple and clear enough that the public and business 
    can understand and apply the law more or less correctly 
    in their daily lives without consulting a lawyer on 
    every issue?

Dick Mills                               +1(518)395-5154
AKA dmills@albany.net      http://www.albany.net/~dmills 

	[ It is indeed a difficult area!  I submit that a starting point is
	  to determine to what extent information collected by an entity in
	  the course of providing a business or information transaction is
	  "owned" by that entity.  Do they (or should they?) have unlimited
	  rights to use that information internally for marketing and other
	  purposes?  Should they be unconditionally free to sell that
	  information to other organizations, and/or provide it to third party
	  databases?  What recourse, controls, or choices should the person
	  about whom the information was collected have regarding these
	  matters?  If we can establish these and related general points, it
	  may be much easier to deal with specific cases. 

							 -- MODERATOR ]


Date:    Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:23:56 -0500
From:    DJC1143@aol.com
Subject: tape recording conversations

     I am a teacher in a large school system.  Recently I had a conference
with a very abusive parent.  The tone and actions  of this parent were very
threatening to me.  I feel I need some protection at future conferences.

     Is it legal for me to tape record future conferences with this parent?
 Is it legal to do so without his knowledge?  Must I inform him in advance if
I intend to tape the conference?  If he refuses, may I still legally tape the

     I am required by my superiors to have these conferences with anyone who
signs up for them.  I feel that I have no recourse when a parent can change
or twist anything that is said and I as a teacher can't prove otherwise.  I
have been teaching 25 years and this kind of thing has never happened to me

David J. Coles


Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 17:11:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Neal J. Friedman <njf@commlaw.com>
Subject: Telecomm Bill and Indecency


	TO:	All Internet Clients
	DATE:	February 2, 1996
	RE:	Telecommunications Act Imposes Controls on Indecent and
		Obscene Content on the Internet and Online Services

	The newly-enacted Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that it
is the policy of the United States to "promote the continued development of
the Internet and other interactive computer services."  But, for the first
time, it puts the federal government in the business of regulating the
Internet and online services.  The legislation does not go as far as some
had feared, but further than others had hoped.

	The statute prohibits the use of interactive computer services to
make or make available an indecent communication to minors.  It defines
indecency as: "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or
excretory activities or organs."  This definition has been upheld in other
cases involving the broadcast media.  The bill's supporters expect that it
will withstand the inevitable Constitutional challenge.  Indeed, Congress
provided that any challenge should first go to a special three-judge panel
and then directly to the Supreme Court. The Conference Committee Report
accompanying the bill argues that the new indecency prohibition will "pose
no significant risk to the free-wheeling and vibrant nature of discourse or
to serious literary, and artistic works that can be currently found on the
Internet, and which is expected to continue and grow."

	The language requires that the communication must be knowing and
specifically exempts online service providers who merely provide access to
the Internet.  The Conference Report states that the intent is to focus on
"bad actors and not those whose actions are equivalent to those of common
carriers."  This is good news for those service providers who only host
content for others and exercise no control over the content.  But, the
legislation goes on to state specifically that it is not the intent of
Congress to treat online services as common carriers or telecommunications
carriers for other purposes.  If the online services were to be considered
as common carriers, they would be insulated from liability for any content
on their systems.  Thus, the question of liability of online services for
defamation and copyright and trademark infringement remains unclear.

	The legislation also provides a "Good Samaritan" defense for service
providers who have taken "in good faith, reasonable, effective and
appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access by
minors" to prohibited communications or have restricted access to indecent
content by means of a verified credit card, debit account, adult access
code, or adult personal identification number.

	The role of the Federal Communications Commission is restricted
under the new law.  The FCC is only permitted to describe measures that are
reasonable, effective and appropriate to restrict access to prohibited
communications, but it cannot give its approval to such measures nor can it
penalize any service provider for failing to use the measures.  

	The new law also prohibits states from exercising control over
content of online services.  States can control content entirely within
their borders so long as the control is not inconsistent with the federal
law.  Some state legislatures had, in reaction to publicity over alleged
pornographic and indecent content online, considered bills that would have
put tight restrictions on content.

	The full text of the entire Telecommunications Act of 1996,
incorporating the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and the Conference
Report are available on our World Wide Web site: http://www.commlaw.com.

						Sincerely yours,


							Neal J. Friedman

Neal J. Friedman  | Pepper & Corazzini, LLP   |Voice:       
 njf@commlaw.com  |   1776 K Street, N.W.     | 202-296-0600
Telecommunications|       Suite 200           |Fax:         
& Information Law |  Washington, D.C. 20006   | 202-296-5572

			[ The Conference Report and full text of the
			  enacted Telecom Bill are also available
			  in the PRIVACY Forum archive.  They each run
			  between 300K and 400K in length.

			  One thing I can say for certain about the Telecom
			  Bill--it will have effects and ramifications that
			  cannot be accurately predicted.  More
			  competition?  Massive media concentration?  Lower
			  rates?  Higher rates?  Greater communication?
			  Censorship?  The court battles have already
			  begun (see next message).
			  Regarding the "Communications Decency" aspects of
			  the legislation, neither the absolute prohibitions
			  written into the existing act, nor the concept of
			  100% uncontrolled and totally anonymous access on
			  demand by anyone to all information, seem likely
			  to be practical.  My personal view is that the
			  twin goals of protecting minors and allowing
			  "anonymous" access to information by adults could
			  be met through a properly designed public-key
			  based authentication system.  

			  But we have to start talking *to* each other,
			  rather than past each other, before we can
			  make any real progress.

						-- MODERATOR ]


Date: 6 Feb 1996 16:10:17 -0500
From: "David Sobel" <sobel@epic.org>
Subject: Internet Censorship Lawsuit

A press conference will be held in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, 
February 6, to announce a broad-based constitutional challenge to 
the recently-enacted "Communication Decency Act."  The case will 
be litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union and co-counsel 
from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the 
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).  More than a dozen 
organizations will participate as plaintiffs.

The press conference will be held at 10:30 a.m. at the ACLU's 
Washington Office:

     122 Maryland Ave., N.E.
     Washington, DC
     (across from the U.S. Supreme Court)

EPIC will issue the following statement at that time:


For Release:                         Contact:
February 6, 1996, 10:00 a.m.         David L. Sobel (202) 544-9240

     Internet "Indecency" Legislation: An Unconstitutional 
           Assault on Free Speech and Privacy Rights

     Washington, DC - The Electronic Privacy Information Center 
(EPIC) will participate as both plaintiff and co-counsel in 
litigation to challenge the so-called "Communications Decency 
Act."  The lawsuit will be filed in Philadelphia soon after the 
President signs the telecommunications bill containing the 
Internet "indecency" provisions.  EPIC joins the American Civil 
Liberties Union and more than a dozen other organizations in 
challenging this ill-advised and unconstitutional attempt to 
impose governmental content regulation on emerging global 
electronic media.

     The legislation's vague "indecency" standard will have an 
obvious impact upon the free speech rights of millions of 
Americans who use computer networks to receive and distribute 
information.  Less apparent is the assault on privacy rights that 
the legislation will engender.  

     To avoid potential criminal liability under the "indecency" 
provision, information providers would, in effect, be required to 
verify the identities and ages of all recipients of material that 
might be deemed inappropriate for children.  The new statutory 
regime would thus result in the creation of "registration records" 
for tens of thousands of Internet sites, containing detailed 
descriptions of information accessed by particular recipients.  
These records would be accessible to law enforcement agencies and 
prosecutors investigating alleged violations of the statute.  Such 
a regime constitutes a gross violation of Americans' rights to 
access information privately and anonymously.

     Less than a year ago, the Supreme Court upheld the right to 
anonymous speech in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission..  EPIC 
believes that the Court's rationale in that case applies with even 
greater force to the Internet "indecency" provisions.  The Court 
noted that

     The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by 
     fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern 
     about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to 
     preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. ...

     Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.  
     It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of 
     Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to 
     protect unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and 
     their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an 
     intolerant society. 

     Whether the anonymous individuals visiting sites on the World 
Wide Web are seeking information on teenage pregnancy, AIDS and 
other sexually transmitted diseases, classic works of literature 
or avant-garde poetry, they enjoy a Constitutional right to do so 
privately and anonymously.  The Communications Decency Act seeks 
to destroy that right.

     EPIC is confident that upon review of the legislation and its 
impact upon free speech and privacy rights in emerging electronic 
media, the courts will invalidate the measure as fundamentally at 
odds with the Constitution.


     The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public 
interest research center in Washington, DC.  It was established in 
1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues relating 
to the National Information Infrastructure, such as the Clipper 
Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, Internet censorship, medical 
record privacy, and the sale of consumer data. EPIC is sponsored 
by the Fund for Constitutional Government, a non-profit 
organization established in 1974 to protect civil liberties and 
constitutional rights.  EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues 
Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy 

                             - 30 -



Date:    Fri, 09 Feb 1996 11:53:48 EST
From:    Paul Robinson <paul@TDR.COM>
Subject: Access to DMV records by rental car companies

According to a report over the radio, a little-noticed provision of one 
of the crime bills which have come out allows a rental car company to 
check your driving record.

According to the report, two or three incidents - an accident or certain 
types of tickets - is enough to cause you to be blacklisted.

Where are the problems in this?

1.  There is no announcement of this practice; you're not likely to find
    out until you get to the counter and can't rent a car.

2.  There is no appeals process available.  

3.  There is no means available to provide for corrections or to 
    determine where or how the error occurred in the event you are caught 
    short by this happening.

4.  No consideration is made as to the severity of the offenses or 
    whether you were even at fault in the accident; if the information
    is there, you walk.


5.  What proof do we have that those who are inquiring into the database
    are authorized to do so, that they are actually looking up the record
    for that customer, and what privacy protections do we have against
    unauthorized inquiries?  Do we have the right to password-protect our
    own account?

6.  What protections do we have against the risk of erroneous data in
    a report?

7.  Is this the same data as is available at a DMV or DPS office, and if
    not, in what way is it different?

7.  Are there rights under law to get errors corrected?  For damages for
    inconvenience due to errors?  Any right to collect damages for 
    misconduct if knowingly false information is placed in a database?
    Or for failure to timely followup inquiries and remove errors?
    Government agencies are not known for speed in action unless, like
    with large organizations, damages and fines are available to those
    who are injured due to error, negligence or misconduct.


1.  Whenever making a reservation for a car at a rental agency,
    book it with multiple agencies, then once you have the car, cancel 
    or reschedule the ones not needed.  (I do this because I have been 
    extremely inconvenienced when there are conditions imposed at the 
    rental counter I couldn't meet when I'd booked a car and made plans 
    weeks in advance; if I had known about them beforehand I could have
    done something about them.)

2.  If you get caught short in any circumstances, try another agency if
    (as is usually the case) asking for a supervisor doesn't help.

3.  When making a reservation, ask if they do checking of one's driving 
    record.  If they do, and you want or must use that particular 
    agency, then ask them to check your record in advance so you can 
    know if there are any problems.

4.  Get a copy of your driving record so you can know if there are any
    errors or inaccurate reports.  In Maryland, where I live, a 3-year
    report costs $5 if uncertified, and $8 if certified; a full-report
    of everything on file is $10 and $15, respectively.  (My report 
    showed nothing at all.)

5.  The above could also apply to certain issues regarding credit
    reports, for the same or similar reasons.

Paul Robinson


Date:    Tue, 06 Feb 1996 17:55:50 -0500
From:    Joe Short <jshort@fuentez.com>
Subject: E-mail Privacy Policy


I need to find information concerning employee e-mail privacy, and related

As the LAN Manager, I have been asked to draw up a company policy defining
the corporate legal view with regard to privacy of employee e-mail.

The corporate board would like to make legal the practice of monitoring
employee's e-mail.

We had a situation that involved a manager reviewing the e-mail of an
employee that had just been given notice of termination, effective 2 weeks
after the incident.

The employee complained, the manager apologized, and the employee has since
left the company.

I found references to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of
1986 which explicitly prohibits the above actions by the manager unless
written consent was given by the employee.

I now need to find the ECPA document to back up my initial references.

I assume that the board wants to be assured that employees will  1) use
office e-mail for business purposes, and  2) make the employee aware that
his/her e-mail can and may be monitored at any time.

The employee will be asked to sign a consent form upon being granted an
e-mail account.

I have been in secure environments in the past that had guidelines
explaining  that other forms of communications may be monitored, but this is
the first time I have dealt with e-mail privacy/security.

What type of precedents have been set in this area?

If this area has been covered in the past on this list, please refer me to
the appropriate archives.

I would also appreciate it if anyone can point me in a direction to find the
ECPA and other relevant documents.

This is not my area of expertise, and I do not want to make the mistake of
putting together a hastily-built and unresearched policy!

Thanks for your help!!

-- Joe

Fuentez Systems Concepts, Inc.
11781 Lee Jackson Highway
Suite 700
Fairfax,  VA   22033
URL:   http://www.fuentez.com
Voice: (703)273-1447
Fax:   (703)273-2972

 	[ The PRIVACY Forum archive can be accessed via ftp.vortex.com,
	  gopher.vortex.com, or www.vortex.com.  The latter of the 
	  three access routes also provides keyword searching of the
	  entire archive.  -- MODERATOR ]


Date:    Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:31:22 -0500 (EST)
From:    Pierrot Peladeau <pierrot.peladeau@PROGESTA.COM>
Subject: Privacy Files ABSTRACTS

	ABSTRACTS and keywords of the contents of current issues of 
Privacy Files are now available through a list server.

	Privacy Files (ISSN 1203-3225), published 10 times a year, is a 
newsletter cum professional magazine. As a newsletter, it is a source of 
information of interest to those dealing within or with the Canadian 
personal informational space. As a magazine, it presents the opinions 
and analyses of professionals, academics and other experts on managing 
social, legal, ethical, technical, administrative issues related to 
personal information processing and privacy protection.

	To receive Privacy Files Abstracts, send the message:
"Add me to 'Privacy Files Abstracts' list < your name >" to:

    [ ABSTRACTS est aussi disponible en francais. Pour s'abonner envoyez
     le message "Ajoutez-moi a la liste 'Sommaires de Privacy Files'
     < votre nom >" a: privacy.files@progesta.com ]

	* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
	*  PRIVACY FILES office/bureau  <privacy.files@progesta.com>    *
	*  1788 d'Argenson, Ste-Julie (Quebec) CANADA  J3E 1E3          *
	*  tel : +1 (514) 922 9151     fax: +1 (514) 922 9152           *
	*  tel : (toll free/sans frais: Canada & US): (800) 922 9151    *
	* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Date:    Wed, 31 Jan 1996 22:08:03 -0500
From:    winn@Infowar.Com
Subject: Call for Papers

                ***** CALL FOR PAPERS *****

        Please feel free to distribute this widely.

I first want to thank the thousands of people who have been so incredibly
supportive of my work over the last several years, and who have helped the
public debate on Information Warfare gain and sustain the momentum we have
all created.

As a result of the continued interest in the subject, my publisher has asked
if I would create a 2nd. Edition with substantial updates to the original
"Information Warfare" which was published in 1994. I told them that the new
revised edition should include much of the thinking that has evolved on the
topic in the last couple of years. Believe it or not, they agreed!

So, I am asking (begging? :-)  for a couple of things.

	1. We want to include a comprehensive Appendix "D" to include
references and bibliographic information for those already in and for those
entering the field. We would greatly appreciate any and all types of
references that you feel will be useful for students of Infowar today and in
the future. The kinds of material we hope to include are:
		- Web sites, mailing lists, usenet, etc. 
                - Monographs and their source
	        - Published papers and their source 
	        - Books with publisher, author, 
		  date, ISDN (oops, ISBN) price and a one 
		  sentence commentary. 
	        - Global resources on the subject.  
		- Courses (civilian, military, etc.) 
		- Organizations, private and gov't.

We will also add a credit/acknowledgments page for all of the Information
Warriors who have assisted in this effort. Please supply name, title (or
rank) contact info, and affiliation as you want it to appear in the book.
(If you don't want your name or affiliation to appear, please so indicate
and we will honor your request. (Honest . . . .)

Ideally, we will need to have a hard copy of the materials that we reference.


	2. In order to portray the current thinking of Infowar from its many
facets, I am also looking for short commentaries on your particular take on
Infowar - and heavens knows there are so many . . . perhaps googols! 

I would like to include a large number of 500-800 word overviews, or
executive summaries of topics of interest to you, comments on my work, or
perhaps on the efforts that you or your org are putting into the field. I am
hoping to find a balance between the civilian viewpoints and military and
international ones so that students and readers can see just how much work
in occurring in the field.  Organizations like AFIWC and DISA (and so on)
are invited to submit a similar overview of their efforts in addition to
individual submissions.

It is not necessary to agree with me (that would be heresy in some cases
:-)) but let's be civil about it, OK? The purpose is to get the neurons
vibrating and moving the field forward. 

If you take issue with, or relate to specific items/topics/comments in
"Information Warfare" please note page number so we can tie it all together
thematically. There will be suffixes to each chapter, and I am hoping that
many of the responses will comment on or add to each of the chapters.

As for credit, we will list your name, contact info, affiliation etc., along
with your particular contribution. With each submission, please just say
something like, "I hereby give Winn Schwartau, Interpact, Inc., and Thunders
Mouth Press non-exclusive permission to use this work." That keeps the
publisher happy and still lets you own your own words. If it's a personal
opinion, and not an official one of your organization, a simple disclaimer
like, "these are the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of my
organization." We will provide a general suffix disclaimer to that effect
anyway. If it is the official view of your org, then please indicate so
clearly, so we may make an accurate distinction. 

If we decide to edit your piece substantively, we will run it back to you for 
approval before printing. All we will ask is a timely return.

To get your brain thinking on the kinds of topics I am looking for:

	- Civilian Defense
	- "This is an act of War"
	- "This is not an act of War"
	- Infowar as an alternative to conventional conflict.
	- Non-lethal conventional warfare
	- Enhancing military efficiency with Infowar
	- PsyOps as Infowar
	- Hackers: A National Resource

Please consider all three Classes of Infowar when deciding what you want to
say.  Since you only have 500-800 words to say it, I suggest that it be
clear, concise and to the point. 

Controversy is good. But just as good is if your comments are thought
provoking and stimulate additional discussion about your subject. For each
contribution we accept, (and there will be a lot we will!) we will provide a
free copy of the new revised "Information Warfare: Revised Edition" (or
whatever they decide to call it.)


		3. We have already received a large number of short "pull
quotes" of one or two sentences for the cover and inside covers where we
give full attribution. If anyone is so inclined, we are looking for a few
more that comment on the existing works. 


		4. Robert Steele at ceo@oss.net has agreed to help me pull
together a "Who's Who" of Information Warfare. Please supply names, contact
information and brief biographies to him at CEO@OSS.NET.

Again, I want to thank everyone out there for their support, and I look
forward to seeing what everyone has to say. Please send your input to

BETTY@INFOWAR.COM no later than February 29, 1996.

Feel free to distribute this widely and/or post as you see fit.

Winn Schwartau

		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361


End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 05.04

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