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. CONTENTS 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/". ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUME 04, ISSUE 05 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. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 11:45:19 EST From: "Tom Zmudzinski" 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 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 makes LEGAL SENSE. To illustrate: if your property has a dangerous bridge on it and there is a sign "DANGEROUS BRIDGE", then YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED LIABILTY. Anyone hurt 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 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 , trimm@netcom.com (Trimm Industries) writes: > In article <1993Jun4.132111.6469@ericsson.seerasver@lmera.ericsson.se writes: > > 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: INSTRUMENTBYR{\AA}ET A.S. Arkoveien 14 Postboks 1250 N-2201 KONGSVINGER Norway (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. Gary ------------------------------ 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 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 community. 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" 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 Commerce. 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 Oversight. 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 Means. 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 Judiciary 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 information. 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 * WHY CFP * WHAT'S NEW FOR '95? * EARLY REGISTRATION DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 24 * PAEAN TO UNSUNG HEROES * THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BE WATCHING * CONNECTING TO CFP'95 WHY CFP 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. WHAT'S NEW FOR '95? 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 suspects. 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). EARLY REGISTRATION DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 24 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. PAEAN TO UNSUNG HEROES 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. THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BE WATCHING 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. CONNECTING TO CFP'95 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 ************************