The Art of Technology Digest #5 Wednesday, September 30th, 1992 %%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%% Editor: Chris Cappuccio (ccappucc@nyx.cs.du.edu) BBS Archivist: David Mitchell (dmitchel@ais.org) E-Mail Archivist: Mike Batchelor (mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us) [AoT Digest] Contents #5 (Wed, September 30th, 1992) Article 1: What? Article 2: alt.ZNET Article 3: Interesting 800 Number Service Available Article 4: Re: Interesting 800 Number Service Available Article 5: Global working Article 6: "CPSR Seeks Wiretap Info from FBI" Article 7: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36 Article 8: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36 Article 9: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36 Article 10: Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36 Article 11: EFF releases analysis of FBI Digital Telephony (wiretap) proposal Article 12: Defense Conversion Hearing Article 13: Genetic Infomation and Privacy Article 14: Genetic Privacy (cont'd) Article 15: HR 5983, legislation to provide online access to federal info Article 16: Re: Diamond and Driver Development for Unix. Article 17: Re: ATM fraud The Art of Technology Digest is distributed in the following ways: By E-MAIL, send e-mail to mailserv@batpad.lgb.ca.us and, to subscribe to Art of Technology Digest, leave the subject blank and enter: SUBSCRIBE aotd. To get a back-issue of Art of Technology Digest, leave subject blank and enter: GET aotd/vol.zoo UUENCODE (Example: To get AOT-D number 2, use GET aotd/vol2.zoo UUENCODE). To get an index of Art of Technology Digest, leave subject blank and enter: INDEX. To get AoT-D by BBS, Call +1 313 464 1470, Live Wire BBS. This system maintains a complete collection of AoT Digest. Speeds are 1200/2400/HST-9600/HST-14,400. Or, if you have Internet FTP Access, the anonymous FTP site is: wuarchive.wustl.edu: /pub/cappucci/aot/ The Art of Technology Digest is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. AoT-D material may be reprinted as long as the source is cited. Some authors do copyright their material, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail at the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. All articles for submission should be sent to: aotd-submit@batpad.lgb.ca.us DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. "Eight years is too long for anyone to go without skills or purpose." -- George Bush --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Cappuccio, AoT-D Editor Date: 8/30/92 Subject: Article 1--What? Hi, welcome to the 5th (finally after a month!) issue of AoT-Digest. Well we are getting more readers daily and I think this thing is working out. This issue is a double-issue, because I forgot to put it out earlier, I just collected more articles and now letting it out. Have you been noticing the political jokes put right before the first message? See, right up there? Hmm. Well I am again in need of a Unix account on any unix-machine that is accessable via Michnet (a machine with a 35.x.x.x or 141.x.x.x IP address) and I only have as much money as any other 8th grader (none) so I really can't pay. Anyways, hope you like this, and more will eventually come! ------------------------------ Subject: Article 2--alt.ZNET From: znet@status.gen.nz Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 07:34:18 GMT Greetings, Date : September 06th 1992 Subject : Alt.znet and related groups For : New Zealand, WORLD As you may recall we requested a RFD for a news group in the atari section to carry all the Z*NET FNET feeds. Well I guess it was the old story of no-one wanting it so it is not going ahead. What we have done is placed all the news in a ALT group instead. We have over this weekend placed over 200 messages in the news group alt.znet.fnet relating from things like Bob Brodie (from Atari Inc USA) talking about the Falcon to people talking about the award Z*NET PC won this year. We have created a series of news groups under the ALT.ZNET banner being .. alt.znet.aeo <- this is an ascii magazine called Atari Explorer On-line (ex ZNET) and carries not only the magazine but also the discussion on AEO. alt.znet.pc <- this is also an ascii magazine dealing with the PC/UNIX/OS2/ Windows world of computing. This news group also carries the magazine and other topics of interest relating to it. alt.znet.fnet <- this is the Z*NET FNET gateway. Here you have a chance to talk back to the FNET conferences. Currently we are running at about 100 messages aday including input from Fido-net as well. We have not created the alt.znet.zmag at this point as the 8 bitters have indicated they do not want this magazine in the net at this point in time. However it is available as well should demand require it. Well I hope you enjoy all the new news from Atari to OS2 and every machine on the way. Any comments can be directed to Ron at his CIS address or via the gateway here to znet@status.gen.nz Remember to ask your system administrator to carry the alt.znet groups in your _country_. Best regards The Z*NET Global News Gateway Crew. Z*NET free ascii magazines dealing with most brands of computers. ------------------------------ From: rtravsky@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rich Travsky) Subject: Article 3--Interesting 800 Number Service Available Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 15:44:06 GMT Came across an interesting phone service, thot I'd pass it along. I have a little brochure from a phone company called "Dial 8". What they're offering is your very own 800 number. Initially this number is assigned to your home or business. But there's an option (for $20) where you can also specify four other phone numbers to apply this 800 number to. You get a PIN number for each of these other numbers. This 800 number can be used from anywhere at any time of day. And, you could specify four BBSs to dial up to, as opposed to, say, a business or another household. The brochure says other numbers can be added for a small fee. They have two sign up plans. Plan 1 has no monthly service, rates are 23 cents a minute. Plan 2 is 20 cents a minute, and has a $10 monthly service fee. Existing long distance service is unaffected. An interesting way to cut down on phone bills. Here's their address and phone number (I don't know if they're accessible via email, the brochure doesn't say): Dial-8, Inc. 243 E. 19th Ave., Suite 206 Denver, CO 80203-9798 1-800-489-2909 Happy dialing. Rich Travsky ------------------------------ From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Article 4--Re: Interesting 800 Number Service Available Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 23:43:08 GMT FWIW... >They have two sign up plans. Plan 1 has no monthly service, rates are >23 cents a minute. Plan 2 is 20 cents a minute, and has a $10 monthly >service fee. Existing long distance service is unaffected. > >An interesting way to cut down on phone bills. 23c/minute is $13.80/hour, 20c/min is $12/hr. Most long-distance carriers, domestic/residential, are less than that interstate. Typical business rates for 800 service from IXC's (MCI, Sprint, etc) are 18c-21c/min depending on zones. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD ------------------------------ From: mem@bnr.co.uk Subject: Article 5--Global working Date: 8 Sep 92 13:35:25 GMT Have you had any experience with working with people at a site remote to you? Do you telework? Do you have to communicate with colleagues in a different continent? If so, I'd be interested to hear about the triumphs and the woes. How did you communicate with your colleagues? What kinds of systems did you use e.g. phone, fax, groupware, etc? What worked well and why? What were the problems you encountered? What adaptations to your behaviour did you have to make in order to cope with the remoteness of your colleagues? How did the physical distance between you affect your working practices? How were the social/managerial relationships in the group affected? How did you feel about having to work with colleagues you couldn't meet on a daily basis? Please email your anecdotes, thoughts, etc. etc. on teleworking and global communication to: M.E.Morris@bnr.co.uk Many thanks ... Michele ************************************************************************* email: M.E.Morris@bnr.co.uk phone: +44 279 429531 fax: +44 279 441551 BNR Europe Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, CM17 9NA, England. I think it's kind of interesting the way things get to be. The way the people work with their machines. ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 10:32:20 EDT From: Marc Rotenberg Subject: Article 6--"CPSR Seeks Wiretap Info from FBI" "CPSR Seeks Wiretap Info from FBI" PRESS RELEASE WASHINGTON, DC September 17, 1992 4:30 pm Contact: Marc Rotenberg, CPSR Director (202/544-9240) rotenberg@washofc.cpsr.org David Sobel, CPSR Legal Counsel (202/544-9240) sobel@washofc.cpsr.org CPSR Sues FBI For Information About Wiretap Proposal: Seeks Reasons for New Plan Washington, DC - Computer Professional for Social Responsibility filed suit today against the FBI for information about a new wiretap proposal. The proposal would expand FBI wiretap power and give the Bureau authority to set technical standards for the computer and communications industry. The suit was filed after the FBI failed to make the information public. In April, CPSR requested documents from the Bureau about the reasons for the proposal. The FBI denied that any information existed. But when CPSR pursued the matter with the Department of Justice, the Bureau conceded that it had the information. Now CPSR is trying to force the Bureau to disclose the records. The proposal expands the FBI's ability to intercept communications. It would mandate that every communication system in the United States have a built-in "remote monitoring" capability to make wiretap easier. The proposal covers all communication equipment from office phone systems to advanced computer networks. Companies that do not comply face fines of $10,000 per day. The proposal is opposed by leading phone companies and computer manufacturers, including AT&T, IBM, and Digital Equipment Corporation. Many charge that the FBI has not been adequately forthcoming about the need for the legislation. According to CPSR Washington Office director Marc Rotenberg, "A full disclosure of the reasons for this proposal is necessary. The FBI simply cannot put forward such a sweeping recommendation, keep important documents secret, and expect the public to sign off." In a related effort, a 1989 CPSR FOIA suit uncovered evidence that the FBI established procedures to monitor computer bulletin boards in 1982. CPSR is a national membership organization of computer professionals with over 2,500 members based in Palo Alto, California with offices in Washington, DC and Cambridge, Massachusetts and chapters in over a dozen metropolitan areas across the nation. For membership information, please contact CPSR, P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94303, (415) 322- 3778, cpsr@csli.stanford.edu. ------------------------------ From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 7--Abstract of CAF-News 02.36 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 21:27:17 GMT This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n36". The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send caf-news cafv02n36 --- begin abstract --- [Week ending July 26, 1992 ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== [We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl] Notes 1 through 3 are about a Canadian journalist's articles on Internet "pornography." 1. These are articles by Peter Moon of The Globe and Mail, Toronto. The first is "Network Sex: Is increasingly explicit material on some computer bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity." The second is "Network lets users say what they think." Reprinted with permission. <1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> 2. If you're talking to the press, don't rely on estimates of Usenet readerships. The real numbers are impossible to get, and anyway most subscribers are "lurkers" and don't post at all. Any story about alt. sex.bondage is likely to paint a needlessly dark picture of Usenet. <1992Jul22.001149.29524@clarinet.com> 3. Lurk factors are huge (one example shows 180 lurkers to 25 active posters). Usenet newsgroups give shy persons an opportunity to listen without imposing the expectation that they will participate. <711770390@romeo.cs.duke.edu> Notes 4 through 6 discuss the witholding from children of alt.sex.* and its relation to free speech and censorship. 4. All this talk about censorship of Usenet is insane. It's good not to let children view sexually explicit material, but because people who attend universities are of legal age that doesn't apply to Usenet. If one is offended, one needn't continue to read or view the offensive material. <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> 5. Note 4 seems to be drawing a possibly arbitrary line between adults (who do have absolute freedom of speech) and children (who don't?!?). By the way, some university students are in their early teens which by the logic in note 4 would justify withdrawing alt.sex.* from undergrads. ...Seems like censorship! <1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca> 6. Allowing young children (age 7, for example) to access alt.sex.* is reasonably analogous to allowing them access to adult bookstores. Just as the laws excluding them from adult bookstores aren't censorship or violations of first amendment rights, so is withholding alt.sex.* from them not censorship. <1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us> Note 7 is about child pornography law. 7. Can a computer-generated picture of sexual activity involving children be considered child pornography? According to the relevant U.S. statute, shipment/receipt of pornography involving children is criminal only when the "visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." A computer-rendered image would not involve such use of a minor. <1992Jul25.113338.2310@panix.com> Notes 8 through 11 are concerned with students placing in their ..plan files "cop killer" song lyrics. Notes 8 and 9 discuss the economic case for universities permitting or prohibiting certain activities. Note 10 discusses ethics and freedom and note 11 discusses the requirement that a University treat account holders consistently. 8. A previous poster argued that a student paying fees at a university may, by doing so, acquire certain rights to the use of the school's computers. How much of the cost of those computers is paid for by the fees, though? At some schools student fees pay for a proportionately small part of the computer facilities. In other ways, too, the previous poster is mistaking privileges for rights. <1992Jul20.193027.1585@rice.edu> 9. A university "is a company and you buy their product. This doesn't give you a right to control their money, any more than "buying a Mars bar gives you the right to control the candy company. "The only recourse you have...is not to buy the product." 10. As long as nobody is forced to see the material in question, the student should not be punished. Material in public access information areas should be "PG-13." Other users should be able to "finger" anyone "without getting any sort of shock." 11. Print out a session stamped with time and date in which you finger a number of other users who you know to have questionable material in their .plan files. Use this as evidence that the university is singling you out unfairly and inconsistently if it requires YOU to remove from your .plan file material it finds offensive. This makes the issue a first amendment case that the university would likely lose. <1992Jul21.142535.21786@digibd.com> - Mark] --- end abstract --- CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk. CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line send acad-freedom caf Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For information about email access to the archive, send an email note to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines: send acad-freedom README help index Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C. Sheehan or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her own. -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From: gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Dmitry Gokhman) Subject: Article 8--Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 07:58:35 GMT In article <1992Sep17.212717.5639@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >send caf-news cafv02n36 >[Week ending July 26, 1992 > >9. A university "is a company and you buy their product. This doesn't >give you a right to control their money, any more than "buying a Mars >bar gives you the right to control the candy company. "The only recourse >you have...is not to buy the product." > These unreconstructed paleo-capitalists (no Karl, not you :) really get on my kidneys. Even *private* institutions of higher learning have a responsibility to keep their fori open to even the most catholic discourse. Ever hear of 'academic' freedom? Ever notice how schools are .edu and businesses .com? As far as the hideously offensive .plan goes, I find it an annoyance on the par with people shouting nonsense at you on the way to cafeteria. The net is a public place and some people behave like boors (I include in this category the collection of twits who reflexively respond to anything that content control should belong to those who own the medium). Perhaps a reasonable solution is to offer the sensitive fingerers and plan-less finger - just the facts m'am. It can't be very hard to write a filter in perl to delete 'Plan:' and what follows from the finger output. As for me, I only shop (armed with three letters of recommendation) at state accredited purveyors of Mars bars and keep my .plan clean, so you don't have to wash your hands after fingering. OK, back to net.lurking. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// - Mr. Gumby * \oo7 Dmitry Gokhman -> gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu says: `/v/-* MY BRAIN HURTS J L YOUR AD HERE! ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ------------------------------ From: plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) Subject: Article 9--Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 14:53:32 GMT In article <1992Sep18.075835.27067@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Dmitry Gokhman) writes: In article <1992Sep17.212717.5639@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >send caf-news cafv02n36 >[Week ending July 26, 1992 > >9. A university "is a company and you buy their product. This doesn't >give you a right to control their money, any more than "buying a Mars >bar gives you the right to control the candy company. "The only recourse >you have...is not to buy the product." > These unreconstructed paleo-capitalists (no Karl, not you :) really get on my kidneys. Even *private* institutions of higher learning have a responsibility to keep their fori open to even the most catholic discourse. Ever hear of 'academic' freedom? Ever notice how schools are .edu and businesses .com? I agree with you entirely that educational institutions have these responsibilities. I was responding, not to the particular claim, but to the justification of that claim. As a member of the community of an educational institution, one has the right to academic freedom, not because one buys the product, but because of the nature of the institution itself. -- Dave ------------------------------ From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 10--Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 15:27:15 GMT plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) writes: [...] >As a member of the community of an educational institution, one has >the right to academic freedom, not because one buys the product, but >because of the nature of the institution itself. [...] Indeed, part of the product that I buy *is* academic freedom. In the contract between me and the University of Illinois (e.g. the student code), the University explicitly promises to respect my freedom of expression and privacy (even on University facilities). I think this is typical of most such contracts/student codes. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= academic/student.code.uiuc ================= Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985) ================= ================= These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s): pub/academic/academic/student.code.uiuc To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file name): send acad-freedom/academic student.code.uiuc -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 19:15:01 -0400 From: Christopher Davis Subject: Article 11--EFF releases analysis of FBI Digital Telephony (wiretap) proposal +=========+=================================================+===========+ | F.Y.I. |Newsnote from the Electronic Frontier Foundation |Sep 17,1992| +=========+=================================================+===========+ JOINT INDUSTRY/PUBLIC INTEREST COALITION RELEASES WHITE PAPER OPPOSING FBI DIGITAL TELEPHONY LEGISLATION WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), on behalf of a coalition of industry, trade associations, computer users, and privacy and consumer representatives, today released a white paper entitled, "Analysis of the FBI Proposal Regarding Digital Telephony." The FBI has proposed legislation which would require that all telecommunications equipment be designed to allow law enforcement monitoring and is seeking passage in the last few weeks of this congress. The organizations that signed the paper believe that the proposal would cost consumers millions of dollars, damage U.S. competitiveness in the telecommunications marketplace, threaten national security interests, and deny American consumers and American businesses of much-wanted security and privacy on voice and data communications. "Basically, the FBI's legislative proposal is premature. We hope that the white paper demonstrates that there are too many potential dangers inherent in the legislative proposal and that there are other means of addressing this situation," said Jerry Berman, Executive Director of the Washington office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Over the past decade a host of new digital communication technologies have been introduced and more are being developed. New telephone services, such as call-forwarding and last number re-dial, are now being offered. The FBI is concerned about the impact these services -- and other digital communications techniques -- will have on its ability to wiretap. In the future, the vast majority of computer communications will also use this technology to transfer information and documents. Signatories included major telecommunications equipment manufacturers, such as AT&T; computer manufacturers, such as IBM and Digital Equipment Corporation; software producers, such as Microsoft and Lotus; network providers, such as Prodigy and Advanced Network and Services, Inc.; trade associations in the telecommunications, computer and electronic mail businesses; and public interest groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group of 955 members of the computer community, has been coordinating an industry/public interest working group on digital telephony. The working group has met with the FBI over a number of months in an effort to work out mutually-agreeable solutions to the challenge that the development of new communications technologies poses to the FBI. David Johnson, a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, drafted the white paper for the working group and serves as its legal advisor. "We have made significant progress and both sides better understand the other's needs and concerns. The bottom line, however, is that those who signed the paper do not see broad-based legislation as the right approach to this challenge. We have worked with the FBI to develop practical, technical solutions to the problems they are anticipating and intend to continue to do so," said John Podesta, of Podesta Associates, Inc., who coordinates the working group on behalf of EFF. # # # For a copy of the white paper, please call +1 202 544-6906, or use anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org, file pub/EFF/legal-issues/eff-fbi-analysis. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 17, 1992 For more information contact: John Podesta 202/544-6906 Jerry Berman 202/544-9237 +=====+===================================================+=============+ | EFF |155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 (617)864-0665| eff@eff.org | +=====+===================================================+=============+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:29:05 -0400 From: Gary Chapman Subject: Article 12--Defense Conversion Hearing The Department of Defense has set up a Defense Conversion Commission, which is traveling around the country to conduct hearings on local conversion requirements. So far there have been hearings in Atlanta; Long Beach, California; St. Louis; Dallas; Groton, Connecticut; and Seattle. The public hearings last one day, and the commission also visits sites of major defense contractors and speaks to the local press about defense conversion. The commission is scheduled to release a report on its findings no later than December 31. On September 24th, the commission held its hearing in Seattle and testifying on behalf of CPSR and The 21st Century Project was Professor Philip Bereano, professor of technology and public policy at the University of Washington. Phil spoke for ten minutes -- the alloted time for each hearing witness -- about The 21st Century Project and its program of democratizing U.S. technology policy and redirecting research and development programs to peaceful and environmentally responsible goals. There were eighteen other hearing witnesses testifying, representing a broad range of public interest and business organizations, including Washington State SANE/Freeze, Seattle Women Act for Peace, and the Washington Association of Churches. Professional organizations represented included the Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Association and the IEEE Engineering Manpower Committee. There was also testimony from the King County Diversification Committee, the local commission on economic conversion. There are six members of the commission, most of them Pentagon officials; there is one representative from the Department of Labor, and one from the President's Council of Economic Advisers. It is chaired by David J. Berteau, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Production and Logistics, and former director of the DoD's Office of Economic Adjustment. The representative from the Department of Labor (and the only woman on the panel) is Robin Higgins, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veteran's Employment and Training, a former Marine officer, and widow of Colonel William R. Higgns, the Marine officer captured and executed by Lebanese terrorists in 1988. For more information about the commission and its work, contact the Commission on Defense Conversion, 1825 K Street, N.W., Suite 310, Washington, D.C. 20006, or call (202) 653-1664. Gary Chapman Coordinator The 21st Century Project Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Cambridge, Massachusetts chapman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:39:30 -0400 From: Gary Chapman Subject: Article 13--Genetic Infomation and Privacy The New York Times reports today (9/29, page C2) that a survey commissioned by the March of Dimes reveals that a majority of the people surveyed do not consider genetic information to be exclusively private. Respondents apparently said, in the majority, that information about potential defects in a person's genetic makeup should be revealed not only to spouses and other family members, but also to insurance companies and employers. The article says that the public appears "extremely optimistic" about the prospects for gene therapy, or the ability to treat genetic disorders with biotechnology. Over 80 per cent of the respondents were enthusiastic about the concept of gene therapy, although the article notes that about 60 per cent admitted they knew nothing about it. A little over 40 per cent of people surveyed said that they would welcome the use of genetic alteration to "improve the physical characteristics that children would inherit," or to improve intelligence. The article mentions that scientists attributed this figure to the widely shared view that intelligence is an inherited trait, although there is little evidence for this view, and no identified gene for intelligence. Fifty-eight per cent of the people interviewed believed that an insurer has a right to know about genetic abnormalities, and 33 per cent believed that an employer has the same right. Only eight states have passed laws that prohibit discrimination against people with abnormal results on a genetic test, and, the article says, most of those are directed only at people with sickle cell anemia. Gary Chapman Coordinator The 21st Century Project Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Cambridge, Massachusetts chapman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:47:47 EDT From: Marc Rotenberg Subject: Article 14--Genetic Privacy (cont'd) Genetic Privacy (cont'd) This is a short clarification of the message posted yesterday about the March of Dimes survey on genetic privacy. The survey was described in a New York Times article that appeared on September 2, 1992. According to the Times article, 57% of the respondents said that "someone other than a patient had a right to know that the person had a genetic defect." *Of that 57%,* 98% said that a spouse or fiance had a right to know, 58% said an insurer had a right to know, and 33% percent said an employer had a right to know. Of all respondents then, if asked whether someone other than the patient has the right to know about genetic defects, the numbers would be as follows: "Right to know about genetic defects?" Yes No Spouse/fiance 56 44 Employer 33 67 Insurer 19 81 These numbers do not appear to support the article's conclusion that the majority of Americans support widespread access to genetic information. I contacted the Lou Harris organization this morning. We should have a copy of the complete poll results later this week. Marc Rotenberg CPSR Washington office rotenberg@washofc.cpsr.org ------------------------------ From: James Love Taxpayer Assets Project Re: Article 15--HR 5983, legislation to provide online access to federal information (Sucessor to Gateway/WINDO bills) Date: September 23, 1992, Washington, DC. On Wednesday, September 23, the House Administration Committee unanimously approved H.R. 5983, the "Government Printing Office (GPO) Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1992." The bill, which had been introduced the day before, was cosponsored by committee chairman Charlie Rose (D- NC), ranking minority member William Thomas (R-CA) and Pat Roberts (R-KA). The measure was a watered down version of the GPO Gateway/WINDO bills (S. 2813, HR 2772), which would provide one-stop-shopping online access to hundreds of federal information systems and databases. The new bill was the product of negotiations between Representative Rose and the republican members of the House Administration Committee, who had opposed the broader scope of the Gateway/WINDO bills. Early responses to the new bill are mixed. Supporters of the Gateway/WINDO bill were disappointed by the narrower scope of the bill, but pleased that the legislation retained the Gateway/WINDO policies on pricing of the service (free use by depository libraries, prices equal to the incremental cost of dissemination for everyone else). On balance, however, the new bill would substantially broaden public access to federal information systems and databases, when compared to the status quo. WHAT HR 5983 DOES The bill that would require the Government Printing Office (GPO) to provide public online access to: - the Federal Register - the Congressional Record - an electronic directory of Federal public information stored electronically, - other appropriate publications distributed by the Superintendent of Documents, and - information under the control of other federal departments or agencies, when requested by the department or agency. The Superintendent of Documents is also required to undertake a feasibility study of further enhancing public access to federal electronic information, including assessments the feasibility of: - public access to existing federal information systems, - the use of computer networks such as the Internet and NREN, and - the development (with NIST and other agencies) of compatible standards for disseminating electronic information. There will also be studies of the costs, cost savings, and utility of the online systems that are developed, including an independent study of GPO's services by GAO. WHAT HR 5983 DOESN'T DO The new bill discarded the names WINDO or Gateway without a replacement. The new system is simply called "the system," a seemingly minor change, but one designed to give the service a lower profile. A number of other features of the Gateway/WINDO legislation were also lost. - While both S. 2813 and HR 2772 would have required GPO to provide online access through the Internet, the new bill only requires that GPO study the issue of Internet access. - The Gateway/WINDO bills would have given GPO broad authority to publish federal information online, but the new bill would restrict such authority to documents published by the Superintendent of Documents (A small subset of federal information stored electronically), or situations where the agency itself asked GPO to disseminate information stored in electronic formats. This change gives agencies more discretion in deciding whether or not to allow GPO to provide online access to their databases, including those cases where agencies want to maintain control over databases for financial reasons (to make money off the data). - The republican minority insisted on removing language that would have explicitly allowed GPO to reimburse agencies for their costs in providing public access. This is a potentially important issue, since many federal agencies will not work with GPO to provide public access to their own information systems, unless they are reimbursed for costs that they incur. Thus, a major incentive for federal agencies was eliminated. - S. 2813 and HR 2772 would have required GPO to publish an annual report on the operation of the Gateway/WINDO and accept and consider *annual* comments from users on a wide range of issues. The new bill only makes a general requirement that GPO "consult" with users and data vendors. The annual notice requirement that was eliminated was designed to give citizens more say in how the service evolves, by creating a dynamic public record of citizen views on topics such as the product line, prices, standards and the quality of the service. Given the poor record of many federal agencies in addressing user concerns, this is an important omission. - S. 2813 would have provided startup funding of $3 million in fy 92 and $10 million in fy 93. The new bill doesn't include any appropriation at all, causing some observers to wonder how GPO will be able to develop the online Congressional Record, Federal Register, and directory of databases, as required by the bill. WHAT HAPPENED? The bill which emerged from Committee on Wednesday substantially reflected the viewpoints of the republicans on the House Administration Committee. The republican staffers who negotiated the new bill worked closely with lobbyists for the Industry Information Association (IIA), a trade group which represents commercial data vendors, and who opposed the broader dissemination mandates of the Gateway/WINDO bills. Why did WINDO sponsor Charlie Rose, who is Chair of the House Administration Committee, give up so much in the new bill? Because Congress is about to adjourn, and it is difficult to pass any controversial legislation at the end of a Congressional session. The failure to schedule earlier hearings or markups on the WINDO legislation (due largely to bitter partisan battles over the House bank and post office, October Surprise and campaign financing reform) gave the republican minority on the committee enormous clout, since they could (and did) threaten to kill the bill. Rose deserves credit, however, for being the first member of congress to give the issue of citizen online access to federal information systems and databases such high prominence, and his promise to revisit the question next session is very encouraging. PROSPECTS FOR PASSAGE The new bill has a long way to go. It must be scheduled for a floor vote in the House and a vote in the Senate. The last step will likely be the most difficult. In the last few weeks of a Congressional session, any member of the Senate can put a "hold" on the bill, preventing it from receiving Senate approval this year, thus killing the bill until next legislative session. OMB and the republican minority on the House Administration Committee have both signed off on the bill, but commercial data vendors would still like to kill the bill. There's a catch, however. Rose's staff has reportedly told the Information Industry Association (IIA) that if it kills HR 5983, it will see an even bolder bill next year. Since IIA was an active participant in the negotiations over the compromise bill, any effort to kill the bill will likely antagonize Rose. Of course, some observers think that an individual firm, such as Congressional Quarterly, may try to kill the bill. Only time will tell. IS THE GLASS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL? Despite the many changes that have weakened the bill, HR 5983 is still an important step forward for those who want to broaden public access to federal information systems and databases. Not only does the bill require GPO to create three important online services (the directory, the Congressional Record and the Federal Register), but it creates a vehicle that can do much more. Moreover, HR 5983 would provide free online access for 1,400 federal depository libraries, and limit prices for everyone else to the incremental cost of dissemination. These pricing rules are far superior to those used by NTIS, or line agencies like NLM, who earn substantial profits on the sale of electronic products and services. WHAT YOU CAN DO Urge your Senators and Representatives to support passage of HR 5983, quickly, before Congress adjourns in October. All members of Congress can be reached by telephone at 202/224-3121, or by mail at the following addresses: Senator John Smith Representative Susan Smith US Senate US House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 21515 The most important persons to contact are your own delegation, as well as Senators George Mitchell (D-ME) and Bob Dole (R-KA). For more information, contact the American Library Association at 202/547-4440 or the Taxpayer Assets Project at 215-658-0880. For a copy of HR 5983 or the original Gateway/WINDO bills, send an email message to tap@essential.org. ============================================================== James Love, Director voice 215/658-0880 Taxpayer Assets Project fax call 12 Church Road internet love@essential.org Ardmore, PA 19003 ============================================================== ------------------------------ From: cummings@tiger1.prime.com (Kevin J. Cummings) Subject: Article 16--Re: Diamond and Driver Development for Unix. Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:57:25 GMT In article <1992Sep16.150543.8864@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, callahan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes: > Fine. However,this does present a significant difficulty for > people who want to develop freely-distributable Unix software. > For a variety of good reasons (of which you are probably aware) > Unix software is best distributed in source form. So, the > possibility of freely-distributable binaries, while (perhaps) > sufficient to meet the needs of DOS users, isn't what we > are looking for. So your saying that no-one on the XFree86 team wants to go to all the trouble of signing the non-disclosure agreement, write the code, and then compile it for each different platform that XFree86 will run on. I can see that! What a headache that would be. Any chance that we can get a single volunteer on each platform to do that? > > To this date, only two Unix individuals that have contacted me have been > > willing to do this. All others wanted to release source or planned on > > providing tools to uncompile the object with the driver. This is in > > direct violation of the non-disclosure agreement. Just what are the tools to uncompile the object? Are they talking about machine level debuggers? Do they mean that a machine level debugger cannot be made availble in the same package as XFree86 code? Or cannot be on the same archive site? > Diamond's policy may be like many others', but that's not the issue. > A policy which prevents freely-distributable source software means > that the Diamond cards are less useful to me and many of my colleagues > than they would be if they were fully documented. There are also > SCSI controllers and network cards that suffer the same problem. > Those of us who care about such things will buy other brands. Kinda makes me sorry I bought a Diamond video card in the first place, but since my "return period" has run out, I'm kinda stuck. > Of course it is within their right to pursue their policy. > > Meanwhile, I and, I many others will take our business elsewhere, to > those companies which are actually eager to support us (which *do* > exist--viz. the stories of people getting binders of programming > information in the mail). I certainly will when I by my NEXT video board! ================================================================= Kevin J. Cummings PrimeService 20 Briarwood Road A Computervision Company Framingham, Mass. 500 Old Connecticut Path Framingham, Mass. Work: cummings@primerd.Prime.COM Home: cummings@kjc386.framingham.ma.us Std. Disclaimer: "Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system SUCKS..." -- War Games ================================================================= ------------------------------ From: schear@cylink.COM (Steve Schear) Subject: Article 17--Re: ATM fraud Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 23:33:03 GMT In article unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) writes: >segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read) writes: >> Why don't they provide more advice on when to use your PIN and >>when not to? How to prevent the guy behind you in the ATM queue from seeing your >>PIN? > >The design of the machine's keyboards makes it virtually impossible to >prevent people from seeing you enter your PIN if they really want to. That's why the ATMs manufactured by Citibank use a touchscreen with a directional privacy filter (two pieces of 3M "window shade"). Unless a tall person is standing over you, and quite close, it is very difficult to see the contents of the screen. Of course they could guess the key positions, not too hard. An attempt to thward this was tried; they randomized the key positions for each customer transaction. This proved too difficult in customer tests and was abandoned. ------------------------------ ********************************** End of Art of Technology Digest #5