IE 756:
Seminar in
Technology and
Society
On-line
Discussion,
Week
Eight:
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:44:47 -0600
From: Barri Babow
To: ie756@cae.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: an interesting program
Funny that Melanie should mention the Communications Decency Act -
Sharon and I are putting together readings for next week
(Computer Ethics and New Legal Issues) and we have some
interesting stuff on this act. Look for email from us soon.
Barri
P.S. Melanie, please bring the tape to class -
those interested can arm-wrestle for it after class :)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:51:07 -0600
To: ie756@cae.wisc.edu
From: caldwell@engr.wisc.edu (Barrett S. Caldwell)
Subject: Final Papers
Folks:
As of now, I have the following groupings for the final papers:
Corporate Adoption of New IT Systems
Anil Rathi, Matthew Peterson, Calvin Chan
Parallels to Gutenberg
elly burian, Melanie Tillander, Dan Steward, Johnny Chang
Democratic Processes Online
Barri Babow, Doug Devine, Scott Stewart, Ben Kadel
Electronic and Physical Communities
Tonia Anderson, Wendy Chisholm, Piyusha Paradkar, Chris Law
Jeremy Smith is unassigned. Krista Stockebrand has been deassigned (the
last group self destructed). Jen Brunette and Susan Boehlefeld aren't
required to write a paper. I have an alternative paper that people can
work on (namely Krista, Jen, and/or Susan, but Jeremy can choose this
option as well), or reassign to an existing group.
Several have asked what sort of paper. I would assume a journal-style
review paper (you can't collect data in this short period). I said about
30 pages. For contrast, _Behaviour and Information Technology_ (BIT) has a
limit of 6000 words. And, just for comparison, here are some words from
the authors' guides for several journals (I have them all, in case you want
more ideal on how to craft and direct the paper):
BIT: "Écovers research and development related to the design, use and
impact of information technology in its interactions with the people who
use it. Relevant subject areas include: ergonomics, psychology, sociology,
office automation, management information systems, systems planning and
implementation, software and dialogue design, the design of programming
languages and decision aids, impact on education training and job
structure, and impact on employment."
_International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction_: "Éaddresses the
cognitive, social, health, and ergonomic aspects of work with computers and
emphasizes both the human and computer science aspects of the effective
design and use of computer interactive systems. The Journal presents
original research both in the generic aspects of interface design and in
the special application of interface design in a variety of diversified
leisure and work activities."
_The Information Society_: "É provides a forum for thoughtful commentary
and discussion of significant topics in the world of information, such as
transborder data flow, regulatory issues, the impact of the information
industry, information as a determinant of public and private organizational
performance, and information and the sovereignty of the public. Its papers
analyze information policy issues affecting society. Because of the
journal's international perspective, it will have worldwide appeal to
scientists and policymakers in government, education, and industry."
_Interacting with Computers_: "É has a fundamental interdisciplinary ethosÉ
You should attempt to describe work that crosses the traditional boundaries
between the many disciplines which now comprise the study of HCIÉ by giving
them both a wider context and a forward-looking and speculative
perspective."
If you wish, I can describe a bit more detail today during class.
BC
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:48:06 -0600
From: Barri Babow
To: ie756@cae.wisc.edu
Subject: Readings for April 2
Hi, Folks,
Here's the e-version of the handout you received
in class today. We'll be sending out discussion
questions later this week.
Enjoy,
Sharon and Barri
>From babow@pop.cs.wisc.edu Tue Mar 26 14:00:56 1996
Received: from pop.cs.wisc.edu (pop.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.2.19]) by coyote.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA19617 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:00:54 -0600
Received: from v33.cs.wisc.edu (v33.cs.wisc.edu [128.105.16.133]) by pop.cs.wisc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06809; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:00:51 -0600
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:00:51 -0600
Message-Id: <199603262000.OAA06809@pop.cs.wisc.edu>
X-Sender: babow@pop.cs.wisc.edu (Unverified)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: babow@pop.cs.wisc.edu, boehlefe@ssc.wisc.edu
From: babow@cs.wisc.edu (Barri Babow)
Subject: readings
X-Mailer:
Status: R
Additional readings for April 2: Computer Ethics and New Legal Issues
I. Ethics:
A) Adapted from _Communications of the ACM_, Feb. 1993, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 102:
(Assume that commercial transactions on the web are possible and done
regularly.)
A web-site development company has just put together a site that
incorporates the new tax laws and figures taxes for both individuals and
small businesses. The president of the company knows that the programming
has a number of bugs. He also believes the first firm to put this kind of
software on the web is likely to capture the largest market share. The
company widely advertises the web site. At the end of the web page is a
disclaimer of responsibility for errors resulting from the use of the site.
The company expects it will receive a number of complaints, queries, and
suggestions for modifications.
The company plans to use these to make changes and eventually release
updated, improved, and debugged versions of the page. The president argues
that this is general industry policy and that anyone who uses the first run
of a web page knows this and will take proper precautions. Because of bugs,
a number of users filed incorrect tax returns and were penalized by the IRS.
(We strongly encourage you to go look at the ACM Code of Ethics at:
http://web.mit.edu/ethics/www/codes/ACM-Code-of-Ethics.html)
B) From the Computer Ethics Institute page:
The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics
1. Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.
2. Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work.
3. Thou shalt not snoop around in other people's computer files.
4. Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.
5. Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.
6. Thou shalt not copy or use proprietary software for which you have not paid.
7. Thou shalt not use other people's computer resorces without authorization
or proper compensation.
8. Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output.
9. Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you are
writing or the system you are designing.
10. Thou shalt always use a computer in ways that insure consideration and
respect for your fellow humans.
(from http://www.cpsr.org:80/dox/cei.html)
C) The Hacker's Ethic:
1. Access to computers should be unlimited and total.
2. All information should be free
3. Mistrust authority: promote decentralisation.
4. You can create art and beauty on a computer.
(from http://www.demon.co.uk/creative/organic/manifest.html)
D) Denning and Lin, Chapter 5: Electronic Vandalism, Scenario 2: Multisystem
User Damages Files, Issues: Ethics and Education:
Ok, we know y'all are going to read chapter 5, but please read this section
closely.
II. New (?) Legal Issues:
A) Summary of Communications Decency Act (CDA) by Blumenfeld & Cohen -
Technology Law Group
(Copyright © 1996):
The Act's provisions on "indecent" Internet and computer network
communications, known as the "Communications Decency Act of 1996," are
frightening to on-line enthusiasts and a blessed relief to conservative
religious activists. The ACLU and a coalition of other civil liberties
groups filed suit to enjoin the Act's indeceny sections within minutes of
President Clinton's signing of the bill. (The lawsuit will be subject to
expedited judicial review under the Act.) While there is ample precedent
for statutory and FCC prohibitions against broadcasting of indecent material
during hours when children may be in the audience, the constitutional issues
associated with the 1996 Telecom Act are of a qualitatively different character.
The Act creates criminal penalties for anyone who "knowingly" transmits
obscene materials on "an interactive computer service," which is defined
specifically to include Internet access providers. It also criminalizes the
intentional transmission of:
"any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication
which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to
annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person," or "any comment, request,
suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or
indecent, knowing the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of
age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication . . . initiated
the communication."
In addition, in an "anti-flame" provision, the Act makes it a crime to
"repeatedly initiate communication . . . solely to harass any person."
Content providers are offered a defense to the minors/indecency violations
if they have taken "good faith, reasonable, effective and appropriate
actions" to restrict or prevent access by minors. "Good samaritan"
blocking of information that content providers or users find objectionable
(on a purely subjective basis) is legalized, thus overturning a well-known
case finding Prodigy liable for civil damages on account of a forum posting
that defamed a company on the ground that Prodigy engaged in selective
blocking of postings.
In a compromise that attracted little press attention, the Conference
Committee deleted a provision of the House bill, sponsored by Reps. Rick
White and Chris Cox and former Rep. (now Senator) Ron Wyden, that would have
expressly precluded the FCC from having "any jurisdiction or authority to
regulate the Internet." Whether or not the FCC will take this change as
implicit encouragement to engage in pricing or service regulation of the
Internet -- for instance, of Internet telephony applications -- is unknown,
although the FCC professes to have no intention of engaging in Internet
regulation.
(from http://www.technology/law.com/techlaw/act_summary.html)
B) An interesting section of the CDA:
SEC. 509. ONLINE FAMILY EMPOWERMENT.
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`SEC. 230. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF
OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.
`(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:
`(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other
interactive computer services available to individual Americans
represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of
educational and informational resources to our citizens.
`(2) These services offer users a great degree of control
over the information that they receive, as well as the
potential for even greater control in the future as technology
develops.
`(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services
offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,
unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad
avenues for intellectual activity.
`(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services
have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a
minimum of government regulation.
`(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media
for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and
entertainment services.
`(b) POLICY- It is the policy of the United States--
`(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and
other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
`(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
`(3) to encourage the development of technologies which
maximize user control over what information is received by
individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and
other interactive computer services;
`(4) to remove disincentives for the development and
utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower
parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or
inappropriate online material; and
`(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws
to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and
harassment by means of computer.
(from http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/cda.txt)
C) From Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) statement against the CDA:
A brief summary of the problems inherent in the Telecom Bill's censorship
provisions illuminates the magnitude of the issues. The CDA would:
* subject all online content to the interpretation of ill-defined
"indecency" law;
* irrationally equate Internet communications with radio and TV broadcasting,
and unconstitutionally impose on computer networks indecency restrictions
that are more severe than those applied to any other medium;
* actively hinder the on-going development and refinement of real
solutions to problems such as online harassment and parents' needs to
supervise their own children's online access;
* in all probability will establish broad FCC regulation of the Internet,
with all of the attendant problems that will entail;
* create a new "access crime", equating the posting of material on a web
site, or even the provision of basic Internet access, with willful
transmission of indecent material directly to minors - harming the online
service industry, and retarding the development of the electronic press;
* afford no effective legal protection for system operators, creating a
speech-chilling liability no more sensible than holding librarians and
postmasters responsible for the content on bookshelves and in parcels.
* weaken the privacy of all Internet users by turning system operators
into snoops and censors.
* would criminalize even classic works of literature and art, or medical
and educational materials on breast cancer or sexually transmitted
disease. Obscenity law, not the indencency law used in the Telecom Bill,
considers literary, artistic or scientific value. Indecency law makes
no such exceptions.
Many reasonable adults might be surprised to find that the Telecom Bill's
indecency restrictions could ban:
* the online distribution of the King James Bible, which quite prominently
features the word "piss" (in II Kings) - a word already specifically
defined by the Supreme Court to be indecent;
* the text (or video, for that matter) of a PG movie that any child may
attend without parental supervision, not to mention the R-rated content
available on any of a number of cable TV stations;
* a _Schindler's_List_ WWW site, which could earn an Internet service
provider prison time;
* anything featuring nudity, in any context, including breast cancer
information or photos of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel paintings, which
could result in the poster have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars
in fines, if the material happened to seem "patently offensive" to an
excitable prosecutor.
This is the grim reality of censorship through indecency regulation: It
makes no allowances for artistic merit, social value, or medical necessity.
It is without reason, and without conscience.
(from http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/cda_020296_eff.statement)
D) Pieces of:
-- Computer Law - State of Wisconsin Statute --
Chapter 293, Laws of 1981
943.70 Computer crimes.
(2) OFFENSES AGAINST COMPUTER DATA AND PROGRAMS.
(a) Whoever willfully, knowingly and without authorization
does any of the following may be penalized as provided in
par. (b):
1. Modifies data, computer programs or supporting
documentation.
2. Destroys data, computer programs or supporting
documentation.
3. Accesses data, computer programs or supporting
documentation.
4. Takes possession of data, computer programs or supporting
documentation.
5. Copies data, computer programs or supporting
documentation.
6. Discloses restricted access codes or other restricted
access information to unauthorized person.
(3) OFFENSES AGAINST COMPUTERS, COMPUTER EQUIPMENT OR SUPPLIES.
(a) Whoever willingly, knowingly and without authorization
does any of the following may be penalized as provided in
par. (b):
1. Modifies computer equipment or supplies that are used or
intended to be used in a computer, computer system or
computer network.
2. Destroys, uses, takes or damages a computer, computer
system, computer, network or equipment or supplies used or
intended to be used in a computer, computer system, or
computer network.
III. Additional web sites for those who want to delve deeper:
1. ACM Code of Ethics:
http://web.mit.edu/ethics/www/codes/ACM-Code-of-Ethics.html
2. 10 legal and ethical issues (from the UK):
http://nswt.tuwien.ac.at:8000/htdocs/kelly/handbook-10.html
(note: 'kelly' may be 'Kelly')
3. InterNIC's "Ethics and the Internet" from January 1989:
http://nic.merit.edu/documents/rfc/rfc1087.txt
4. Communications Decency Act (CDA) in its glorious entirety:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/cda.txt
5. Overview of entire telecom bill, including the bit above on the CDA:
http://www.technology/law.com/techlaw/act_summary.html
6. Review of CDA by Center for Democracy and Technology:
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_2.5.html
7. More scathing review of CDA by EFF, part of which is listed above:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/cda_020296_eff.statement
8. And for the diehards who want to glimpse the entire Telecom Act:
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:34:17 -0600
To: ie756@cae.wisc.edu
From: Doug Devine
Subject: Privacy
I think there is a distinction between theoritical privacy and actual
privacy when it comes to electronic networked environments.
Everyone should know that email (or other electronic transactions) are not
that inaccessible to a determined hacker. Thus, in theory, I should not
expect email to be private. However, in the real world, I do expect that no
one will ever read my email. (I am disregarding the working for a company
scenario.) I base this on the fact that there are just way too many emails
floating around for anyone to keep track of. Also, I'm such an insignifcant
player in life what would be gained out of knowing the content of my emails?
Therefore, I am confident my emails are actually private.
If anyone is seriously concerned about electronic privacy check out
http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/pgp.shtml. This has info on PGP (Pretty Good
Privacy)--a highly secure encryption program.
-Doug
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:39:24 -0600
From: Barri Babow
To: ie756@cae.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: privacy
I agree with Doug that no one will go through reading
everyone's mail because there's just too darn much of it,
but mail can be marked for reading based on key words -
like Jeremy said his mail was searched for "warez."
So, a person may not do this, but software can.
This makes me feel that my email conversations are
not private at all - I'm at liberty to write what
I want, but the messages may be monitored for
key words and my name may be added to some list
to track people who write about suspect topics.
Barri
From: "Scott A Stewart"
To: ie756@cae.wisc.edu
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 19:49:06 CST6CDT
Subject: key word search
When Jeremy mentioned key word searches of email I got a chill down
my spine. It may be impossible to read every ones email as Doug
pointed out, but it is quite possible to pick out ones you or your
organization might be interested in. So if anyone is listening:
bomb, terrorism, waco, atf, cia, iraq, mafia, crack, nuclear, guns etc....
scott
ps warez
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 01:03:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeremy Smith
Subject: Re: key word search
> When Jeremy mentioned key word searches of email I got a chill down
> my spine. It may be impossible to read every ones email as Doug
> pointed out, but it is quite possible to pick out ones you or your
> organization might be interested in. So if anyone is listening:
> bomb, terrorism, waco, atf, cia, iraq, mafia, crack, nuclear, guns etc....
This is not only possible, but commonly done. In fact, it is
quite possible that the NSA does this for all intercontinental text. ( You
can't say for sure what the NSA does or doesn't do) More commonly, servers
can do this sort of parsing in case of suspected criminals, which
basically means that if they want to bother with it, you're a suspect.
If I were to forward your email to president@whitehouse.gov, expect to
have your email (at least that which goes through the major backbones aor
overseas) monitored for the next few years. Organizations like the FBI
have so much more data than they can possibly deal with, and use
computer searches for both text and speech patterns that might present a
problem.
In the case of email on a system, that's easy. If a Unix sysadmin types:
grep bombs /var/spool/mail/yorick
wallah! you have a list of lines where the word "bombs" appears.
In the case of the internet, if you're sitting in a lab sending email,
and those computers are non-secure machines, _I_ can read your mail. It
takes some doing, but it's possible. Then you can take this and parse it
for passwords, obscenity, etc, etc. There are some really convenient
programs for doing just this.
In class we mentioned the Clipper Chip at the end. Thankfully, this
legistlation is basically dead, but what the idea was is this:
Establish a security standard called "Clipper" which used a piece of
hardware. Make this standard secure enough so that people could trust it
to encrypt their messages, and force places to use that standard. Of
course, this standard would also enable to government to read everything.
Jer
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 23:20:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Bennett Kadel
To: IE Seminar
Subject: too much info
This may be a complete aside, and I'm not even sure how reliable the
information is (how's that for a confidence builder!) but not only is
there too much email for people to possibly read it all, now even the
programs that go out and find key-words are producing too much info. I
heard several years ago about a mechanism the CIA or FBI had for
intercepting information passing through satelite transmissions
(supposedly to check for information that could be of value for "national
security reasons"). Unfortuately, the searches brought in so much
information that they just stored them on tape and got to them when they
could. At the time, they were on the order of years behind in actually
having a real person read/hear the information. Of course, I'm not really
very comfortable thinking that my privacy, etc. is predicated on the fact
that everybody is just too busy to bother. There's always someone who
seems to find the time :)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:04:55 -0600
To: ie756@cae.wisc.edu
From: bybabow@students.wisc.edu (Barri Babow)
Subject: Questions for April 2
Here are some questions to think about before class.
They're keyed to the readings that we sent out earlier.
Our plan, as such, is to use these questions as the
basis for class discussion.
Enjoy,
Barri and Sharon
Computer Ethics and New Legal Issues: Discussion Questions:
I. Ethics:
A) ACM scenario regarding buggy tax web site:
What are the ethical responsibilities for the system operator in this case?
For the programmer? For users? Would the situation be any different if
the program were commercial software available over the counter?
B) Ten Commandments:
Do people find these useful? How could you apply these rules? For
example, how would you apply rule no. 9, regarding the social consequences
of a program you are writing or a system you are designing? Are these rules
enlightening? Would they be used by people who are newly introduced to them
or by people who are already inclined toward ethical behavior?
C) The Hacker Ethic:
How does the "Hacker Ethic" compare with the "Ten Commandments"? Is the
"Hacker Ethic" an adequate standard for all computer users? For system
operators? For programmers? Do you consider unauthorized "recreational"
use of computer systems ethical?
D) DL chapter 5: Multisystem User Damages Files, Issues: Ethics and Education:
Is the "ethically educated computer user" really an oxymoron (p. 79)? Do
you consider it ethical to explore computer systems if you don't shut them
(or related systems) down (e.g., the Legion of Doom in the Atlanta/BellSouth
case, p. 79-80)?
II. New Legal Issues
A-C) About the CDA:
Whose interests is the CDA protecting? How are decency issues in the
on-line community different from decency issues in other media? Who should
be liable for indecent material on the nets? What community standards should
apply in determining what is indecent? If, for example, someone sends email
from Wisconsin to California, would California or Wisconsin standards apply?
What responsibilities should operators have for email that moves through
their systems while in transit? How does one know what is indecent? Is
there a "national standard" for indecency? Should there be one?
Should there be any legislation regulating the internet? If so, what
should it regulate (e.g., access, commerce, pornography, privacy, transfer
of data, etc.)?
D) Wisconsin Computer Crime Statutes: Linking Ethics and Legal Issues
Are these legal standards for the state of Wisconsin all one needs to know
in order to make ethical use of a computer system? Is there any
law--federal or state-- that provides an adequate standard for ethical
decisions and actions?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:48:10 -0600
To: ie756@cae.wisc.edu
From: kstock@Biostat.Wisc.Edu (krista)
Subject: current issues
A little story first to build the situation.
A month or so ago I got an email from a guy in Germany with the same last
name as I, Stockebrand. He said he got my name by doing a name search. I
decided to try out Alta-Vista's search, which I've heard is the most
complete.
(Okay, now the point...)
I typed in Stockebrand and got back, get this, links to the ie756 homepage
of all my postings. How's that for privacy issues. Taken out of context
(which is highly likely if you hit a link and not know much about URLs),
you could get the wrong idea.
-krista
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:37:53 -0500
To: IE Seminar
Subject: Re: too much info/keyword search/privacy
Sender: owner-ie756@cae.wisc.edu
How do we know that the FBI, CIA, NSA or whomever have millions of e-mail
messages on file? What/Who is the source of this information?
Just curious - I've never actually seen this stuff talked about anywhere
other than in conversations such as these and am not sure where people are
finding this information.
--wendy
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:21:54 -0600
To: ie756@cae.wisc.edu
From: caldwell@engr.wisc.edu (Barrett S. Caldwell)
Subject: Too much info, and other overloads
One technological issue that people have briefly touched on is the volume
of information which can be generated through automatic keyword searches.
Granted, there is a lot that one *could* know about you (even via
participation in IE 756--thanks, Krista), but given the amount of
information being generated about lots of people, it's unlikely that many
people really *do* know that much about you. Remember the amounts
involved. Let's say that another 100 bytes of info are generated about a
person per day (credit records, email notes--not the text itself). In the
US, there are probably 150 million eligibles. Thus, there's about 5.5
GBytes per year, just of ID info. Adding in all of the text (which still
requires human interpretation for FBI/CIA/NSA paranoid decisions that
you're a revolutionary subversive) takes us into the Terabyte range. How
long would it take someone to read, pick out, and pursue a topic out of
that? Given that the entire Encyclopedia Britannica is on the order of 650
MB, you might come to the conclusion I have:
for the most part, most people have theoretically little privacy, but
practically a great deal, because they're really not that important to
devote that many resources, especially because of the work required to
analyze those known to be important. In other words, their lives aren't
private, just not sufficiently noteworthy to be publicized.
Isn't it a bit of an ego trip to think you're really important enough for
an office of folks in the Pentagon or some hidden X-Files building to spend
a day reading through your email? Unless you're Zephod Beeblebrox (sp),
and you really are one hoopy guy...
I suppose I'm being cavalier about what one would do if I ran for
President, because I wouldn't make a very viable candidate anyway.
Otherwise, there's enough to worry about right now without my caring
continuously about someone digging out some five year old email I wrote.
Just a personality flaw.
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 16:34:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Bennett Kadel
To: chisholm@trace.wisc.edu
Cc: IE Seminar
Subject: Re: too much info/keyword search/privacy
On Fri, 29 Mar 1996 chisholm@trace.wisc.edu wrote:
> How do we know that the FBI, CIA, NSA or whomever have millions of e-mail
> messages on file? What/Who is the source of this information?
>
> Just curious - I've never actually seen this stuff talked about anywhere
> other than in conversations such as these and am not sure where people are
> finding this information.
>
> --wendy
>
>
I actually say this on a tv show about... 2 years ago. The show was one
of those "Beyond 2000" type shows, but I can't remember which one exactly
or when.
Ben
Back to the main page if you're using frames...
Back to the main page if you're viewing
regularly...