HPAVC/HPAVC CD-ROM.iso/pc/AOTD_5.ZIP/AOTD-5

Text File | 1993-03-31 | 46.8 KB | 1,117 lines

         The Art of Technology Digest #5   Wednesday, September 30th, 1992

 %%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%%%AoT%%

  Editor: Chris Cappuccio ([e-mail])
  BBS Archivist: David Mitchell ([e-mail])
  E-Mail Archivist: Mike Batchelor ([e-mail])

[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 [e-mail] 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<number>.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
[phone], 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:

                        [e-mail]

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 <[e-mail]>
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: [e-mail]
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 [e-mail]

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: [e-mail] (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: [e-mail] (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    | [e-mail]          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD

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

From: [e-mail]
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:

[e-mail]

Many thanks ... Michele

*************************************************************************
email: [e-mail]    phone: [phone]   fax: [phone]
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 <[e-mail]>
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)
    [e-mail]
  David Sobel, CPSR Legal Counsel (202/544-9240)
    [e-mail]


   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, [e-mail].

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

From: [e-mail] (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
[e-mail]. 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 [e-mail].  - 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.
    <[e-mail]>

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.
    <[e-mail]>

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.
    <[e-mail]>

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.
    <[e-mail]>

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!
    <[e-mail]>

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.
    <[e-mail]>

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.
    <[e-mail]>

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.
    <[e-mail]>

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."
    <[e-mail]>

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."
    <[e-mail]>

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.
    <[e-mail]>

- 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
[e-mail]. 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
[e-mail]. 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.
 =[e-mail], [e-mail] =

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

From: [e-mail] (Dmitry Gokhman)
Subject: Article 8--Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 07:58:35 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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."
>    <[e-mail]>

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 -> [e-mail]
   says:        `/v/-*
MY BRAIN HURTS  J  L             YOUR AD HERE!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

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

From: [e-mail] (David Barker-Plummer)
Subject: Article 9--Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 14:53:32 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>
 [e-mail] (Dmitry Gokhman) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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."
   >    <[e-mail]>

   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: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 10--Re: Abstract of CAF-News 02.36
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 15:27:15 GMT

[e-mail] (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 [e-mail].
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.
 =[e-mail], [e-mail] =

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 19:15:01 -0400
From: Christopher Davis <[e-mail]>
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 [phone], 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 [phone]| [e-mail] |
+=====+===================================================+=============+

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:29:05 -0400
From: Gary Chapman  <[e-mail]>
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 [phone].

Gary Chapman
Coordinator
The 21st Century Project
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Cambridge, Massachusetts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:39:30 -0400
From: Gary Chapman <[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail]

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

Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:47:47 EDT
From: Marc Rotenberg <[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail]

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

From:     James Love <[e-mail]>
          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 [e-mail].

==============================================================
James Love, Director              voice     215/658-0880
Taxpayer Assets Project           fax       call
12 Church Road                    internet  [e-mail]
Ardmore, PA  19003
==============================================================

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin J. Cummings)
Subject: Article 16--Re: Diamond and Driver Development for Unix.
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:57:25 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
 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:  [e-mail]
Home:  [e-mail]

Std. Disclaimer: "Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration,
          I've come to the conclusion that your new
          defense system SUCKS..."   --  War Games
=================================================================

------------------------------
From: [e-mail] (Steve Schear)
Subject: Article 17--Re: ATM fraud
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 23:33:03 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Unruh)
 writes:
>[e-mail] (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