The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud797.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 30.8 KB | 607 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Dec 16, 1997   Volume 7 : Issue 97
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail]
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #7.97 (Sun, Dec 16, 1997)

File 1--CuD is Changing Servers - RESUBS ARE NECESSARY
File 2-- ALERT: The Net rocks the capitol;still time to call (fwd)
File 3-- Last Stop Before the Censorship State (Reprint)
File 4--Re: Child Pornography and Beastiality
File 5--Response to "Bestiality on the Net (Re: CuD 7.96)
File 6--Privacy: What is it?
File 7--Computer, Freedom and Privacy 1996
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec, 1995 16:19:32 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--CuD is Changing Servers - RESUBS ARE NECESSARY

                   ** CuD IS CHANGING SERVERS **

In about mid-January, Cu Digest will be moving to a new server at
weber.ucsd.edu. We're following the strong consensus of readers and
requiring that, to continue to receive CuD after mid-January, you must
RE-SUBSCRIBE.

Although the move will not take place for a few weeks, you can enter
your subscribtion before then, so WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO SUB NOW.

Re-subbing is easy. Just send a message with this in the
   "Subject:" line
           SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST

send it to:

   [e-mail]

Issues will still be sent out from the older server for a few weeks,
so the strategy is to collect the resubs first, and then make the
transition.

If you prefer to access CuD from Usenet, use
    comp.society.cu-digest

If you prefer archives, you can use the ftp/www site at
ftp.eff.org (or www.eff.org) or the CuD archives at:
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest.

We also hope to have a mail archive set up soon as well.

You can still contact the moderators at:
        [e-mail]
or      [e-mail]

Please *DO NOT* send inquiries to the server at UIUC.

Jim and Gordon

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

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:33:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2-- ALERT: The Net rocks the capitol;still time to call (fwd)

========================================================================
     CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE NET CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS

     THE NET ROCKS AMERICA'S CAPITOL - NEARLY 20,000 PARTICIPANTS
                    THURSDAY DECEMBER 14, 1995

            SENATE CONFEREES COULD STILL VOTE THIS WEEK
        RALLIES HAPPENING IN AUSTIN, NEW YORK, SF, & SEATTLE

      PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
                REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL December 25, 1995
________________________________________________________________________

RECAP: INTERNET DAY OF PROTEST:  TUESDAY DECEMBER 12, 1995

The net came into its own as a political force on Tuesday.  The
press release has more details.  If you haven't taken a moment to
call, fax, or email, do so now.  We're still keeping track and only
need a few more to break 20,000.

VTW had someone onhand in DC monitoring the response at the Congressional
offices.  The feedback was amazing; Congress got the message.  We need to
sustain that by continuing to tell them we're not happy with the options
being offered to us at this time.

Directions for calling Congress can still be found at http://www.vtw.org/
and the many other sites listed at the end of this message.  Take a moment
to call!  Don't forget to mail us a note at [e-mail] to let us
know you took part in the Day Of Protest (and Day 2, and Day 3, and Day 4).


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                             December 13, 1995
                                            Contact:  Steven Cherry
                                                     [phone]
                                                        [e-mail]
                                                     Shabbir Safdar
                                                     [phone]
                                                    [e-mail]

New York, NY

Are 20,000 phone calls a lot? 30,000? 50,000? They are if you're one of a
handful of Congressional staffers trying to field them. Tuesday, December
12th was the Internet's Day of Protest. A variety of net-activists and
telecommunications-related services exhorted the on-line community to call
a selected group of Senators and Representatives to declare their
opposition to the threat of Internet censorship. And call they did.

As the Senate members of the Telecommunications Reform conference
committee contemplated portions of legislation that would censor
"indecent" material on-line, their staffers were being overwhelmed with
phone calls. Senator Inouye's office said they were "getting lots and lots
of calls and faxes." Senator Lott's said they were "flooded with calls."
At Senator Stevens' office there were so many calls they couldn't keep
a complete tally.

At Senator Exon's office, the fax machine was "backed up."  And at one
point, activists couldn't even get through to Senator Gorton's office to
ask. Exon is the Senator whose Communications Decency Act started the
nearly year-long struggle between those who would create special
regulations to restrict speech on-line (even, in certain instances,
private email between two individuals) to a greater extent than even
traditional broadcast media; regulations that, according to the ACLU and
many other civil liberties groups, will certainly be proven to be
unconstitutional if passed into law.

"We've never seen anything like it," said Stanton McCandish of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The EFF is one member of the on-line
coalition that has been fighting an array of censorship legislation since
this spring, when Senator Exon introduced his Communications Decency Act.

"We may have almost overwhelmed our provider," said Shabbir Safdar, head
of Voter's Telecommunications Watch (VTW). VTW is the organization that
organized the on-line coalition. Their on-line connectivity is provided by
Panix.com, a New York-area Internet service provider. "Panix has been
doing some maintenance work today, so it's hard to tell," Safdar
continued. "But we think it's actually made a dent in their connection
to the rest of the Net."

How many calls were actually made? No one can tell. For Leslie Miller, a
reporter for USA Today, it took much of the afternoon to get some counts
from Congressional staffers, and she couldn't get any report from the
Senate's Sergeant-At-Arms, the office nominally responsible for the
Senate's telephone system. VTW may be the only organization that can
really make an educated guess.

"In our Alerts we ask that people drop us an email note after they call,"
explained VTW board member Steven Cherry. "The message count peaked in the
late afternoon at over 70 per minute. Many of those were from people who
called several offices. By 7:30 P.M. (EST) we had gotten 14,000 messages.
By Wednesday morning the count was over 18,000. And of course there are
the people who called but didn't send us email. So all told, our very
rough guess is there were well over 50,000 phone calls and faxes made on
the one day."

"The Net is coming of age, politically," said Jerry Berman, Director of
the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), another member of the
on-line coalition. Safdar, of VTW, concurred, saying, "I think Washington
got the message today that there's a new grass-roots interest group
around, and we're going to be a big part of the 1996 elections." (VTW's
initial election activities can be found at http://www.vtw.org/pledge.)

In addition to the Day of Protest, rallies are scheduled on Thursday,
December 14th, in San Francisco and Seattle, and a protest will be held
that day at 2:00 in New York City.

The New York rally will be at the Cyber-Cafe, 273A Lafayette St from 2-3pm
on Thursday, Dec 14th.  Contact Steven Cherry or Shabbir J. Safdar for
details.

The Austin rally is planned for Tue. Dec 19th.  No more information is
available at this time.

Information about the San Francisco rally can be obtained from
http://www.hotwired.com/staff/digaman/.

Information about the Seattle rally can be obtained from
http://www.wnia.org/WNIA/hap/rally.html.

Voters Telecommunications Watch is a volunteer organization, concentrating
on legislation as it relates to telecommunications and civil liberties.
VTW publishes a weekly BillWatch that tracks relevant legislation as it
progresses through Congress. It publishes periodic Alerts to inform the
about immediate action it can take to protect its on-line civil liberties
and privacy.

More information about VTW can be found on-line at

  gopher -p 1/vtw gopher.panix.com
  www: http://www.vtw.org

or by writing to [e-mail]. The press can call [phone] or
contact:

   Shabbir Safdar         Steven Cherry
   [e-mail]        [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 16:47:19 -0600
From: [e-mail](Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 3-- Last Stop Before the Censorship State (Reprint)

From: Howard Rheingold ([e-mail])
Date: Fri Dec 15 '95 (14:52)

                Last Stop Before the Censorship State

 By Howard Rheingold


        Americans have one last chance before we lose the Net. If
 American citizens write, call, and fax the President now and urge him to
 veto the telecommunications deregulation bill, we might not lose an
 opportunity to revitalize the democratic process and grow hundreds of
 thousands of small Net-based businesses. And we might not hand over a
 nascent native  industry - the industry of the twenty first century - to
 international competitors.
        The effects of this legislation [BILL NUMBERS TK] go far beyond
 the Internet, reaching into every aspect of American lives, undoubtedly
 influencing the shape of the democracy our children will grow up in. This
 telecommunications bill encourages the concentration of ownership of all
 news, entertainment, and communication media, institutes censorship
 provisions that will put online service providers out of business, cut
 off universities from the worldwide network, and turn American
 scientists, engineers, educators, entrepreneurs into a nation of
 Net-morons in an increasingly online world. This bill allows rates to
 rise too high and too fast, is generous with megacorporations and stingy
 with education, and it completely ignores the widening gap between
 information-rich and information-poor.
        Through months of committee debates and decisions, censors and
 monopolists have won every battle over the future of the Internet. By
 shamelessly exploiting legislators' and citizens' ignorance of the nature
 of the Internet, a small group who are intent upon imposing their brand
 of morality on everyone else,are about to silence a potentially powerful
 medium for citizen-to-citizen communication, cripple American industries
 trying to compete in global markets, and create a Federal bureaucracy
 with the power to determine what is decent for citizens to say.
        Congress will almost certainly send to the President a
 telecommunications reform bill that can send people to jail for two years
 and fine them $100,000 for mentioning the seven words that are forbidden
 from radio and television. Mention of abortion, condoms or safe sex are
 almost certain to be the next items forbidden. American universities, on
 the advice of their attorneys will turn off all Internet access for their
 students as soon as the law goes into effect.
        American citizens don't have to be electrical engineers to
 understand the nature of the new communication media. But we do need to
 have the truth told and the complexities explained, and that has not
 happened. Computer BBSs, e-mail, citizen networks, mean that you no
 longer have to own a press to benefit from freedom of the press: every
 desktop connected to the Net is a printing press, a place of assembly, a
 broadcasting station. The idea that ordinary taxpayers should have the
 power to publish eyewitness reports, argue policy, distribute information
 threatens the old power structures. Politicians and corporations whose
 fortunes are based on control of mass media  fear their power will erode
 to the citizens.
        Legislators have failed to uphold their oath to defend the
 Constitution by pursuing such nonsense as flag-burning amendments to the
 Constitution while at the same time destroying the liberties that flag
 symbolizes. Internet censorship legislation is not about pornography on
 the Internet - that will easily move offshore. It's about who will have
 the power and control to broadcast words, images, and sounds, to everyone
 else. Citizens? Or cartels?
        A trillion-dollar pie is being cut up. We, the people, are
 getting cut out. Speak up. We still have the right to communicate with
 the President and demand that he hold the line. Tell him to send this
 back to Congress. We've been living for sixty years under the rules set
 forth in the Communications Act of 1934. Now the Congress is changing the
 rules again, determining the way our nation and its industries will
 communicate, educate, and do business for decades to come. We deserve
 better than this. Tell Clinton to tell Congress to try again, to cut the
 citizens of this country into the deal, and to keep their hands off the
 Bill of Rights.

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

From: [e-mail](Larry Glaze)
Subject: File 4--Re: Child Pornography and Beastiality
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:48:04 -0500 (EST)
Content-Length: 7350

Patrick A. Townson <[e-mail]> wrote in File 5--Child
Pornography and beastiality, Cu Digest, #7.96:

>No sysadmin is required to carry any alt group not of his (or his
>employer's) liking. No explanation required, it simply does not
>appear on his news spool. Some sites don't carry ANY alt groups
>period. Some sites have even violated the (long-ago) gentlemen's
>agreement of Usenet that for widest possible propogation, each
>site carry all groups, i.e. as a courtesy I display messages from
>your users and in return you display messages from my users.

Very true.

>So if the sysadmin at your site carries alt.sex.whatever.variations
>on his spool, it is because he *wants* to carry it there. It
>might be a business decision (lots of subscribers paying good money
>to have this available to read) or a personal decision (he wants
>to read it himself). Don't believe him if he rationalizes it
>by claiming 'we have to carry all newsgroups'. He can make the
>needed changes in the system .newsrc file, and that, as they say,
>will be that. It is doubtful these days he has to carry all of
>the Usenet groups and he never was required to carry alt groups.

Due to the size of Usenet, you are not required to carry anything you
don't want to.  There are thousands of newsgroups related to only one
city, or one country. We do not have to carry any of these newsgroups,
nor do we have to carry any of the more traditional ones.  The
bandwidth and disk space required for a full newsfeed has gotten
so large that it is impossible for most sites to carry a full
feed.

>If you do NOT want to have such a newsgroup, then you tell your
>syadmin about it. You tell him in your opinion it cheapens and
>harms the reputation of his site by having those groups available.
>You ask him to remove them (or not make them available for public
>reading) and perhaps you offer to take your business elsewhere
>to a site you feel is better operated, or with higher quality.
>If the sysadmin gets enough comments on a newsgroup, he will take
>action on that group.

Oh, come on now.  This is the equivalent of 'I don't like this
channel on my cable services so I am going to try to get the
cable services to drop it so nobody can watch it.'  That is
totally uncalled for.  If someone doesn't like a newsgroup, then
they don't have to subscribe to it.  Like you say, it is as
simple as that.  If you don't like it personally and feel strongly
enought about it then the best thing to do would be to leave. But
lets not keep everyone else using the services from reading a
particular newsgroup you don't like.  It is as much their right to
choose to read a newsgroup as it is yours to choose not to.

> After all, there are people who read {The New York Times} specifically
> because they do not fill up their pages with the likes of columnists
> like Ann Slanders or her sister Scabby Van Buren, and I believe
> sites which carry only a limited subset of the news, picking the
> groups which meet their taste requirements have a place also.

I agree.

> Just because 'child porn may be legal in some countries in Europe' (I
> hear that one a lot) and just because the {New York Times} is sold and
> distributed regularly in Europe and a lot of the readers are European
> there still is no requirement that the {New York Times} print child
> porn under some vaugely thought out line of reasoning which says 'well
> it came here on our newsfeed from someplace in Europe where it is
> legal so how can the authorities here punish us for printing it?' ...
> Very easily ... that is what editors are for. If you carry
> Usenet/altnet/*net news on your site, then the sysadmin becomes an
> editor by default.
>
> Remember, a 'news' group without any news spools to sit on really
> doesn't exist. Self-censorship is the best censorship of all ... it
> works, is far more effective than anything the government tries to
> legislate, and even the ACLU has not yet been able to figure out
> how to force people to like it who in reality are totally opposed to
> the actual/perceived or encouraged abuse of children/animals in this way.

You said it right here, self-censorship is the best censorship of all.
If I do not want to see or read something, then it is *my* choice not
to see or read it.  *I* make the decision, not the government or any
other person forcing me not to read or see it by completely keeping it
off of the system.  Also, I highly doubt the ACLU is condoning any
"actual/perceived or encouraged abuse of children/animals".  They are
just trying to protect our freedom of speech so I can say "You don't have
a damn clue what you are talking about" and not get thrown in jail for it.

> So sysadmins, start acting more like responsible publishers/editors.
> If you want that garbage at your site, hey -- just say so and
> carry it. If you don't, then get rid of it and block it out of
> your accepted newsfeed.

News admins *are not editors or publishers*. PERIOD!  This has already
been proven in court.  Prodigy lost their court case because they
monitored a chat room and, therefore, the courts said that they were
a publisher because of that fact.  If they had not been
monitoring the chat room then they would have been found innocent.
News admins do not monitor content of the newsgroups and it would
be very difficult to do so due to hardware/software requirements
needed to scan *every* news article that comes through the site.
Besides all of that, I have better things to do with my time than
to go reading through all of the articles my users post.  I am
*not* an editor and I do not want to be one.  Nor am I a publisher.
I am the equivalent of the phone company.  I provide a gateway for
people to send out their messages to Usenet.

Adults have to start taking responsibility for what their children see.
If you don't want your child coming into contact with certain segments
of the net community then you take the time to monitor their activity.
Just because you are too lazy to take the time to monitor your
child while they surf the net is no reason to limit what *everyone*
else can see, say or do on the net.  If you would rather the government
ban "indecent" images/language, then you have just forced your moral
standards upon everyone else in the country.  What will you do
when someone decides they don't like a particular activity that you
enjoy?  I suppose you will just say "Oh, they think it is too dangerous
for me or too 'indecent' for me so I will just go along with it.
Never mind the fact that I have every right to choose for myself
what I do."  And no, I am not advocating child pornography or
beastiality.  My response is directed towards all of the people who,
because they deem something inappropriate, feel they have the right
to impose their views or opinions on me.

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

From: [e-mail](Tall Thin Jones)
Subject: File 5--Response to "Bestiality on the Net (Re: CuD 7.96)
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 11:49:00 -0500

 * Carbons Sent to: Alt.sex.bestiality

     In File 5, CuD #7.96, Patrick A. Townson spoke against "bestiality"
on the net.  I believe he was wrong on several points, and I want to
submit a rebuttal here.

     Bestiality, in its definition of "humans having sex with animals"
is not inherently cruelty.  It's not illegal in all fifty states, as
even under humane laws, harm has to be real.  Animals do form romantic,
loving relationships, they do experience sex for pleasure, they do
exercise discretion in their choice of mates, and they do consent or
withhold consent, to the point of using deadly force.  Anyone who is
literate can learn these things from the scholarly literature. If Mr.
Townson wants to discuss it further, he can go to alt.sex.bestiality.
Try to keep it rational, please, we do have standards.

     Mr. Townson urged that providers be encouraged to drop groups like
alt.sex.bestiality and others he doesn't like.  I'm sure they have a
right to choose what they will carry, but it is also a principled stand
to carry all of the USENET groups if one is a USENET provider.  This is
the support of the larger principle that the Constitution protects
everyone or it protects no one.  If it worked otherwise I'd be on the
bandwagon against the pedophiles in an instant.  But maybe hatred is
still hatred even against the right targets...  But I ramble.

     The hyenas are at our door.  Our situation as users of the Internet
will not improve if we give them a little of what they want, taken from
our neighbors who we don't like or approve of.  The hyenas see us all as
meat.  In plainer English, the Christian Coalition that is pushing the
decency laws has already labelled all users of the Internet as potential
pedophiles who must be restricted for our own good.  Pointing fingers at
each other will weaken us and strengthen them, then they will take all
of our freedoms.  Patrick L. Townson's proposals will make it much
easier for them to do this.

     We have to decide which is worse.  Having a few newsgroups some of
us can't stand reading, and a few websites some of us won't use, or
allowing the Christian Coalition to filter all of human knowledge for
the rest of us.  They didn't do too well when they were able to do this
before.

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:16:44 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: File 6--Privacy: What is it?

THE COMPUTER LAW REPORT
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
December 14, 1995 [#14]

SORRY FOR THE DELAY SINCE THE LAST ISSUE. THIS ISSUE BEGINS A SERIES
DISCUSSING PRIVACY RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE.
=====================================
GENERAL INFO: The Computer Law Report is distributed (usually) weekly for
free and is prepared by William S. Galkin, Esq. The Report is designed
specifically for the non-lawyer. To subscribe, send e-mail to [e-mail].
All information contained in The Computer Law Report is for the benefit of
the recipients, and should not be relied on or considered as legal advice.
Copyright 1995 by William S. Galkin.
=====================================
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Mr. Galkin is an attorney in private practice in Owings
Mills, Maryland (which is a suburb of Baltimore), and has been an adjunct
professor of Computer Law at the University of Maryland School of Law. Mr.
Galkin has concentrated his private practice in the Computer Law area since
1986. He represents small startup, midsized and large companies, across the
U.S. and internationally, dealing with a wide range of legal issues
associated with computers and technology, such as developing, marketing and
protecting software, purchasing and selling complex computer systems, and
launching and operating a variety of online business ventures. He also enjoys
writing about computer law issues!

===> Mr. Galkin is available for consultation with individuals and companies,

wherever located, and can be reached as follows: E-MAIL:
[e-mail]/TELEPHONE: [phone]/FAX: [phone]/MAIL: 10451 Mill Run
Circle, Suite 400, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Articles in The Report are available to be published as columns in both print
and electronic publications. Please contact Mr. Galkin for the terms of such
usage.
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
PRIVACY: WHAT IS IT?
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+

[This is the first of a series of articles discussing privacy rights in the
digital age.]

As the Information Age reaches maturity, its tentacles seem to stretch  into
every aspect of our lives. These fiber optic tentacles gather information
from us often without our knowledge.  Vast amounts of personal information is
collected, sorted, organized by both government and private entities, and
then used for a wide variety of purposes. Do we have any right to control the
uses made of "our" information? Is there a right to privacy that provides us
with some protection?

I remember once calling an 800 number. The person who answered the phone knew
my name and address immediately without my giving this information. Through
use of a caller identification system linked to a data base sorted by phone
numbers, they had   personal information available instantaneously when
people called. I was disturbed by the knowledge that making a telephone call
could no longer be done with anonymity. I wondered how much information  they
had about me, where it was gleaned from, and whether I could have any control
over how this information would be used.

It is important to identify what is meant by a right to privacy in the
context of personal information. In 1928, the Supreme Court in Olmstead v.
United States, explained the right to privacy as the right to be "left
alone." While many will agree with this description, it will need to be much
further refined to be useful for applying it in the many different situations
where this right will arise.

Rather than trying to define the right to privacy at this point, it is better
to look at some  circumstances where such a right might arise:

(1) Where the government unlawfully seizes evidence of a crime and the
evidence is then inadmissible in court. One example of this is where the
unlawful seizure occurs in a location where the possessor of the information
had a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Where a car is lawfully stopped by
the police for a simple traffic violation,  illegal objects that are in plain
view from outside the car may be seized because there cannot be a reasonable
expectation of privacy, but , without  probable cause for suspicion, objects
seized from the glove compartment would not be admissible because there is a
reasonable expectation of privacy applicable to the glove compartment.

(2) Where government agencies or private entities are lawfully collecting
personal data, but more data is collected than is needed to accomplish the
purpose of  the data collection. The collection of this excess data might
amount to an invasion of privacy, even though the data is never misused.

(3) Where information that has been lawfully collected is then disclosed
(e.g., disclosure to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
or disclosure to other entities). The courts have determined that since the
purpose of the FOIA is to allow the public to monitor the activities of
government, disclosure of personal data about individuals does not further
this purpose, and therefore is not subject to disclosure under the FOIA. This
conclusion results from balancing the public's right to access to government
records and the privacy interests of individuals. Disclosure to third parties
might be data transfer or data matching between government agencies or a
business selling customer lists.

(4) Where information lawfully collected is not disclosed, but rather used
for a purpose different than the purpose for which it was originally
collected. For example, information collected pursuant to an application for
a mortgage might be used for trying to sell other products or services
offered by the same company.

(5) Where data lawfully collected is inaccurate. The classic case of this is
the credit report. In this context, the right to privacy might be the right
to examine and correct these records.

The "Right to Privacy" is a battle cry we often hear these days as we see our
cherished realm of privacy being invaded by the onslaught of technology.
 However, legal scholars and the courts have had difficulty identifying the
specific source of this right and defining its scope and application.

Many believe that this right emanates from the Constitution. While it may,
 the U.S. Supreme Court has never expressly recognized a
constitutionally-based right to privacy relating to collection and use of
personal data, except as regards disclosure in  criminal law proceedings. In
1965, in the case of Griswald v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court recognized a
right to privacy relating to birth control counseling. This and subsequent
cases identified the right to privacy relating to controlling an individual's
life as relates to personal decisions. However, this does not provide a
foundation for a right to privacy of personal information.

Others prefer to view the right to privacy as a property right, similar to
the accepted corresponding property right found in the commercial context:
 trade secrets. As a property right, the owner of this information would have
the right not to disclose the information and to restrict others who received
this information through a permitted disclosure from further disclosure in a
manner that is not inconsistent with the "owner's" expressed instructions.

The comparison of trade secrets law with a right to privacy of personal
information is difficult to take too faI╘.