- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Get ZDNet on PointCast - FREE!
by announce＠lists.zdnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------- ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 4/24/97 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Announcing ZDNet on PointCast: Get ZDNet broadcast directly to your desktop - Free! With the new ZDNet channel on the PointCast Network, you can now have ZDNet's comprehensive computing and Internet news delivered directly to your computer screen. You'll receive the latest technology news, in-depth product reviews for PC and Mac, hot new games, shareware programs, and complete coverage of the latest Web-related news -- all broadcast to your computer screen, free of charge. To get your free personalized version of ZDNet broadcast to your desktop, just visit the following page to download and install the PointCast Network software: http://www.zdnet.com/partners/pcast/download.html In addition to continuously updated technology news and features from leading Ziff-Davis publications, you can also receive world news, stock updates, weather reports, sports scores, and more, all free via the PointCast Network! If you're already a PointCast user, you can find out how to update your current version of PointCast with the new ZDNet Channel by visiting: http://www.zdnet.com/partners/pcast/upgrade.html _______________________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-on(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-off(a)lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. _______________________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com ===============================================

1 0

WWW-Survey
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- GVU's Seventh WWW User Survey: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/ Lot's of privacy/security questions etc.. Ciao Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBM17ZWzltEBIEF0MBAQGYMQf9E6W8z9IifU0QD2/3pEEGE2yji7kndh59 aCJ5F5oVVlXF60gQmQ/wFc/24oXvLmS45zpYUgIXFYsi9Ja3y1BfRRe1kbnN1KFQ KII3TX4H7SrBXmnhxP1YErlsZenWTAwLW8HEvGjWSTwbKXIGQQkm6Shddj+Kzdue yN9ZUX3eIJeo60Km4JWJzi/fO0+6YPiaI3AcFxltmoNymDfOaviCbxXyL24wJ8B2 wlD1arsBVhT9bs5IB37bUoGDo6OWEzcMOBbY05s9UsAO+Vwp+/+IxAzCNxG8ab32 ed57SrfZSwk4D5oQX+7eZlelU0WvbJA3RsT23LCewwlS9QMmG4Jo1w== =c1+l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[NTSEC] NT Displays Plain-Text Netware Passwords (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you're gonna die, die with your|./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|boots on; If you're gonna try, just |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!" |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com ========================= For with those which eternal lie, with strange eons even death may die. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 01:37:49 -0500 From: Patrick Hayden <patrick.hayden(a)ibm.net> To: ntsecurity(a)iss.net Subject: [NTSEC] NT Displays Plain-Text Netware Passwords Windows NT 4.0, with Microsoft's Client Services for Netware, or Novell's IntraNetware Client for Windows NT, writes plain-text user-id and password information to PAGEFILE.SYS. The user-id and password apply to Netware, however, users commonly use the same logon information for both NT and Netware. It is possible to then recover the plain-text information by using a disk editor. Tests have been performed (with more pending) on these systems: Windows NT Workstation 4.0 w/SP1 and IntraNetware Client for NT (970214) Pent. 133 Laptop 24MB RAM 50MB PAGEFILE.SYS Windows NT Workstation 4.0 w/SP1 and Microsoft Client Services for Netware Dual Pent 166 64MB RAM 80MB PAGEFILE.SYS Novell Netware 4.11 Server 1. Set /MAXMEM=12 in BOOT.INI so as to force swapping. 2. Load NT; Authenticate to NT and Netware (I used the same ID and Password for both systems.); Verify connection by mapping a drive. 3. To ensure that sufficient swapping takes place, run a large program (this forces the user-id and password information stored in RAM to be placed into PAGEFILE.SYS.) 4. Exit NT; Boot to DOS; diskedit PAGEFILE.SYS 5. Search for one of the following strings (do NOT include the "" items): IntraNetware Client: NWUserName="user-id" WlMprNotifyPassword="password" "UserName" (if the username is alone, the password will follow very closely) Client Services for Netware nwcs"password" (the password is all CAPS and will immediately follow nwcs) In a "real-life" environment, most likely there will be enough swapping on the system that setting the /MAXMEM switch will be unnecessary. The switch is only to help confirm that this hole exits. If anyone has any knowledge of this, please post it to the list. Patrick Hayden Security Consultant Ernst & Young, LLP patrick.hayden(a)ibm.net

1 0

Re: The Net is Closing, the U.S. is becoming a Terror State
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > cyberpass.net is an unacceptable replacement for toad.com.] Why, because your Cocksucker pal John Gilmore can't pull plugs? > We're in a terror state when the War on Drugs, the War on Pornography, the > War on Terrorism, the War on Guns, and the War on Unlicensed Cryptography > makes us all criminals. I've been saying this for some time now. Any ideas where to emigrate to? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

PGPSteps
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-------------< COMMENTS BY Harka >-------------- Since there was a quite surprising interest, when I announced the draft-version of "PGPSteps", I'll post it this time straight to the list. If somebody would like to give it a WWW-home, go for it (please let me know the URL). Harka ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Harka >---------- Here is "PGPSteps", a brief installation guide for PGP 2.6.2/2.6.3i for DOS/Windows. I started writing it, cause it seemed, that a lot of people were getting turned off by the sheer amount of homepages, front-ends, 150-pages+ FAQ's etc.. All of these things are great, but were usually only mastered by the most of the determined. The majority of potential users though didn't want to go through all that trouble. Hence "PGPSteps", an attempt to provide an easy starting ground, that let's newbies know, where to get PGP, how to install it, answers the most important questions and gives pointers to other resources. All that in a short and easily understandable form, that even not-so-technical people might be able to deal with. I hope, I have failed not too miserably... Comments to "PGPSteps" are welcome. Harka PGPSTEPS.ASC

1 0

Re: Censorware battle heats up; CyberSitter blacklist now public
by geeman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/3355.html > >Teen Offers Way to Crack Blocking Software >by Rebecca Vesely > >3:03pm 23.Apr.97.PDT A Tennessee college student has posted a software >program on the Web that can be used to decrypt a list of sites blocked >by the prominent blocking software Cybersitter. The company that makes >the program is furious, and an attorney versed in Net law says the >student could face legal action. > >Bennett Haselton, co-founder of the teen Web site Peacefire, on Monday >posted a program that he wrote specifically to crack the "filter file" >that comes with Cybersitter. The 18-year-old junior at Vanderbilt >University says it took him two days to write the software. The filter >file is frequently updated by Solid Oak Software, the company that >owns Cybersitter, but was taken offline Tuesday by the company. > >"He is violating every intellectual property law ever written," said >Solid Oak president Brian Milburn. "It costs us tens of thousands of >dollars to maintain that list. It's none of his business what is on >that list or what we do with it." /\/\/\/\/ And this genius Milburn protects it with some bullshit that can be cracked in 2 days!?!?! He deserves everything he gets and more. Should be a lesson. I look forward to more fireworks! > >------------------------- >Time Inc. >The Netly News Network >Washington Correspondent >http://netlynews.com/ > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send >"subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. >More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ > > > >

1 0

Re: Cato forum on liquor advertising and electronic media
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frantz wrote: >What is highly amusing is the mounting evidence that alcoholic beverages in >moderation are good for your health. Of course, if you are one of the >small percent of the population who can't be moderate, then you should not >use alcoholic beverages. But many people have bad reactions to various >foods. That's no reason to forbid them or their advertising. ............................................... Well, of course I was taking aim not specifically against the mentioned vices, but to the attitude of people who wish to protect children from themselves in their forays into "dangerous" advertising territory. That is, to the attitude of calling for restriction and the setting of boundaries, rather than of providing some explanations on life and what can happen and how a person can deal with consequences. But that would take a lot of work and wisdom that they apparently don't feel they can offer. I have envisioned a time in the distant future, perhaps in a distant galaxy, where static data is not a source of fear and children grow with an open attitude to information - to the fact that it is they themselves, who determine what shall be done, not bits of data. I have always read so many things since growing up, curiously poking into everything that was available (my Mother would have cringed), and never was automatically affected by it, but developed a total respect for a Universe of All Possible Things, even if I never intended to involve or indulge myself in trying out all that I encountered (in the library, bookstores, etc.) These people have this idea that because you look at a black hole you inevitably must fall into it. I guess it comes from their own lack of self confidence. Were they to have the aim of ascending from fear and doubt into the expansion of their worldly perspective and development of intelligent judgment about Reality, they wouldn't have to think of calling upon intermediaries to put limits on their activities (or that of their children) for them. One should look for intermediaries only when one is clearly helpless. It's incredible to think that there is no self-defense against fatuous advertising. -- end of rant -- .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Downloading Software + viruses (HOAX)
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This guy is scaring me. It's not real, right? On 24 Apr 97 at 18:28, Scott Shrader wrote: > I know You can get a virus this way. Do you want me to send you one > this way?!?! That sound's like a threat. I am going to have to report you to your ISP. Sorry. Abuse or Root: Your user is threating to send me a virus through e-mail. Can you stop him, please? See headers at bottom of message. Thanks. > > Yours, > Scott > > > At 04:03 PM 4/23/97 -0700, you wrote: > >Scott, > > > >Get off it. You can't get a virus from reading an e-mail file. > >We've been all over this, up and down. You must open a file and > >run it to get a virus. Now you *may* be able to get a virus from > >reading 'web based' e-mal like hot mail, but using a regular e-mail > >software it WILL NOT happen. No way, no how, so put up a copy of > >this "microsoft letter" on your web site you claim to have and post > >some verifiable information or just go away and shut up. > > > > > > > >On 23 Apr 97 at 17:58, Scott Shrader wrote: > > > >> The another reason I know this can happen is I got a letter from > >> Microsoft and on C-net(on the TV), talking about a virus that > >> once you opened it. Could curruped you e-mail program(only work > >> on internet Exsplore and microsoft e-mail programs). > >> > >> Yours, > >> Scott Shrader > >> > >> >On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Scott Shrader wrote: > >> > > >> >> Sorry to burst your bubble, but I know for a fact that you can > >> >> get a virus from a e-mail. I've heard from other people how > >> >> have gotten viruses this. I even heard of how to do it. You > >> >> can't get the virus, unless your open it and/or get it from > >> >> your e-mail server. > >> >> > >> >> Yours, > >> >> Scott Shrader > >> >> > > > > > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > _/ Scott Shrader _/ > _/ shrader(a)scsn.net _/ > _/ http://www.scsn.net/users/shrader/ _/ > _/ or _/ > _/ http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/2352/ _/ > _/ Columbia, SC _/ > _/ 29223 _/ > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > Received: from rosie.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12]) by

2 1

Fraud Without Frontiers
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FT reports on a new Deloitte & Touche report, "Fraud Without Frontiers" on the EU "fraud paradise." It sees 10 areas of concern: "Computer abuse, banking frauds, counterfeiting, investment fraud, confidence tricks, public sector fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, insurance fraud, smuggling and money laundering. The largest single threat comes from fraud through the Internet. The potential for abuse of computer systems is huge, particuarly since encryption technology is vulnerable to sophisticated computer users. The Internet is now being used to manipulate financial markets. Fraudsters are becoming more sophisticated. Inside dealers are making more use of offshore havens to avoid detection while criminal syndicates with knowlege of banking practice have cheated banks. 'Offshore havens', some inside the EU, remains a common feature of fraud. But with some EU economies closely linked to the offshore world, the incentive to push for reform in this area is limited" The report is available from D&T-UK for L95. (Hint, send) http://www.deloitte-touche-consulting.co.uk/main.html ----- D&T has a Web page, "Taking the Mystery Out of ..." which gives solace about encryption, passwords, firewalls, kerberos, and such: http://www.dttus.com/dttus/publish/mystery/mystery1.htm

1 0

CEI tells the Federal Trade Commission to be wary of regulation
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I'll forward some followup comments with the same Subject: line. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:30:35 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FC: CEI tells the Federal Trade Commission to be wary of regulation Julie DeFalco from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank here in DC, today sent me what her organization filed with the FTC earlier this month. Below CEI urges the FTC to be "extremely cautious in regulating the free flow of consumer information" online. The FTC will revisit the issue of online privacy regulations this June. Some excerpts from CEI's filing: Despite plenty of speculation, there has been no demonstration of significant actual harm resulting from the commercial collection of personal data over the Internet. This is not to say that all data posted on the Internet are good. Quite the contrary. For example, the government has made it difficult, if not impossible, to live in America today without a social security number. Congress has mandated that all states use social security numbers as driver identification numbers. And Departments of Motor Vehicles have been rather cavalier about selling the data collected, including social security numbers. That is why the outcry against Lexis-Nexis, which created a database of publicly available government information, was misplaced. [...] There is a tension between the notion that all interactions on the Internet ought to be private, and the fact that people go on to the Internet to communicate in public. The reality is that going on to the Internet is like walking on a public street, with each Web page like a private store. Each Web page has the right to set up its own conditions for entry. Such policies could range from a free-for-all data collection spree, to very strict information collection limitations. [...] Read on for the complete document. -Declan ************************** April 15, 1997 Secretary Federal Trade Commission Room H-159 Sixth St. and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20580 Consumer Privacy 1997 Comment P954807 and Request to Participate P954807 Dear Sir or Madam: The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Consumer Coalition hereby files comments on and a request to participate in Session Two of the Federal Trade Commission's upcoming public hearing on "Consumer Privacy Issues Posed by the Online Marketplace." CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan free-market research and advocacy group. We have long been involved with commercial free speech issues, and we work on privacy and Internet issues as well. The NCC is a coalition of nine consumer organizations interested in expanding consumer choice in the marketplace. Given the fact that few, if any, other consumer groups are presenting this viewpoint, we believe that our participation in these hearings would assist the Commission in its consideration of these issues. Introduction There are some central issues which must be resolved before discussing the FTC's specific questions. What is "privacy"? With all of the discussion of privacy of commercial data on the Internet, it is strange that no one has actually defined the term. The tendency is to rely instead on an "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" approach. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis said that privacy is the "The right to be left alone - the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people." Others say privacy is a result of living in a large society where people do not know each other's reputations and are not able to impose social constraints on others' behavior. "Privacy grows as the number of strangers grows," wrote Steven Nock. "Privacy is one consequence, or cost, of growing numbers of strangers." The confusion surrounding the term privacy leads one to conclude that "privacy" is like a Rorschach ink blot - different people read different things into it. "Whenever an invasion of privacy is claimed, there are usually competing values at stake." In this sense, privacy is not a right, it is a preference. Much of what people want in the name of "privacy" is that which they could actually achieve through traditionally understood conceptions of property rights and freedom of contract. But when "privacy" itself is set forth as an amorphous, floating concept, it in fact threatens property rights and freedom of contract. It is this substitution of an ill-defined "privacy right" for well-defined rights that threatens the Internet. What is the distinction between commercial data collection and government data collection? The restraints placed on government actions on the Internet are rightly and necessarily stricter than those placed on companies and individuals. Restraining government action underlies our entire political system, for the government has unique powers of coercion. Since government may fine, imprison, and (in capital cases), execute citizens, there must be very strict conditions under which government may collect information about citizens. Unfortunately, government has been less than exemplary in this realm, and has repeatedly pushed the boundaries of acceptable behavior. For example, one bill currently before Congress (H.R. 118) requires the Attorney General to "acquire data about all stops for routine traffic violations by law enforcement officers." The data include "identifying characteristics of the individual stopped, including the race and or ethnicity of as well as the approximate age of that individual." The irony of calling in the government to protect privacy on the Internet when it so cavalierly ignores it in other realms is rich. On the other hand, companies cannot impose an agenda on private individuals the way the government can. When they try to, there are civil and criminal laws there to stop them. Despite rhetoric about the "power" of large corporations, all marketers can really do is try to persuade people to buy their products. They do this through advertising. Why is data collection so important for the Internet? People have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not willing to pay for content on the Internet. Advertising Age magazine recently reported that only 25% of people polled were willing to pay to subscribe to online publications. Many subscribers to content pages freely share their passwords with others. "If Web sites can't figure out how to halt the free-for-all, a promising revenue source for on-line businesses may be threatened." Therefore, in order to develop, web sites will increasingly depend upon advertising for support. Indeed, "for most [Internet search] engines, advertising has accounted for more than 90% of total revenues. Advertising will continue to be the primary source of income for Yahoo! (and other search engines) as they set up local content ventures." America Online has found it necessary to put advertising in chat rooms to raise extra revenue (which was lost when AOL introduced its flat rate monthly user fee). At the same time, advertisers are still very hesitant about advertising on the Internet. "Where are the marketers?" asked one Advertising Age editorial. The editor of Out magazine's web page, now defunct, was quoted as saying, "advertisers aren't clamoring to get on the Web - we have to beat them up to get on the Web" (emphasis in original). Anything which makes it harder for advertising to work will have direct effects on the quality and content of the Internet, a very serious harm to Internet users. In addition, it will likely raise the cost to consumers of using the Internet. Is the issue "privacy," or is it really marketing? Much of the rhetoric surrounding the privacy issue concerns the purported power of advertising. There is a decades-old strain of thought which declares that advertising is coercive and makes people buy what they do not want. This is untrue, as examples from the Edsel, to New Coke, even to Nissan (which has a great ad campaign but has seen no increase in auto sales) show. Unfortunately, many people do not fully recognize the very real benefits consumers derive from advertising. Advertising's role in a market economy is essential, and essentially benign. Advertising lets consumers know about price and quality information. It alerts consumers to the existence of new and improved products. It even saves consumers time by helping them figure out what they do not want in advance of shopping (e.g. a new car's styling is unattractive, or it is too expensive). Curtailing advertising limits the availability of consumer information. FTC Question 2.3: What are the risks, costs and benefits of collection, compilation, sale and use of personal consumer information in this context? Despite plenty of speculation, there has been no demonstration of significant actual harm resulting from the commercial collection of personal data over the Internet. This is not to say that all data posted on the Internet are good. Quite the contrary. For example, the government has made it difficult, if not impossible, to live in America today without a social security number. Congress has mandated that all states use social security numbers as driver identification numbers. And Departments of Motor Vehicles have been rather cavalier about selling the data collected, including social security numbers. That is why the outcry against Lexis-Nexis, which created a database of publicly available government information, was misplaced. The allocation of costs and benefits deriving from data collection depends upon whom you ask. Again, privacy is a preference, not a universal right. While some may not like the very idea that data are being collected about their consumption behavior, others may not care at all. Indeed, some consumers may not mind how much information about them is available, if it means they will receive only ads targeted to their particular interests. "Consumers don't mind advertising and pay attention to it, as long as it gives them something of value." There is a tension between the notion that all interactions on the Internet ought to be private, and the fact that people go on to the Internet to communicate in public. The reality is that going on to the Internet is like walking on a public street, with each Web page like a private store. Each Web page has the right to set up its own conditions for entry. Such policies could range from a free-for-all data collection spree, to very strict information collection limitations. It is important to note that since advertising depends upon customer profile information, web pages which take extra steps to protect privacy might be relatively more expensive, and may have to charge a premium. If one individual prefers more privacy than another, this is a reasonable situation. It behooves Web pages to clearly define the terms of entry. As for chat rooms and newsgroups, their entire purpose is for people to communicate with each other. Therefore, people should not be surprised when third parties collect information which they have already placed in the public realm. There are some very serious problems with the notion that consumers somehow "own" information about themselves which they have already released publicly, or through a contract with a company. Away from the virtual world, people have repeatedly shown willingness to give up their "valuable" personal data in return for such things as rebates or coupons. From product reply questionnaires to supermarket shopper clubs, people give out information all the time, often automatically. Even when it comes to the sale of magazine subscriber lists, many people know about it and often take advantage of deals offered by other magazines and by marketers of certain products. Some say that consumers ought to be reimbursed for this sale of names. But value is subjective, and, in a market economy, a good offered for sale is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. Companies pay for the names because it saves them the time and expense that it would take to collect the publicly available information themselves. Arbitrarily assigning a price to names, rather than having it settled by negotiation through the market, assumes that everyone agrees upon the value of a name. As discussed above, this is not so. Artificially raising the price of a good (i.e. a name) through regulation would surely decrease demand for it. That outcome might please many privacy advocates, but it would hurt consumers in unseen ways, by limiting the availability and circulation of consumer information. If you release information about yourself, then that information becomes part of the public realm. For example, suppose you place an engagement announcement in a local newspaper. You do not "own" that information. That is, other parties can pick it up and use it for, say, creating mailing lists of newlyweds or brides-to-be. "The power to control information about you is the power to control the speech of others." Even when it comes to implicit contracts - the selling of magazine lists, for example - there is no reason why it is incumbent upon the magazine seller to obtain an affirmation from every subscriber before selling their names. Rather, sensitive consumers ought to pay attention to the fine print of their contracts. They can decline to contract in the first place, or establish a set of acceptable conditions, such as requesting that their names be removed from mailing lists. Keeping names off of lists is a preference and not a right. Consumers who do not like this practice have no right to impose their preferences on everyone. What goes for the real world should apply to the virtual world. The risks of this data collection by companies are overstated. The one exception is when collected information falls into the hands of the government. For example, an ice-cream shop culled names of eighteen-year-olds from the store's birthday club and sold the list to the selective service. For these customers, going into an ice-cream shop mean induction in the army. The costs and benefits of data collection are different for every consumer. Regulation would only institutionalize a set of preferences, rather than uphold rights. It might be that companies ought to be more explicit about their information collection policies. However, those companies which do take extra steps in this regard frequently tout it. In short, those consumers most concerned about data collection already have one way of satisfying that preference, without resorting to government intervention. FTC Question 2.16: How widespread is the practice of sending unsolicited e-mail? Are privacy or other consumer interests implicated by this practice? What are the sources of e-mail addresses used for this purpose? Unsolicited e-mail is very similar to junk mail in the context of "privacy." Many people find it annoying, especially since junk e-mail shifts the cost from the sender to the recipient, who pays in time and money. However, enough people like it and take advantage of it that the practice continues. E-mail marketers often harvest names through data mining - collecting e-mail addresses from newsgroup posts and chat rooms. It is clear that many consumers do not like this, but it is not clear why this practice should be made illegal, as opposed to being simply irritating. As previously noted, people who venture out into those chat rooms and newsgroups are going out into public. E-mail put out into these areas is public property, much as an engagement announcement would be. Therefore, someone collecting lists of names and sending out junk e-mails is acting perfectly legitimately. There is no way for a data collector (or even another participant) to know in advance who would like to hear about something or not. The combination of what is wanted and what is unwanted is different for everyone. Many people object to the costs of paying for unwanted e-mail (e.g. charges per e-mail received, line charges incurred while using the e-mail function). That is perfectly understandable. But if you do not wish to be put on a list, the responsibility is yours to avoid it. Fortunately, there are already options available. Most of the major Internet providers - AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe - already have banned junk mailings. This provision of what some see as a valuable service is perfectly legitimate as well. In addition, AOL also permits people who participate in chat rooms to use up to five false names. Along with the ease of finding anonymizers to surf the Web, "going incognito" has never been so easy to do. As the Washington Post aptly noted, "Psychologically, the more interesting question is why folks who long since gave up the attempt to stop mass telemarketing or ordinary delivered-to-the-door junk mail find it so much more immediately threatening to receive mail that can be deleted at the touch of a button." FTC Question 2.18: What costs does unsolicited commercial e-mail impose on consumers or others? Are there available means of avoiding or limiting such costs? If so, what are they? The wording of the question suggests that the FTC believes that the primary cost of unsolicited e-mail is "privacy." Once again, "privacy" is a preference. Therefore, junk e-mail is a cost only to those who personally object to data collection. It might be useful to look at this situation in a different way. Restricting data collection reduces the possibility of target marketing. Perhaps some consumers would be happy to receive e-mail relating only to their particular interests. As target marketing becomes more accurate due to data collection, it would actually reduce the amount of unwanted e-mail. Sailing enthusiasts would not receive gardening catalogs, gourmands would not receive home improvement information. In addition, clamping down on data collection will hurt smaller companies and non-profits, who might find this data collection useful in finding new customers or members. Well-known non-profits, for example, receive a great deal of publicity and exposure in the general media; how many other, smaller groups would like to find people interested in their work via the Internet? One of the biggest objections to data collection is its awesome speed. But this is not a sufficient basis for regulation; it is an extension of objections to data collection in general. Combing a phone book manually or by computer is essentially the same; the latter just takes less time. Use of data collection technology makes information cheaper and more available to a variety of groups, from non-profits to associations dedicated to one or another hobbies or interests. Conclusion At a minimum, the FTC should insist on a real and significant showing of harm resulting from commercial data collection, rather than rely upon claims of consumer irritation. The FTC should be extremely cautious in regulating the free flow of consumer information. Any regulations are bound to have unforeseen effects. For example, the European Privacy Directives have made it very difficult to exchange employee information between branches of the same company located in different countries. Instead, the FTC should confine itself to policing fraud and investigating any actual injury. As Esther Dyson put it, "The goal is a market in privacy practices. That will result in constantly improving standards rather than rigid ones set by law, and in decentralized, speedy enforcement" (emphasis in original). Julie C. DeFalco on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and for the National Consumer Coalition ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

1 0