janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) (11/05/90)
RISKS Digest 10.58 has a couple of particularly fascinating articles. Though I can't imagine someone reading FUTURES without reading RISKS, I nonetheless repeat the two articles below: Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 16:20:13 -0800 From: Cindy Tittle <tittle@ics.UCI.EDU> Subject: Chilling Advertisement I just saw a rather chilling advertisement in this week's edition of Newsweek (November 5, 1990). It features a computer monitor/keyboard with a Sherlockian cap hung on one corner. The bold type says "Information is your company's best protection from liability." OK so far, then I read on: "Get it fast -- without leaving your desk. Think about it. Know your potential employees. Verify the business credits of new accounts. Or, check out your new vendors. Just hit a few keystrokes on your personal computer and you've got it. Information from UCC, civil and criminal record filings, Secretary of State, and more, allow you to uncover bankrupticies, pending litigation and a wealth of information that may protect your company from liability -- or even loss. All you need is a personal computer and existing software. That's right. View it -- Print it -- Store it. CDB Infotek's Investigative Information System is an on-line database designed to proved access to public record information for company security, credit, personnel and management departments. Not only is CDB Infotek's on line service one of the most comprehensive in the industry, it's easy to use. And it's fast. Before you make a decision -- check the records -- check with CDB Infotek. [...]" Eek. --Cindy ------------------------------ Date: 04 Nov 90 11:53:27 EST From: Dave King <71270.450@compuserve.com> Subject: Prodigy Censors Users Apparently, Prodigy is evicting users who are voicing their opposition to a new Prodigy policy which will implement charges for EMAIL messages within the Prodigy service. In 1991 Prodigy will implement a policy which charges users 25 cents for every EMAIL message they send after the first 30 every month. Prodigy users who have been vocal in their displeasure, and who have used the facilities of Prodigy to attempt to recruit others to their cause, have found themselves booted from the service. According to a story by Evelyn Richards, a Washington Post staff writer: ... This week [Prodigy] unplugged about a dozen outspoken dissidents whom it says were pestering innocent users with the electronic equivalent of junk mail. But what Prodigy sees as a way to stop needless harassment seems to others as a blatant example of censorship. That's because the people bumped from the Prodigy system included the most active critics of a planned price increase for Prodigy's electronic mail service. Using electronic mail on the network, the dissidents had urged other subscribers to join the revolt by boycotting the advertisers that buy time on Prodigy's network. "Prodigy is arguing they don't want people harassing their users," said Gary Arlen, editor of Interactivity Report, a Bethesda newsletter that follows the on-line industry. I think that's a stretch. It's a way to keep their advertisers pleased." The incident is the latest to spotlight the difficulties society faces as it struggles to adapt old laws and customs to emerging electronic networks. ... Some people say on-line services should protect the right of all expression, as a phone system does, while Prodigy argues it is more similar to a newspaper, which is free to publish what it chooses. Prodigy's troubles began two months ago when it announced that households would be able to send their first 30 electronic mail messages free but would get charged 25 cents for each additional message. A core of angry subscribers first protested by posting notices to Prodigy's on-line bulletin boards, the computer equivalent of neighborhood kiosks. Prodigy said it posted thousands of such complaints for others to read - but it didn't publish them all. When the writers urged a boycott of Prodigy advertisers - firms selling products on the network - Prodigy's editors returned the messages to the senders. "We're not going to post something designed to destroy our business," said Geoffrey Moore, Prodigy's director of market programs and communications. Moore likened the decision to a newspaper rejecting a letter to the editor, or rejecting an advertisement that criticizes the newspaper's largest advertisers. This week Prodigy decided enough is enough and refused to post any more messages about the rate increase. But what especially angered officials was when the dissidents innundated other users with electronic chain letters urging them to join the protest and boycott. Moore said users complained, so Prodigy bumped the offenders. And now the protestors say that's unfair. "We're not being abusive. We're not being vulgar. All we're doing is making our (opinions) known," said Larry Wienner, 22, a Prodigy user from Randallstown, Md. Wienner said the bumped dissidents are so hooked on Prodigy that they may try to re-subscribe under assumed names. Dave Some interesting thoughts here... Can we realistically prevent nosy people from amassing large databases on us? With mega-computing power available, won't most semi-public things we do be available for scrutiny? Perhaps our best bet is to establish a policy (tradition?) of being able to *buy* our way off of large databases... Or perhaps a public utility commission watchdog system would suffice? But how would that stop, say, Brazilian data companies? And with a phone connection, who cares what what country the data company resides in? To eliminate hidden biases, shouldn't data companies be operated by a disinterested party? And how does one find such a party? Would *you* trust a data company run by the government? How many phone companies reserve the right to evict customers for making too many phone calls? Are these "chain letters" the equivalent of obscene or crank calls? Can I get the Postal Service to stop delivering junk advertising supplements? Is there a difference in common carrier status between bboards on Prodigy and e-mail on Prodigy? Bill -- Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304
pbond@NSF.GOV (11/05/90)
---------------------- Original Header Lines (From NOTE) -----------------------
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA
Sender: info-futures-request@encore.com
------------------------------- Message Contents -------------------------------
RISKS Digest 10.58 has a couple of particularly fascinating articles. Though
I can't imagine someone reading FUTURES without reading RISKS, I nonetheless
repeat the two articles below:
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 16:20:13 -0800
From: Cindy Tittle <tittle@ics.UCI.EDU>
Subject: Chilling Advertisement
I just saw a rather chilling advertisement in this week's edition of Newsweek
(November 5, 1990). It features a computer monitor/keyboard with a Sherlockia
n
cap hung on one corner. The bold type says "Information is your company's bes
t
protection from liability." OK so far, then I read on:
"Get it fast -- without leaving your desk.
Think about it. Know your potential employees. Verify the business credits o
f
new accounts. Or, check out your new vendors. Just hit a few keystrokes on
your personal computer and you've got it.
Information from UCC, civil and criminal record filings, Secretary of State,
and more, allow you to uncover bankrupticies, pending litigation and a wealth
of information that may protect your company from liability -- or even loss.
All you need is a personal computer and existing software. That's right. Vie
w
it -- Print it -- Store it.
CDB Infotek's Investigative Information System is an on-line database designed
to proved access to public record information for company security, credit,
personnel and management departments.
Not only is CDB Infotek's on line service one of the most comprehensive in the
industry, it's easy to use. And it's fast.
Before you make a decision -- check the records -- check with CDB Infotek.
[...]"
Eek.
--Cindy
------------------------------
I agree with Cindy's comment. "Eek!" I know that knowledge is
becoming our most valuable resource, but remember, too, that
the phrase "knowledge is power" works both ways. A tool in
the hands of a legitimate person or organization can become
a weapon in the hands of a person or organization whose aims
may not be so pure. At the very least, well thought-out
controls should be placed on systems like the one described
above.
Pat
--
Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) (11/06/90)
In article <JANSSEN.90Nov4232652@holmes.parc.xerox.com> janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) writes: >Can we realistically prevent nosy people from amassing large databases >on us? No. With mega-computing power available, won't most semi-public >things we do be available for scrutiny? Yes, but you're using the wrong tense--we are already incredibly "trackable" thanks to credit card verification, and hotel/travel reservation systems. Perhaps our best bet is to >establish a policy (tradition?) of being able to *buy* our way off of >large databases... So only those that are rich enough can maintain some semblence of privacy? No thanks... Or perhaps a public utility commission watchdog >system would suffice? Something that may prove to be effective: a federal law prohibiting the maintenance of records that are more than n years old (n = 3 or 5). Of course this just opens up an incredible market for "black data," but then what else is new? But how would that stop, say, Brazilian data >companies? It won't; they'll just buy the data tapes an employee "securely disposes of" and sell the information to the highest bidder. And with a phone connection, who cares what what country >the data company resides in? To eliminate hidden biases, shouldn't >data companies be operated by a disinterested party? And how does one >find such a party? Would *you* trust a data company run by the >government? No, I wouldn't trust the government any more than a private corporation. For example, 68% of the records that TRW keeps about your credit history are innaccurate, and they are one of the most accurate. Even federal databases have incredibly poor accuracy ratings. >How many phone companies reserve the right to evict customers for >making too many phone calls? None, unless the calls are of an obscene or harassing manner. You seem to be confusing the telephone company, which operates under the law as a common carrier, and Prodigy, which is *not* a common carrier. Like it or not, they can censor as much as they like--legally. Are these "chain letters" the equivalent >of obscene or crank calls? See above. Can I get the Postal Service to stop >delivering junk advertising supplements? No, but there is a private group of individuals who will lobby, and even sue, on your behalf to keep your name off bulk mailing lists and cold call lists. (Don't know the name, however....) Is there a difference in >common carrier status between bboards on Prodigy and e-mail on >Prodigy? Prodigy as a whole is not a common carrier, no matter how you decide you wish to express yourself (email or bboard). Sorry to sound so terse, but you asked a lot of questions I don't want to write a million-line reply... :-) -- ______________ _______________________________________________________/ Chrome C'Boy \_________ | "One of the biggest obstacles to the future of computing is C. C is the last || attempt of the high priesthood to control the computing business. It's like | | the scribe and the Pharisees who did not want the masses to learn how to || read and write." -Jerry Pournelle |
jonathan@pawl.rpi.edu (Jonathan Fisher) (11/13/90)
In article <JANSSEN.90Nov4232652@holmes.parc.xerox.com> janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) writes: > ------------------------------ > > Date: 04 Nov 90 11:53:27 EST > From: Dave King <71270.450@compuserve.com> > Subject: Prodigy Censors Users > > Apparently, Prodigy is evicting users who are voicing their opposition to a new > Prodigy policy which will implement charges for EMAIL messages within the > Prodigy service. In 1991 Prodigy will implement a policy which charges users > 25 cents for every EMAIL message they send after the first 30 every month. > Prodigy users who have been vocal in their displeasure, and who have used the > facilities of Prodigy to attempt to recruit others to their cause, have found > themselves booted from the service. According to a story by Evelyn Richards, a > Washington Post staff writer: > > ... This week [Prodigy] unplugged about a dozen outspoken dissidents whom it > says were pestering innocent users with the electronic equivalent of junk mail. > But what Prodigy sees as a way to stop needless harassment seems to others as a > blatant example of censorship. That's because the people bumped from the > Prodigy system included the most active critics of a planned price increase for > Prodigy's electronic mail service. > > Using electronic mail on the network, the dissidents had urged other > subscribers to join the revolt by boycotting the advertisers that buy time on > Prodigy's network. "Prodigy is arguing they don't want people harassing their > users," said Gary Arlen, editor of Interactivity Report, a Bethesda newsletter > that follows the on-line industry. I think that's a stretch. It's a way to > keep their advertisers pleased." > > The incident is the latest to spotlight the difficulties society faces as it > struggles to adapt old laws and customs to emerging electronic networks. ... > Some people say on-line services should protect the right of all expression, as > a phone system does, while Prodigy argues it is more similar to a newspaper, > which is free to publish what it chooses. > > Prodigy's troubles began two months ago when it announced that households would > be able to send their first 30 electronic mail messages free but would get > charged 25 cents for each additional message. A core of angry subscribers > first protested by posting notices to Prodigy's on-line bulletin boards, the > computer equivalent of neighborhood kiosks. Prodigy said it posted thousands > of such complaints for others to read - but it didn't publish them all. > > When the writers urged a boycott of Prodigy advertisers - firms selling > products on the network - Prodigy's editors returned the messages to the > senders. "We're not going to post something designed to destroy our business," > said Geoffrey Moore, Prodigy's director of market programs and communications. > Moore likened the decision to a newspaper rejecting a letter to the editor, or > rejecting an advertisement that criticizes the newspaper's largest advertisers. > > This week Prodigy decided enough is enough and refused to post any more > messages about the rate increase. But what especially angered officials was > when the dissidents innundated other users with electronic chain letters urging > them to join the protest and boycott. Moore said users complained, so Prodigy > bumped the offenders. > > And now the protestors say that's unfair. "We're not being abusive. We're not > being vulgar. All we're doing is making our (opinions) known," said Larry > Wienner, 22, a Prodigy user from Randallstown, Md. Wienner said the bumped > dissidents are so hooked on Prodigy that they may try to re-subscribe under > assumed names. > My thoughts on Prodigy: They have the right to bump off any person from their service who violates their rules. They want a "family service," which immediately cuts out a lot of "adult" talk. If you don't like their oppression, then drop the service (which is what I did). From my experience with the service, it has a lot of great things going for it, but it is incredibly slow and **way** more oppressive than any similiar service that I've seen. They want to make money, and if people start dropping the service, they may think twice about changing their policies. But this brings up a bigger question: Censorship of electronic communications. Right now, whoever owns the equipment makes the rules. But isn't this the way it has always been? The owner of the newspaper gets to print whatever he/she wants. They don't have to print your article or letter if they don't want to. I would guess that since electronic communication is so much faster, many would say that it is closer to "speech" than "press." But, there is nothing stopping you from setting up your own BBS and having people call in. So, is rejecting your article from a "public" network censorship? I don't think so. Yes, it feels like it, but it isn't. Prodigy is oppressive, but it doesn't "censor" you in the way we currently think about censorship with relation to the press (actually I think the government is really the only one that can censor in this definition). A more cloudy question involves e-mail. Do the owners have a right to look at your "private" e-mail? I'll offer this question up for debate here. -- Jonathan Fisher jonathan@pawl.rpi.edu ITS Student Consultant or Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute userganu@rpitsmts.bitnet GO VIKINGS! Central Division Champs => NFC Champs => Superbowl XXV Champs
Chris_Kent.PARC@XEROX.COM (11/13/90)
Isn't this the way it's always been? No. Perhaps it's always been this way for computer mail services, but I think that the telephone system is a better analogy for the future of electronic messaging systems. The Phone Company has no right to censor what I say on the phones (modulo obscenity laws or whatever it is that makes it illegal to use scatalogical language on the phones in the US), even if I'm using the phone to call my local Utilities Commision. They rent me the wires. Period.
ken@uswat.uswest.com (Kenny Chaffin) (11/14/90)
In article <90Nov12.154523pst.17170@alpha.xerox.com-> Chris_Kent.PARC@XEROX.COM writes: -> ->Isn't this the way it's always been? No. Perhaps it's always been this way for ->computer mail services, but I think that the telephone system is a better ->analogy for the future of electronic messaging systems. The Phone Company has ->no right to censor what I say on the phones (modulo obscenity laws or whatever ->it is that makes it illegal to use scatalogical language on the phones in the ->US), even if I'm using the phone to call my local Utilities Commision. They ->rent me the wires. Period. Not really a good analogy. The postal service is better. With a phone you can only contact a single individual (normally). By electronic bulletin board, or mail you can send messages to many, sort of like broadcasting or publishing. All three of these industries have laws governing content, plus ethical mores of the the owners or publishers. KAC "Anybody want a drink before the war?" Sinead O'Connor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kenny A. Chaffin {...boulder}!uswat!ken U S WEST Advanced Technologies (303) 930-5356 6200 South Quebec Englewood, CO 80111 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
lsh@polari.UUCP (Lee Hauser) (11/15/90)
Prodigy may have the right to evict users it doesn't like, but I think that the
reading of others' E-mail is at least unethical and should be as illegal as
reading Postal Service mail that doesn't belong to you. Prodigy is probably just fighting to stay alive anyway....
--
------- ======= ------- ======= ------- ======= ------- ======= ------- =======
lsh@polari
Lee Hauser
If I pay for access, I don't have to disclaim ANYTHING!djacobs@pawl.rpi.edu (Daniel H. Jacobs) (11/16/90)
People have been comparing the Prodigy service to newspapers, telephones, and the Postal Service. The comparison to the Postal Service was based on the fact that you can send a large quantity of messages through it, while you can only call one person at a time. This isn't necessarily true, since there are computers that call people over the phone to take surveys or express opinions, so this could be done in mass quantities too. Furthermore, since the phone lines are used in computer communications, I think the analogy to the phone service is best, although it can be compared to electronic voice mailboxes, an advanced type of answering machine system. These mailboxes will be affected by whatever decisions are made about Prodigy. Once again, does Prodigy have the right to boot users from the system for maligning the service and sending out a multitude of messages to users (aka harrassing)? Anyone who says "yes" to this should also agree that MCI, SPRINT, and their competitors also have the right to remove customers. I not sure, but I believe that phone harassment is a misdemeanor, so BBS harrassment should be dealt with in the same manner. In any case, I can't remember a MCI customer being cut off from the service for saying bad things about MCI or making harassing phone calls. Furthermore, does Prodigy have the right to scan private e-mail? Again, there is Federal protection for tapping into a phone line or tampering with the mail, so there should be the same protection afforded to e-mail, which is the electronic form of communication. Finally, Prodigy is a business, so it should have the right to choose its customers. However, it must evaluate the consequences of kicking users off of the system. It not only loses those users, but any other users who are offended by this action and potential future users. Either Prodigy feels that the price increase will cover these losses, more users would have left the system if they had continued to be harassed, or there are bad decisions being made in management. Users are free to join another service. One more point to consider... Does Prodigy have the right to warn other services about the user's behavior, like a credit card company can put out a bad credit rating alert? After all, no service wants to have troublemaking users. What do others think? Dan Jacobs.
mccoy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) (11/16/90)
In article <{0*^=C#@rpi.edu>, djacobs@pawl.rpi.edu (Daniel H. Jacobs) writes: |> [some stuff about what people are using as analogies for Prodigy deleted] |> |> Once again, does Prodigy have the right to boot users from the system for |> maligning the service and sending out a multitude of messages to users (aka |> harrassing)? Anyone who says "yes" to this should also agree that MCI, |> SPRINT, and their competitors also have the right to remove customers. I |> not sure, but I believe that phone harassment is a misdemeanor, so BBS |> harrassment should be dealt with in the same manner. In any case, I can't |> remember a MCI customer being cut off from the service for saying bad |> things about MCI or making harassing phone calls. Furthermore, does |> Prodigy have the right to scan private e-mail? Again, there is Federal |> protection for tapping into a phone line or tampering with the mail, |> so there should be the same protection afforded to e-mail, which is the |> electronic form of communication. There is a difference here. The postal system is a government entity whose operation is protected and controlled by the federal government (this is why tampering with the mail system in any way is a felony). The phone companies are "common carriers". In a nutshell, this means that they are given a certain amount of protection, like the postal system, from tampering and a few other things. In return they must agree to not discriminate in service, regardless of what a person says or does, and must protect their subscribers (users) from tampering and similar things. Prodigy is not a common carrier. Because of this is has the right to deny service to people. I am not sure how they fit into the Electronic Communications Provacy Act. jim -----------------------------< Jim McCoy >------------------------------------ mccoy@acns.nwu.edu | "Those whom the gods would destroy, mccoy@ils.nwu.edu | they first make mad... #include <disclaimer.h> | -Sophocles -----------------------<"To thine own self be true">--------------------------