Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!rutgers!rochester!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Stoll and privacy issues
Message-ID: <59836@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 5 Oct 90 16:12:00 GMT
References: <1990Oct04.211114.9489@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> <1990Oct5.022152.20894@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Lines: 20

gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:

}In article <1990Oct04.211114.9489@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes:

}>The Epson case is a better example of privacy invasion.  Remember,
}>tho, that many computer centers get you to sign a 'no privacy on this
}>system' waver.  I wonder if Epson spelled that out to employees?

}I was recently talking to a random undergraduate from an Ivy League
}institution who said that not only did they have to sign such a
}waiver, but that the systems people read their mail frequently. That
}is, their mail wasn't read if they were suspected, but mail was
}randomly sampled.

I wonder what they would do if you and your correspondents just
encrypted your mail?  I know that years back, in England, the BPO
*forbade* encrypted communications on their leased circuits precisely
because they reserved the right to observe anything sent over them.

  /Bernie\