Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:2290 alt.privacy:508 alt.censorship:2134
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!pikes!aspen.craycos.com!jrbd
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Prodigy charged with invading users' privacy
Keywords: Prodigy, STAGE.DAT, testing
Message-ID: <1991May2.160352.8928@craycos.com>
Date: 2 May 91 16:03:52 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.225133.8165@craycos.com> <1991May1.051734.24594@pcserver2.naitc.com> <1991May1.215612.2978@ruacad.ac.runet.edu>
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation
Lines: 26

Now that there is some more reliable data on the STAGE.DAT "controversy",
I hope that everyone will settle down and stop accusing Prodigy of
spying on them.  It appears that the "stolen personal data" in the
file was, as several people have speculated, just leftover pieces of
deleted files.

However, what nobody seemed to notice in all of this hysteria is that
Prodigy doesn't need to move data into STAGE.DAT in order to "steal" it.
They could just as easily have just directly snatched your client lists
and accounting records without buffering it to another file first (in fact,
a truly sneaky system would have done just that, I would say).

There is a lot of trust necessary to use any network software -- for all I
know, "rn" could be browsing through my files right this minute.  However,
there is no reason for me to suspect this, and if it did happen and I 
discovered it, I'm sure there would be hell to pay for the person responsible.

Prodigy is in a position to lose quite a bit if they were found to be
illegally spying on their users (can you say "deep pockets"? -- IBM is
the Grand Canyon of deep pockets...)  It's inconceivable to me that they would
be pursuing such a risky policy.

						jrbd

p.s. I don't expect the Prodigy story to go away at this point, by the way.
     This has all the earmarks of a good urban legend...