Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:2319 alt.privacy:536 alt.censorship:2191
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!tellab5!vpnet!louisg
From: louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Prodigy charged with invading users' privacy (was Re: Lifestyle Information ( was Re: Safeway Stores to Accept Charge)
Message-ID: <1991May04.030521.13471@vpnet.chi.il.us>
Date: 4 May 91 03:05:21 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.184714.4675@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1991Apr30.185752.4913@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <57M001546bv800@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Lines: 54

In article <57M001546bv800@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> esf00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Elliott S. Frank) writes:

>(paraphrased -- I don't have the text of the agreement in front of me)
>that you *have* agreed to allow them to upload *anything that they
>want* off your system. If the contents of STAGE.DAT are random
>and ignored at this point in time, you have still agreed that
>*whatever* they can find on your system can be uploaded and used for
>any purpose they desire.
>
>[I would hope that someone could find their "little yellow box" and
>post the text in question -- it would add signal to the signal-to-
>noise ratio surrounding this issue.]
>-- 
>Elliott Frank              ...!{uunet,sun}!amdahl!esf00     (408) 746-6384
>                       or ....!esf00@amdahl.com
>
>[the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's.]

I don't have the shrinkwrap sticker or whatever it was, but I do have the
PRODIGY(tm) Service Member Agreement.  It doesn't say anything like that.
What it *does* say (and this is rather interesting in light of their
recent actions) is this:

(Section 8, p. 9 under the heading: Information Supplies by Members to other
Members through the PRODIGY Service)

Prodigy reserves the right to review and edit any material submitted for
display or placed on the PRODIGY service, excluding private electronic
messages.

[In bold] Messaging.
Prodigy will not intentionally [ha!] inspect the contents of private electronic messages sent by one member to an identified addressee, or disclose such
contents to other than the sender or an intended recipient, without the consent of the sender or of the intended recipient, unless required to do so by law.

(this was from the July 1, 1989 printing)

So if those guys were sending bulk junk mail to other users, how would
Prodigy know without looking at it?  And, if they use some form of electronic
sentry to sniff out key words such as "bomb," is that not an inspection?

This is off of the subject, but I just noticed it when I looked at the
agreement.  I don't see how they could justify their action without admitting
a breach of contract or license or whatever you call it.

Does anyone else see this, or am I looking at things sideways?

Louis Giliberto
(louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us)

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
!       "As above, so below; as below, so above" -- The Kybalion          !
!       "I don't trust him; he has dark hair" -- My girlfriend's mother   !
!       "So I'm stupid; what's your point?" -- Me                         !