Monthly Law Journal Article: Online Networking, Texting and Blogging by Peace Officers Part One – Impeachment, Policy & First Amendment Issues, 2010 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Online Networking, Texting and Blogging by Peace Officers Part Two – Limitations on Management’s Right to Monitor Content, 2014 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Bulletin Boards, 2010 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: The City of Ontario v. Quon Supreme Court Decision, 2010 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 501.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Video and Audio Taping Police Activity, 2012 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 201

      After a paramedic/firefighter was suspended by the Fire District for failing to respond to a directive issued by the Fire Chief, he emailed a newspaper reporter with criticisms and concerns about the District and its chief. The email shocked and angered his co-workers and battalion chiefs found that it "fostered division" among co-workers and against the chief. The paramedic/firefighter was terminated. A federal appeals court rejected First Amendment retaliation claims, finding the defendants entitled to qualified immunity, as fire district board members reasonably believed that his statements were an attempt to undermine the chief's authority and would lead to disruption in the department. The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his state law computer privacy claims, however, as he sufficiently alleged that the chief and his own ex-girlfriend had improperly accessed his email account and gained access to his private emails. Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire, #14-1850, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 11906 (8th Cir.).
    A police sergeant claimed that her termination was retaliation for critical comments against the police chief that she made on her Facebook page. A federal appeals court rejected her First Amendment claim. While the statements she made were not within the ordinary scope of her duty, so that she was speaking as a private citizen, her comments were not on a matter of public concern, but rather primarily involved her displeasure with the chief's intra-departmental decisions that impacted her personally. Further, even if they had involved matters of public concern, the department's substantial interests in preventing insubordination and maintaining discipline and close working relationships outweighed her minimal interest in making the statements. Graziosi v. City of Greenville, #13-60900, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 370 (5th Cir.).
     In a case involving a private employer, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled the employees, once granted access to company email systems, can use them to contact other employees for union organizing and other workplace-related purposes, provided that they do so on their own time, rather than during working hours, and do not hinder productivity or office discipline. Purple Communs., Inc., 2014 NLRB Lexis 952, 201 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1929, 361 N.L.R.B. No. 126 (Dec. 11, 2014).
     California, as of the start of 2013, has a law making it unlawful for employers to request employee or applicant user names and passwords to social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. Under the statute, there is no exception for law enforcement, but there are exceptions for the use of employer provided devices and when the information is relevant to an investigation of employee misconduct. Similar laws are also in effect in Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, and New Jersey.
     Illinois enacted a law prohibiting an employer from requesting or requiring a current or prospective employee to provide a password to gain access to the person's account or profile on a social networking website, such as Facebook or Twitter. There is no exception in the law for law enforcement or other sensitive occupations. Illinois Public Act 097-0875 (eff. 1/1/13). A similar law was passed earlier in the year in Maryland, Labor and Employment Ch. 234, Sections 3-712. (eff. 10/1/12).
     A Caucasian state police sergeant used the agency's official email system to send "humorous" descriptions of fictitious Barbie Dolls to fellow officers. Each fictitious doll was a caricature of a stereotypical woman living in an identifiable area in and around the state capitol. He was disciplined for this action, suspended for thirty days, and suffered the lowering of his promotion rating. He sued, claiming that he was subjected to race discrimination. Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court found that the plaintiff failed to show that non-Caucasians had been treated differently for similar conduct. There was absolutely no evidence of any discriminatory attitude towards him for being Caucasian. His argument that, had he been an African American he would not have been suspended for 30 days was pure speculation. Hanners v. Trent, #11-1754, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5636; 114 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 965 (7th Cir.).
     Federal court upholds a magistrate's decision to compel attorney-client communications because the plaintiff had discussed the communications in e-mails and instant chats with her family and friends, in blog postings, and with the media. Lenz v. Universal Music, #5:07-cv-03783, 2010 WL 4789099, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125874, PACER Doc. 351 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2010).
     A police officer who alleged that he was fired because he made comments on the Internet concerning firearms and criticizing the borough council could pursue a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit. He contended that his discussions and research on the weapons issues were carried out on his own time, and that the issues involved concerned the safety of police officers, and whether officers had sufficient weaponry. If true, then he spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern, which would constitute protected First Amendment activity for which he could not be fired. Beyer v. Duncannon Borough, #10-3042, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7793 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Seventh Circuit affirms the conviction of an IRS officer for wiretapping. He secretly arranged to have his supervisor's e-mails forwarded to him. The defendant claimed that the government should have charged him under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S. Code § 2701-12, rather than the Wiretap Act. Rejecting that defense, the court wrote that the Wiretap Act's definition of "interception" comprises packet-switch technology as well as circuit-switch technology. U.S. v. Szymuszkiewicz, #10-1347, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18815 (7th Cir.).
     National Labor Relations board, in a precedent-setting action, challenges the termination of a private sector employee who was discharged for posting unflattering remarks about her superior in her Facebook web page. Section 7 of the Taft-Hartley Act protects a worker's right to engage in union or concerted activities. NLRB Region 34 v. American Medical Response of Connecticut, #34-CA-125767 (Complaint filed 10/27/2010).
     New Jersey Supreme Court holds, 7-0, that an employee can expect privacy and confidentiality in e-mails with his or her attorney, which are sent and received through a personal, password- protected, web-based e-mail account using an employer-issued computer. The employer's policy failed to warn employees that the contents of personal, web-based e-mails are stored on a hard drive and can be forensically retrieved and read. Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, #A-16-09, 2010 N.J. Lexis 241.
     Warden of the Federal Correctional Center in Victorville, CA, is indicted for lying to Office of Inspector General special agents in connection with an investigation into Internet postings that disclosed confidential government information. U.S. v. Holencik, #5:10-cr-00017, Indictment (C.D. Cal. 2010).
     Kentucky appellate court affirms the termination of a Lexington police officer for comments in his MySpace™ webpage. The site allegedly contained derogatory comments or images concerning homosexuals and the mentally disabled; inappropriate comments concerning the use of force; and an altered photograph depicting him with a celebrity entertainer after he had arrested him. Cromer v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Co. Gov't, #20088-CA-000698, 2009 Ky. App. Unpub. Lexis 71.
     Appellate court overturns the termination of a firefighter for accessing violent content videos on the employer's computers. The Township did not have a computer use policy and the videos that he accessed were legal and non-pornographic. Bowman v. Butler Twp., #23240, 2009-OH-6128, 2009 Ohio App. Lexis 5145.
     Kentucky appellate court affirms the termination of a Lexington police officer for comments in his MySpace™ webpage. The site allegedly contained derogatory comments or images concerning homosexuals and the mentally disabled; inappropriate comments concerning the use of force; and an altered photograph depicting him with a celebrity entertainer after he had arrested him. Cromer v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Co. Gov't, #20088-CA-000698, 2009 Ky. App. Unpub. Lexis 71.
     An employer's regulations notifying employees that they had no expectation of privacy for the use of workplace computers did not convert an employee's e-mails with her attorney, sent through the employee's personal, password-protected, web-based email account into the employer's property. The attorney-client privilege outweighs an employer's unilaterally imposed privacy regulations. "We reject the employer's claimed right to rummage through and retain the employee's emails to her attorney." Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, #A-3506-08T1, 973 A.2d 390, 408 N.J. Super. 54, 2009 N.J. Super. Lexis 143; appeal pending, 200 N.J. 204, 976 A.2d 382; 2009 N.J. Lexis 922.
     Federal judge finds that the government is not required to notify the sender of e-mail when the content is seized by a search warrant served on an e-mail provider. "When a person uses the Internet … the user's actions are no longer in his or her physical home; in fact he or she is not truly acting in private space at all ... Rule 41 allows the copy of the warrant and the receipt to be given to the person from whose premises the property at issue was seized, even if that person is not the owner of the property. There is no separate requirement that the officer provide the warrant, a receipt, or any other form of notice to the owner of the property." In re United States, #08-9131, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 100630, 2009 WL 3416240 (D. Ore. 2009).
     First Amendment challenge to a state identity theft law fails. A city EMT forged an e-mail address when sending salacious information about his supervisor, who killed himself the next day. The Wisconsin Supreme Court distinguished a person’s right to publicize something from misrepresenting the identity of the message-sender. State v. Baron, #2007AP1289-CR, 2009 WI 58, 2009 Wisc. Lexis 268, affirming 754 N.W.2d 175.
     National Labor Relations board, in a 3-to-2 ruling, holds that employers can prohibit union solicitations on internal e-mail systems. The Guard Pub. Co. and Eugene Newspaper Guild, CWA L-37194, # 36-CA-8743-1, 351 NLRB No. 70, 2007 NLRB Lexis 499, 183 LRRM (BNA) 1113
     California appellate panel rejects an attempt to learn the identity of an e-message board user that disparaged another person. "The use of a pseudonymous screen name offers a safe outlet for the user to experiment with novel ideas, express unorthodox political views, or criticize corporate or individual behavior without fear of intimidation or reprisal. In addition, by concealing speakers' identities, the online forum allows individuals of any economic, political, or social status to be heard without suppression or other intervention by the media or more powerful figures in the field." Krinsky v. Doe 6, #H030767, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 180 (6th Dist.).
     Although a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his workplace office, the employer retained the ability to consent to a search of his office and his computer by law enforcement officers. U.S. v. Ziegler, #05-30177, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1952 (9th Cir. 2007). [N/R]
     Federal court holds that an employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy that management would not reconstruct and access e-mails sent t o and received from her attorney on her employer-provided laptop. Attorney-client privilege overrides the employer's policy allowing search and retrieval of documents from computers provided to employees. Curto v. Medical World Comm., #03CV6327, (E.D.N.Y. 2006), affirming 388 F.Supp.2d 101. {N/R}
     Michigan Employment Relations Cmsn. finds that management committed an unfair labor practice by suspending, with pay, a police officer who hosted website that was critical to management. The website need not have a direct nexus to wages, hours, and working conditions. Detroit Police Dept., and Detroit P.O.A.,C04 A-001, 19 MPER 15, 2006 MPER (LRP) Lexis 14 (2006). [2006 FP Sep]
     New Jersey appellate court holds that an employer has an obligation to inform law enforcement agencies when a worker is accessing kiddie porn in the workplace. Doe v. XYC Corp., #A-2909-04T2, 887 A.2d 1156, 382 N.J. Super. 122, 2005 N.J. Super. Lexis 377, 23 IER Cases (BNA) 1549 (App. Div. 2005; rptd. 2006). [2006 FP Jul]
     Judge concludes that a termination of a public employee for Internet surfing, after being warned against the activity, was too harsh a punishment. Management failed to prove that the worker failed to satisfactorily perform his official duties in a timely manner. Dept. of Educ. v. Choudhri, N.Y.C. Trials & Hearings # 722/06 (2006). [2006 FP Jul]
     In a 5-2 decision, the First Circuit has ruled that the interception of e-mail that is temporarily stored while en route to its final destination violates the federal wiretap law. U.S. v. Councilman, #03-1383, 418 F.3d 67, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 16803 (1st Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     State university did not violate the First Amendment or federal e-mail laws by blocking all e-mails sent by a commercial enterprise to thousands of university e-addresses. White Buffalo Ventures v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, #04-50362, 2005 WL 1806353, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 15885 (5th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     The Texas Attorney General has written an official opinion that neither the federal E-Sign Act nor the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act requires a public official to accept documents containing a printed copy of an electronic signature or notary seal. Neither act imposes a duty upon public officials to accept electronic signatures. Texas Attorney General Opinion #GA-0228 (2004). {N/R}
     The chief federal judge in Minnesota has ruled that parties who complain of violations of a written privacy policy must allege that they actually read the policy before submitting their personal information. A web-based privacy policy did not create rights for persons who did not actually read it. Airline passenger lists were given to federal security officials, at the government's request. In re Northwest Airlines Privacy Litig., #04-126, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10580 (D. Minn. 2004). {N/R}
     Federal court holds that an employer cannot rely on an e-mail sent to workers to justify the adoption of a policy exclusively substituting arbitration in place of judicial remedies. Campbell v. General Dynamics, #03-11848, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10552 (D. Conn. 2004). [2004 FP Sep]
     First Circuit panel rules 2-to-1, that it is not a violation of criminal wiretap laws for an e-mail service provider to monitor the content of users' incoming messages without their consent U.S. v. Councilman, #03-1383, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 13352 (1st Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     Divided appellate court in Pennsylvania upholds management's prohibition against having pornographic matter on state owned computers. Burchell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd., #2198 C.D. 2003, 2004 Pa. Commw. Lexis 328 (Comm. 2004). [2004 FP Aug]
     Third Circuit upholds the right of an employer to access an employee's e-mails stored on the employer's mail server. Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Insur., #01-2921, --- F.3d ---, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 24856 (3rd Cir.). [2003 FP Feb]
     Employer loses its suit against an ex-worker for cyber trespassing. A plaintiff must demonstrate actual harm to obtain injunctive relief or damages. Intel v. Hamidi, #S103781, 30 Cal.4th 1342, 71 P.3d 296, 2003 Cal. Lexis 4205, 20 IER Cases (BNA) 65 (Cal. 2003). [Dec FP 2003]
     Arbitrator holds that management had just cause to suspend the union president for accessing sexually explicit websites with his work computer, despite his claim that he was doing so to learn if management had blocked certain websites. He knew he was not supposed to access sexually explicit materials and accessed the site when he was not scheduled to work and when no one else was present. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and AFGE L- 3354, 118 LA (BNA) 1212, FMCS Case #02/06813 (Cook, 2003). {N/R}
     The Florida Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the City of Clearwater was not required to release the personal e-mails of city employees simply because they were sent on city-owned computers while on city time. Times Publishing Co. v. City of Clearwater, #2SC02-1694, 2003 Fla. Lexis 1534 (2003). {N/R}
     Federal court in California grants an application for a preliminary injunction based on a trespass to chattel claim. The judge found that the defendant's automated access of the plaintiff's servers, as much as 100,000 times a day using robot "spiders," was improper. Although the plaintiff could not demonstrate substantial interference with its servers, the court found that the defendant was reducing the plaintiff's bandwidth and server capacity. eBay v. Bidder's Edge, #C-99-21200, 100 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000). {N/R}
     Management had just cause to discipline a county employee who used the computer system to send sexually-related messages, where "common sense" should have dictated that matters of a sexual nature are inappropriate in workplace. Co. of Sacramento and United Public Employees L-1, 118 LA (BNA) 699 (Riker, 2003). {N/R}
     Arbitrator sustains the termination of a state worker with 28 years of service who had frequently visited "violent" and bondage porn sites while at work, using a state computer. State of Minn. Dept. of Admin. and AFSCME C-6, Case 302-PA-1156, 117 LA (BNA) 1569 (Neigh, 2002). [2003 FP May]
     Employer must have an anti-fraternization policy to punish an off-duty relationship. Without a privacy policy, the employer could not discipline the grievant for reading a superior's e-mails, or for opening sexually explicit e-mails from a coworker where the sending party was not disciplined. Monterey County and Individual Grievant, CSMCS No. ARB-01-0050, 117 LA (BNA) 897 (Levy, 2002). [2003 FP Feb]
     Appeals court in Washington states rules that a fired employee's personal e-mails, written on a county computer, were public records, but were exempt from disclosure because they did not contain government-related information. Tiberino v. Spokane Co., #18830-2-III, 103 Wn.App. 680, 13 P.3d 1104, 2000 Wash. App. Lexis 2474, 17 IER Cases (BNA) 78. [2001 FP 53]
     Federal court dismisses a privacy claim by an employee who was fired after management accessed his e-mail storage server, and found cause for his dismissal. Federal laws do not prohibit access of archived e-mail. Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Insur., #98-CV-6726, 135 F.Supp.2d 623, 17 IER Cases ( BNA) 662, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3241 (E.D.Pa.). [2001 FP 53-4]
     E-mails sent and received by a county employee were public records, but were exempt from disclosure as personal information. Tiberino v. Spokane Co., #18830-2-III, 13 P.3d 1104, 2000 Wash. App. Lexis 2474. {N/R}
     For a second time, a federal appeals court upholds a ban on accessing porn sites by state employees, using state computers. Urofsky v. Gilmore, #98-1481, 216 F.3d 401, 16 IER Cases (BNA) 737, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 14484 (4th Cir.). [2000 FP 137]
     New Jersey holds that an employer can be liable for harassing content on an electronic bulletin board used by its employees, even though the employer is not the host of the EBB service. Blakey v. Continental Airlines, #A-5-99, 751 A.2d 538, 2000 N.J. Lexis 650. [2000 FP 137-8]
     Federal appeals court affirms the criminal conviction of a CIA employee for downloading kiddie porn at work. He lacked an expectation of privacy because CIA policy allowed electronic audits of computer usage. U.S. v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 2877 (4th Cir.). [2000 FP 87]
     Texas appeals court rejects a privacy suit brought by a former employee who, during a sexual harassment investigation, objected to the decryption of his personally-chosen password and inspection of his e-mail. Differences between lockers and computer passwords noted. McLaren v. Microsoft Corp., #05-97-00824-CV, 1999 Tex.App. Lexis 4103 (Unpub.). [1999 FP 151]
     N.J. appeals court holds that an employer was not liable for defamatory or abusive computer messages posted by some employees about others, even though management arranged for the service. Employees were not required to access the bulletin boards and management was not required to monitor or respond to the contents. Blakey v. Continental Airlines, 322 N.J. Super. 187, 730 A.2d 854, 1999 N.J. Super. Lexis 206, 79 FEP Cases (BNA) 1718. [1999 FP 151-2] Reversed! See Blakey v. Cont. Airl., #A-5-99, 751 A.2d 538, 2000 N.J. Lexis 650 (N.J. 6/1/00).
     Court enjoins a former worker from using the employer's e-mail system to send anti-employer messages to thousands of employees. Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, #98AS05067, Sacramento Co. Cal., Super. Ct. #98AS05067, summarized at 3 (47) Elec. Cmrc. & Law (BNA) 1399 (11/24/98). [1999 FP 21-2]
     Investigators can enter internet chat rooms to investigate suspects; no expectation of privacy as to conversations or e-mail attachments sent. U.S. v. Charbonneau, #CR-2-97-83, 1997 WL 627044 (S.D. Ohio). Note: A similar result was reached in U.S. v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406 (C.A.A.F. 1996), where a military appeals court rejected the defendant's analogy of e-mails to the use of the postal service. [1998 FP 8]
     Ohio Supreme Court holds that nonofficial e-mails between jail officers were not "public records" for the purpose of a FOIA demand. State ex rel Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Co. Sheriff's Dept., 82 Ohio St. 3d 37, 693 N.E.2d 789, 1998 Ohio Lexis 1366. [1998 FP 135-6]
     Federal appeals court reverses a trial judge who had overturned a ban on the use of state computers to access porn sites on the Internet. Urofsky v. Allen, #98-1481, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 1937, 167 F.3d 191, 14 IER Cases (BNA) 1386 (4th Cir.). [1999 FP 56]
     Illinois Bar determines that the use of e-mail does not waive a party's legal privileges, even if the transmission is non-encrypted. Ill. St. Bar Prof. Conduct Opin. 96-10 (May 16, 1997). See also So. Car. Advis. Opin. 94-27 (1995); Iowa Sup.Ct. Ethics & Conduct Opin. 96-1 (1996); Hricik, "Confidentiality and privilege in high-tech communications," 8 Prof. Lawyer 1 (1997). [1997 FP 85-6]
     Adult oriented website that fraudulently induced viewers to download software that actually dialed Moldova (in eastern Europe) at $2 per minute, and would not disconnect until power was cut, was a deceptive trade practice. Operators have been enjoined. FTC v. Audiotext Connection, CV-97-0726, 65 LW 2568 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). {N/R}
     Class action suit against large national employer claims that management tolerated racially biased e-mail traffic. National survey reveals that less than half of all employers have a written e-mail policy. Curtis v. Citibank, #97-1064 (S.D.N.Y. filed 2/14/97); 1997 FEP Practices Summary (BNA) 30. The survey may be viewed at:
     www.securitymanagement.com/library/ [1997 FP 55]
     AELE drafts a sample "Communications Systems" Policy. [1997 FP 6-7;16] (Also see: www.aele.org/ and then Library section.)
     Court allows use of interoffice e-mail messages in a damage suit alleging employee misconduct. Strauss v. Microsoft Corp., 1995 U.S.Dist. Lexis 7433, 68 FEP Cases (BNA) 1577 (S.D.N.Y). [1996 FP 132-3]
     Employer could be sued for defamation where the medium was internal company e-mail. Employer announced the plaintiff's termination to other employees, for "credit card fraud," where no fraud was intended by the employee. Meloff v N.Y.L.I.C., 51 F.3d 372 (at 375-6), 67 FEP Cases (BNA) 1044, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 7756 (2nd Cir.). {N/R}
     Federal courts uphold termination of employees for inappropriate e-mail messages: Donley v. Ameritech, 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21281 (E.D.Mich); Miller v. U.S.F.&G., 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10541 (D.Md.). {N/R}
     Management could intercept employee e-mail messages, in spite of a broken promise of confidentiality. Contents could be used to terminate the worker whose messages were intercepted. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Co., 914 F.Supp. 97 (E.D.Pa. 1996). [1996 FP 84-5]
     Federal court establishes when a search warrant is needed to electronically access the memory of a person's pager. U.S. v. Reyes, 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28, 59 CrL (BNA) 1403 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). [1996 FP 55-6]
     Employer rule banning union messages in e-mails is overturned because employer allowed other non business e-mails to be sent to/from workers. EI du Pont, 311 NLRB 893 (1993). {N/R}
     Texas court orders a "cyberstalker" to stop sending harassing, threatening, and offensive messages over the Internet. Internet America v. Massey, #96-10955C (Dallas Co., Tex., Dist. Ct. 1996). {N/R}
     Resource Organization: Natl. Computer Security Assn. (NCSA); books & membership info at www.ncsa.com {N/R}
     Article: "E-mail policy by the letter," 40 (4) Security Management (A.S.I.S.) 69-75 (Apr. 1996). Download on the Internet at URL www.securitymanagement.com/library/000123.html{N/R}
     Article: "Employers, employees and e-mail," Spring 1996 The Job Description (DRI) 9-11. Copies: (312) 944-0575 {N/R}
     Article: "Employers, employees and e-mail," DRI The Job Description 9-11 (Spring 1996). Defense Research Institute, Inc (312) 9440575, www.dri.org/ or e-mail DRI at dri@mcs.net {N/R}
     Article: Witt, "Terminally nosy: are employers free to access our electronic mail?" Dickinson Law Review (Spring 1992). {N/R}
     Booklet: Managing Records in E-mail Systems, N.Y. State Archives and Records Administration (1995) 43 pp. {N/R}
     Report: Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, European Union: Brussels, OJC93 (13 April 1995). {N/R}
     Periodical: Computer Security Digest (Monthly) $125; order from NCSA (above). {N/R}
     Book: Regulating Privacy, by Bennett, Colin - Data protection and public policy in Europe and the United States, Ithaca NY, Cornell Univ. Press (1992). {N/R}
     Book: Computer Privacy Handbook, by A. Bacard. Peachpit Press, 274 pp. (1995) $24.95. {N/R}
     Book: Privacy Tool Kit, by D. Johnson et al. Electronic Messaging Assn., 45 pp. (1994) $45.00. {N/R}
     Book: The Law of Electronic Commerce: EDI, E-mail and Internet, by B. Wright, looseleaf, Little Brown & Co. (2d edit., 1995). $145.00. {N/R}
     Book: E-mail Security: How to Keep Your Messages Private, by Bruce Schneider - J. Wiley & Sons, 365 pp. (1995) $24.95 {N/R}
     Catalog: Information Security, a 48 pp. color catalog that contains books on viruses, encryption, computer fraud, website and PC security, disaster recovery, firewalls, ethics, etc. Send E-mail to: office@icsa.com or call (717) 258-1816
     Federal Statutes: Access Fraud Device, 18 U.S. Code 1029; Computer Fraud and Abuse, 18 U.S. Code 1030; No-Knock, 18 U.S. Code 3109; Privacy Protection, 42 U.S. Code 2000a; Stored Communications Access, 18 U.S. Code 2701 et seq.; Wiretaps/Eavesdropping (Title III), 18 U.S. Code 2510 et seq.