Re: [vcf-midatlantic] Culpability and Provenance
Well, while I have a lot I could post on these matters, I won't. I'm not a lawyer and these are legal matters. The rest is discussion not advice. Certain content one might obtain from others accidentally on an abandoned computer, is outright illegal to own and distribute. Delete it - period. Other content is proprietary and still in distribution, thus an actionable issue by the active producers of that content. And of course, most of us with a clue know what is "private information". Nobody here is "researching" people's private information. This is a vintage computing discussion. Private information must be deleted, copies only to owners who want it and are given opportunities to ask. Most people seem to be indifferent; some are not. The rest, is about technical content of old programs out of use, and possibly original programming done (as in sources, binaries). These things are, in my opinion, the business of those of us in vintage computing. What to do about finding that stuff, has been in discussion for decades. There's common practices about that content. While owners could take actions, many owners are disinterested in doing so, or "unavailable", or in some cases have released their published works. Owners have rights, and the right to say "delete". At least they used to, when content resided in their own hands. Another subject. Informing former owners about discovered content beyond impersonal programs and documents, has some merits both to us and to the prior owners. Tony shares his experience, that he's informed some owners about protecting their data. All that said, I'm informed by the posts on this subject, from persons who identify their sources of authority on their decisions (Tony mentioned HIPAA compliance for instance). And by various experiences discussed. Authority and or experience matters to me, when I see advice, certainly when I give it. I don't say I have much authority, other than years of practices; I have no authority on legal matters, little on business. I'm a technologist by training and historian by circumstance. Myself: I preserve the history of development of certain programs and hardware on my Web site. Much of that is published information, descriptions and repairs of hardware, documentation, sources or disassemblies. Some of it is biographical information from public sources and personal correspondence (republished by me with permission). Generally I have permissions, as owners of content have the rights to say "no", and privacy rights. Over the decades: I've been contacted by content-owners or their heirs or their associates and customers. Most thank me for recognizing those known to them, a few for recognizing themselves! Some provide more information. Some people want their privacy, or at least used to when privacy existed. And some, are no longer interested in certain past works. So it seems to me: If the VCF Inc. chooses to, they might gather some informed and authoritative opinions and recommendations and practices, and make that information available, as a service. They may also choose to do so, to inform their officers and volunteers as to "best practices" within the VCF collection. One service might be, to identify kinds of content - such as I and others have identified - and suggest the kinds of practices one might take. That service alone, may help persons in deciding what to do, where to seek advice. But I'm not credentialed in most of these matters. I have certain practices I follow. Mostly I tell people "this is at your own risk. Seek professional, legal or more experienced advice. I'm not responsible for your consequences. Make your own choices." Otherwise I lead by example and effort and results, I hope. regards, Herb Johnson -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com or try later herbjohnson AT comcast DOT net
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:10 PM Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Well, while I have a lot I could post on these matters, I won't. I'm not a lawyer and these are legal matters. The rest is discussion not advice.
Certain content one might obtain from others accidentally on an abandoned computer, is outright illegal to own and distribute. Delete it - period. Other content is proprietary and still in distribution, thus an actionable issue by the active producers of that content.
Herb, I respectfully contest your statement First of all, I believe (my belief) that one should try to leave a vintage computer as-is if possible, to preserve it's providence. Unless the owner specifically says to delete everything I don't make a point to do so. Content authored by a person is owned by that person, i.e. "copyright ". True, copyright is retained even after sale or abandonment of the vessel that stored that content (notebook, computer, tape recorder, etc.), but it's not a blanket thing. One who obtains a computer legally will not be guilty of a copyright violation solely by failing to delete the content, nor is it a copyright violation for using the content privately. It's not illegal to retain the content that came with an abandoned computer per se, and there is no law that requires the deletion of such materials, even if ethically it may be the right thing to do. Private letters, resumes, letters to the editor, transcripts, poems, computer programs, thesis...they all have different copyright standards so it depends what materials we're talking about. It also depends on the type of legal entity who formally owned computer (company computer, individual's home computer, public computer from a library, etc.). For example, let's say a person wrote their doctoral thesis and stored it on the hard drive pf an old computer, and years later that the person donated the computer as-is to Goodwill. If I was to extract that file somehow and publish it, no violation of copyright law would occur as long as the thesis had been published exactly as it appeared on the computer and was therefore already public. Unless it was a privately-published journal, and so on. If an earlier, unfinished revision of the final thesis was also found on the computer, that's a different story and it's easier to prove copyright violation perhaps. In short, once the information has been made publicly available, and a few other caveats, it's "less protected", so the rule generally-speaking is that it has to be otherwise unavailable content as well as originally authored. Further, if one were to anonymize the content before publishing that would likely be ok, if the names and personal info was sanitized from the published version. Bill
For context, I worked as a music copyist for some pretty major composers and had to deal with all sorts of nightmare copyright issues. What is done privately is effectively a non-issue legally, but copyright is exactly that, the right to copy. No one is going to sue you for keeping someone's dissertation and that is, indeed, not a copyright issue as no copy is being made. They could sue if you decided to make a copy and somehow they become aware of it, but that is basically a tree falls in the woods philosophical question. More than often, though, they ignore the small fish. This has led to confusion that people can legally make private copies or copyrighted material. Yes, you almost definitely won't get in trouble (don't copy that floppy... or at least don't tell anyone you did!), but you aren't on legal grounds and ethically, well, that gets even more complicated. Add to that certain clear as mud exceptions for "backup" copies and you end up with a legal mess. Any act of publishing that duplicates copyrighted material without permission is a violation of copyright. Period. Whether or not it is proveable in a court of law is an entirely different issue. Here's some relevant information: <https://www.copyright.com/Services/copyrightoncampus/basics/law.html> --- The First Sale Doctrine The physical ownership of an item such as a book, painting, manuscript or CD is not the same as owning the copyright to the work embodied in that item. Under the First Sale Doctrine (Section 109 of the Copyright Act), ownership of a physical copy of a copyright-protected work permits lending, reselling, disposing, etc., of the item. However, it does not permit reproducing the material, publicly displaying or performing it, or engaging in any of the acts reserved for the copyright holder. Why? Because the transfer of the physical copy does not transfer the copyright holder's rights to the work. Even including an attribution on a copied work (for example, putting the author's name on it) does not eliminate the need to obtain the copyright holder's consent. To use copyrighted materials lawfully, you must secure permission from the applicable copyright holders or a copyright licensing agent. --- and further down --- The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created and fixed in a tangible form, such as the first time it is written or recorded. No other action is required to secure copyright protection – neither publication, registration nor other action in the Copyright Office (although registration is recommended). The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is recommended. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention effective March 1, 1989. If a copyright holder wants to use a copyright notice, he or she may do so freely without permission from or registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. In fact, the use of a copyright notice is recommended because it reminds the public that the work is protected by copyright. --- I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, but I've spent way too much time talking to lawyers. -Adam On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:55 PM Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:10 PM Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Well, while I have a lot I could post on these matters, I won't. I'm not a lawyer and these are legal matters. The rest is discussion not advice.
Certain content one might obtain from others accidentally on an abandoned computer, is outright illegal to own and distribute. Delete it - period. Other content is proprietary and still in distribution, thus an actionable issue by the active producers of that content.
Herb,
I respectfully contest your statement
First of all, I believe (my belief) that one should try to leave a vintage computer as-is if possible, to preserve it's providence. Unless the owner specifically says to delete everything I don't make a point to do so.
Content authored by a person is owned by that person, i.e. "copyright ". True, copyright is retained even after sale or abandonment of the vessel that stored that content (notebook, computer, tape recorder, etc.), but it's not a blanket thing. One who obtains a computer legally will not be guilty of a copyright violation solely by failing to delete the content, nor is it a copyright violation for using the content privately. It's not illegal to retain the content that came with an abandoned computer per se, and there is no law that requires the deletion of such materials, even if ethically it may be the right thing to do. Private letters, resumes, letters to the editor, transcripts, poems, computer programs, thesis...they all have different copyright standards so it depends what materials we're talking about. It also depends on the type of legal entity who formally owned computer (company computer, individual's home computer, public computer from a library, etc.).
For example, let's say a person wrote their doctoral thesis and stored it on the hard drive pf an old computer, and years later that the person donated the computer as-is to Goodwill. If I was to extract that file somehow and publish it, no violation of copyright law would occur as long as the thesis had been published exactly as it appeared on the computer and was therefore already public. Unless it was a privately-published journal, and so on. If an earlier, unfinished revision of the final thesis was also found on the computer, that's a different story and it's easier to prove copyright violation perhaps. In short, once the information has been made publicly available, and a few other caveats, it's "less protected", so the rule generally-speaking is that it has to be otherwise unavailable content as well as originally authored. Further, if one were to anonymize the content before publishing that would likely be ok, if the names and personal info was sanitized from the published version.
Bill
On 1/14/21 9:54 PM, Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
First of all, I believe (my belief) that one should try to leave a vintage computer as-is if possible, to preserve it's providence.
That really depends on what you're trying to achieve. Over at LSSM, our philosophy is a bit different: our focus is on the computers, the technology used to build them, and the software used to run them. They are tools. The work that Joe Shmoe did on this or that specific machine is irrelevant to all of that. It may serve as an example of the sort of work that one might use such tools to perform, but that's about it. More often than not, it's just in the way. If it were a museum of a different type of tool, say, wrenches, we likely wouldn't care about what (say) car engine this or that specific wrench was, at one point in its service life, used to work on. We might have an engine in the museum with the wrenched posed on it, as an example of the tool being used to perform work, but expending effort to display the same engine (not the same kind, but the same ONE) that Joe Shmoe worked on with that wrench in 1962 brings little value to the exhibit or the point it's trying to make to the viewer...because it's about the tool. If the focus is on the preservation of work performed with the computer, sure, I can see that. But is that a common focus in efforts like ours? I doubt it. I'd have no problem with it if it were so, but still, I doubt it. Just my USD$0.02. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
Dave brings up a very important point. We can't all be a museum of everything. "Critics have their purposes, and they're supposed to do what they do, but sometimes they get a little carried away with what they think someone should have done, rather than concerning themselves with what they did." -Duke Ellington Each organization has to make their own choices within their own limitations. Isn't it absolutely wonderful that so many organizations are prioritizing different things? Imagine how much we would lose if everyone tried to do the same thing and everything! On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:14 PM Dave McGuire via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:54 PM, Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
First of all, I believe (my belief) that one should try to leave a vintage computer as-is if possible, to preserve it's providence.
That really depends on what you're trying to achieve. Over at LSSM, our philosophy is a bit different: our focus is on the computers, the technology used to build them, and the software used to run them. They are tools.
The work that Joe Shmoe did on this or that specific machine is irrelevant to all of that. It may serve as an example of the sort of work that one might use such tools to perform, but that's about it. More often than not, it's just in the way.
If it were a museum of a different type of tool, say, wrenches, we likely wouldn't care about what (say) car engine this or that specific wrench was, at one point in its service life, used to work on. We might have an engine in the museum with the wrenched posed on it, as an example of the tool being used to perform work, but expending effort to display the same engine (not the same kind, but the same ONE) that Joe Shmoe worked on with that wrench in 1962 brings little value to the exhibit or the point it's trying to make to the viewer...because it's about the tool.
If the focus is on the preservation of work performed with the computer, sure, I can see that. But is that a common focus in efforts like ours? I doubt it. I'd have no problem with it if it were so, but still, I doubt it.
Just my USD$0.02.
-Dave
-- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
I love tech for techs sake. It can be both art and science. However, the provenance of a computer transcends its physical reality and breathes another dimension into it, bridging the gap between human and machine. This helps to gain understanding about the overall significance of them beyond the merely functional. On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:14 PM Dave McGuire via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:54 PM, Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
First of all, I believe (my belief) that one should try to leave a vintage computer as-is if possible, to preserve it's providence.
That really depends on what you're trying to achieve. Over at LSSM, our philosophy is a bit different: our focus is on the computers, the technology used to build them, and the software used to run them. They are tools.
The work that Joe Shmoe did on this or that specific machine is irrelevant to all of that. It may serve as an example of the sort of work that one might use such tools to perform, but that's about it. More often than not, it's just in the way.
If it were a museum of a different type of tool, say, wrenches, we likely wouldn't care about what (say) car engine this or that specific wrench was, at one point in its service life, used to work on. We might have an engine in the museum with the wrenched posed on it, as an example of the tool being used to perform work, but expending effort to display the same engine (not the same kind, but the same ONE) that Joe Shmoe worked on with that wrench in 1962 brings little value to the exhibit or the point it's trying to make to the viewer...because it's about the tool.
If the focus is on the preservation of work performed with the computer, sure, I can see that. But is that a common focus in efforts like ours? I doubt it. I'd have no problem with it if it were so, but still, I doubt it.
Just my USD$0.02.
-Dave
-- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
Dean and Dave bring up good points... We each have our own ideas about computer history. Some of us are hardware only folks, having more of a fondness for the existence and capabilities of a particular machine, as opposed to how the public used them. Others have more of a fondness for the history of its use. I would venture that a majority of collectors fall in with a little from both categories. That being said. files on a computer are a history of its use. Outside of national security and other legally protected statuses of a computer's file content, I doubt a recipient of such a computer can be held legally responsible for the contents' existence, much less its creation. Again... Schrodinger's Cat. So while we have the OPTION of simply deleting files based solely on our interpretation of the filenames, we aren't necessarily prevented by statute from viewing the content of files we receive in a legal transfer of the property containing the files.. The latter action is really our only means of determining IF the file content can be classified on a basis of legality. What we discover along that path builds the complete history of the computer, and discoveries like in my example, where I believe it was once owned/used by the founder of a major technology company, well that means something to me, even if it means nothing to someone else. To me, finding ephemera like that is the icing on the cake of this hobby, and I still like getting the cake, too. "Life is like a box of chocolates... err, computers,", right? So is the mere discovery that a computer was somewhere at some particular moment in time based on what is contained within it always an illegal action? Unless you stole the computer, I seriously doubt it. Did the Univac in the museum come with any programs or data on paper tape? If so, by some opinions here, that should all have been destroyed before we started working with the unit... and on the same note, if people visiting the museum ask where we got it from, should we just tell them that it's not important? It's just a tool, right, with no other significance regarding its history. Jeff Salzman On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:37 PM Dean Notarnicola via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
I love tech for techs sake. It can be both art and science. However, the provenance of a computer transcends its physical reality and breathes another dimension into it, bridging the gap between human and machine. This helps to gain understanding about the overall significance of them beyond the merely functional.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:14 PM Dave McGuire via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:54 PM, Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
First of all, I believe (my belief) that one should try to leave a vintage computer as-is if possible, to preserve it's providence.
That really depends on what you're trying to achieve. Over at LSSM, our philosophy is a bit different: our focus is on the computers, the technology used to build them, and the software used to run them. They are tools.
The work that Joe Shmoe did on this or that specific machine is irrelevant to all of that. It may serve as an example of the sort of work that one might use such tools to perform, but that's about it. More often than not, it's just in the way.
If it were a museum of a different type of tool, say, wrenches, we likely wouldn't care about what (say) car engine this or that specific wrench was, at one point in its service life, used to work on. We might have an engine in the museum with the wrenched posed on it, as an example of the tool being used to perform work, but expending effort to display the same engine (not the same kind, but the same ONE) that Joe Shmoe worked on with that wrench in 1962 brings little value to the exhibit or the point it's trying to make to the viewer...because it's about the tool.
If the focus is on the preservation of work performed with the computer, sure, I can see that. But is that a common focus in efforts like ours? I doubt it. I'd have no problem with it if it were so, but still, I doubt it.
Just my USD$0.02.
-Dave
-- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
On 1/15/21 11:24 AM, Jeff Salzman via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
So is the mere discovery that a computer was somewhere at some particular moment in time based on what is contained within it always an illegal action? Unless you stole the computer, I seriously doubt it. Did the Univac in the museum come with any programs or data on paper tape? If so, by some opinions here, that should all have been destroyed before we started working with the unit... and on the same note, if people visiting the museum ask where we got it from, should we just tell them that it's not important? It's just a tool, right, with no other significance regarding its history.
Well, that depends entirely on the system we're talking about. THAT system, yes, "Where and how was THIS ONE used" I'd imagine is a pretty common question. That's an extremely rare system; I'd be surprised if there were even ONE more of them out there in the world. But what about the Kaypro II? I alone have nearly a dozen of those. One of them was used by a public high school history teacher to prepare course material. I know this because I looked at the disks before I erased them. Did I erase them because I was being overly paranoid about someone else's old high school data from 1986? No. I erased them because the data was useless and uninteresting, and I needed some blank disks. But if paper tape were erasable, would I erase the paper tapes that came with the Univac, even if it were "just" old data? Very likely not. My point? It's a judgment call, and not even a particularly difficult one. Experience is what gives us the tools to make these judgment calls, and people like us do it all the time. I'm willing to bet that nothing major has been lost due to our activities, and I'm also willing to bet that nobody got hauled off by the cops because they got caught thumbing through Mrs. Scheleka's public high school history tests from the middle of Wisconsin in 1986. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
I remove anything I see from what I put online that I wouldn't want online if I had written it. Much easier on old machines where the media didn't have much capacity and less personal work was done on them. For older machines a reasonable amount of software is recovered by reading random old media. Some of it gives much better feel for how they were used and what use was like in certain enviornments. For example I found this quite interesting. It has some personal info but after 47 years don't think some names and phone numbers is too big a deal. http://www.pdp8online.com/pdp8cgi/os8_html/SYSTEM.TS?act=file;fn=images/jby/... Since I have imaged the media I put what I want on for demos since I can always put the original back if of interest. On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:14:25PM -0500, Dave McGuire via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
On 1/14/21 9:54 PM, Bill Degnan via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
First of all, I believe (my belief) that one should try to leave a vintage computer as-is if possible, to preserve it's providence.
That really depends on what you're trying to achieve. Over at LSSM, our philosophy is a bit different: our focus is on the computers, the technology used to build them, and the software used to run them. They are tools.
The work that Joe Shmoe did on this or that specific machine is irrelevant to all of that. It may serve as an example of the sort of work that one might use such tools to perform, but that's about it. More often than not, it's just in the way.
If it were a museum of a different type of tool, say, wrenches, we likely wouldn't care about what (say) car engine this or that specific wrench was, at one point in its service life, used to work on. We might have an engine in the museum with the wrenched posed on it, as an example of the tool being used to perform work, but expending effort to display the same engine (not the same kind, but the same ONE) that Joe Shmoe worked on with that wrench in 1962 brings little value to the exhibit or the point it's trying to make to the viewer...because it's about the tool.
If the focus is on the preservation of work performed with the computer, sure, I can see that. But is that a common focus in efforts like ours? I doubt it. I'd have no problem with it if it were so, but still, I doubt it.
Just my USD$0.02.
-Dave
-- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
Some very interesting thoughts on the disposition of private data on old computers. First, I want to say that the advice received on this thread was certainly informative. However, some of the advice leads us to believe that we, as collectors, are implied to be held legally responsible for all content we receive... and I cannot fully subscribe to that line of thinking. It's one thing if we stole the computer. It's another if it was abandoned by the original or subsequent owners, through trade or sale, and they failed in their due diligence to delete what they feel is content of a sensitive nature. And yes, their data is THEIR responsibility. That being said. None of us collectors can expect to be privy to the chain of ownership of the device. As I implied in my original post, I was at least two degrees away from its original owner. So there may not be an option to go through the chain of ownership to find out from the content creator what they want done with files I found. But is it always illegal to possess what others have abandoned, even recklessly? I don't think so. HIPAA was brought up as one aspect. Technically, HIPAA only applies to "covered entities" such as those who use a person's medical information to provide medical services to the individual. It does not lock down all personal medical information in electronic form in all possible circumstances. You, the individual, have a right to handle and distribute your medical information as you see fit. If you see fit to apply poor practices in its distribution.. that's all on YOU! For example, you can put PDF files pertaining to your doctor's visits that you downloaded from your insurance company's website onto a USB drive and hand it to a friend, intentionally or accidentally, and it is not a HIPAA violation. That's because YOU, the individual, has the right to distribute your medical information as you desire... even if doing so is done accidentally and/or is a security risk. So if you did not wipe your old laptop of your medical information before you sold it to a Facebook buyer, that buyer's possession of the information is not a HIPAA violation. If the buyer reads the information they received, it is also not a HIPAA violation. A covenant of sale cannot be made to impart any responsibility or obligation on the buyer for the disposition of the property being transferred to the buyer outside of anything in a WRITTEN and SIGNED contract of sale. In other words, If the seller left their bank account information on the computer they sold, cash on the barrelhead, the buyer's possession of any information on the computer in that context is not illegal. The buyer's only legal obligation was to pay the agreed asking price. However, if the buyer uses that bank information in an illegal way (theft, extortion, etc.) THEN the information possessed becomes an illegal instrument in the commission of a crime, and an entirely different set of laws come into play. Legality of data on legally acquired computers is not a black and white issue. The legality stems from the use of the content. Other examples included installed software. That would fall under licensing agreements. Is it illegal to possess a copy of WordStar on an old CP/M machine, or is it only illegal to use a copy of WordStar on an old CP/M machine? That's all governed by whatever license agreement is in effect for the software. I'm pretty sure 99.9% of us very loosely imply that it's OK to use WordStar due to its general abandonware nature. But I will say this... if you say you don't use unlicensed software, you're a damn liar and you know it! As for the other content I mentioned. For example, the Last Will and Testament files. Officially, LW&Ts are public records if and only if the testator dies and the LW&T is filed in probate court. But a file of any random name then becomes a Shrodinger's Cat of a LW&T. You don't know for sure what it is until you open the file. As a buyer of a computer with unknown content, I doubt if you're still bound to any legalities, even if you actually view the content of the file. Tony addressed a couple of notions on this situation. One, that if a file on a legally acquired disk is unrecognizable for its purpose, you could simply delete it. Two, if you have an intention to offer a previous owner of the computer a copy of their data back, you need to open it to know what's in there to perform that action. Again, I cite these examples to show that any legal obligation of a current owner of content contained in a legally acquired computer system is not a black and white issue. Personally, LW&T files mean little to me. I'd much rather have the space they take up instead of the file. As for other items, like resumes that may be found, resumes are marketing documents intended to market the individual to those who could potentially lead the individual to employment. So, who can be defined as one who could POTENTIALLY lead an individual to employment? Again, not a black and white issue. "Bobby" can give copies of his resume to his friend "Billy" and tell him to give them to people he thinks might be hiring. Is the content of that resume private? Is it illegal to possess a copy of someone else's resume? I seriously doubt it based solely on intent. It was the intention of the individual to get their name, contact information, and a brief history of their job history out into the world in hopes it could lead to employment. If the resume source file contained the term "confidential", that would change things a bit. But as far as the legality of a resume file as a private document, one would be hard pressed to assert such a fact. But in this case, the person who is named in the resume I found on my Kaypro had died in the late 2000s. I determined that from public information that noted his death, along with employment history matching the content of the resume. So from my point of view, the resume file certainly implies a lot for the computer's provenance, but it's hardly a secret for its content. Overall, an underlying point shared by those who responded is this... we do have a degree of obligation in regards to the disposition of the content of computers we acquire. However, we will always disagree at some level to the extent of that obligation. As for the legal status of the content, it's not a blanket issue equally covering everything contained on the disk. Each "file" most likely is governed by a different set of laws pertaining to its content and/or use. Ethics is more likely the doctrine to be applied to content disposition. Legality is only a part of the decision making process while applying ethics to the problem. Jeff Salzman On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:10 PM Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Well, while I have a lot I could post on these matters, I won't. I'm not a lawyer and these are legal matters. The rest is discussion not advice.
Certain content one might obtain from others accidentally on an abandoned computer, is outright illegal to own and distribute. Delete it - period. Other content is proprietary and still in distribution, thus an actionable issue by the active producers of that content.
And of course, most of us with a clue know what is "private information". Nobody here is "researching" people's private information. This is a vintage computing discussion. Private information must be deleted, copies only to owners who want it and are given opportunities to ask. Most people seem to be indifferent; some are not.
The rest, is about technical content of old programs out of use, and possibly original programming done (as in sources, binaries). These things are, in my opinion, the business of those of us in vintage computing.
What to do about finding that stuff, has been in discussion for decades. There's common practices about that content. While owners could take actions, many owners are disinterested in doing so, or "unavailable", or in some cases have released their published works. Owners have rights, and the right to say "delete". At least they used to, when content resided in their own hands. Another subject.
Informing former owners about discovered content beyond impersonal programs and documents, has some merits both to us and to the prior owners. Tony shares his experience, that he's informed some owners about protecting their data.
All that said, I'm informed by the posts on this subject, from persons who identify their sources of authority on their decisions (Tony mentioned HIPAA compliance for instance). And by various experiences discussed.
Authority and or experience matters to me, when I see advice, certainly when I give it. I don't say I have much authority, other than years of practices; I have no authority on legal matters, little on business. I'm a technologist by training and historian by circumstance.
Myself: I preserve the history of development of certain programs and hardware on my Web site. Much of that is published information, descriptions and repairs of hardware, documentation, sources or disassemblies. Some of it is biographical information from public sources and personal correspondence (republished by me with permission). Generally I have permissions, as owners of content have the rights to say "no", and privacy rights.
Over the decades: I've been contacted by content-owners or their heirs or their associates and customers. Most thank me for recognizing those known to them, a few for recognizing themselves! Some provide more information. Some people want their privacy, or at least used to when privacy existed. And some, are no longer interested in certain past works.
So it seems to me:
If the VCF Inc. chooses to, they might gather some informed and authoritative opinions and recommendations and practices, and make that information available, as a service. They may also choose to do so, to inform their officers and volunteers as to "best practices" within the VCF collection.
One service might be, to identify kinds of content - such as I and others have identified - and suggest the kinds of practices one might take. That service alone, may help persons in deciding what to do, where to seek advice.
But I'm not credentialed in most of these matters. I have certain practices I follow. Mostly I tell people "this is at your own risk. Seek professional, legal or more experienced advice. I'm not responsible for your consequences. Make your own choices." Otherwise I lead by example and effort and results, I hope.
regards, Herb Johnson
-- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com or try later herbjohnson AT comcast DOT net
I agree with Jeff’s statements in general. My post was more about moral obligation rather than law. Tony said it best; if we want people to trust us with their old computers, then we should act responsibly. On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:52 PM Jeff Salzman via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Some very interesting thoughts on the disposition of private data on old computers.
First, I want to say that the advice received on this thread was certainly informative. However, some of the advice leads us to believe that we, as collectors, are implied to be held legally responsible for all content we receive... and I cannot fully subscribe to that line of thinking.
It's one thing if we stole the computer. It's another if it was abandoned by the original or subsequent owners, through trade or sale, and they failed in their due diligence to delete what they feel is content of a sensitive nature. And yes, their data is THEIR responsibility.
That being said. None of us collectors can expect to be privy to the chain of ownership of the device. As I implied in my original post, I was at least two degrees away from its original owner. So there may not be an option to go through the chain of ownership to find out from the content creator what they want done with files I found. But is it always illegal to possess what others have abandoned, even recklessly? I don't think so.
HIPAA was brought up as one aspect. Technically, HIPAA only applies to "covered entities" such as those who use a person's medical information to provide medical services to the individual. It does not lock down all personal medical information in electronic form in all possible circumstances. You, the individual, have a right to handle and distribute your medical information as you see fit. If you see fit to apply poor practices in its distribution.. that's all on YOU! For example, you can put PDF files pertaining to your doctor's visits that you downloaded from your insurance company's website onto a USB drive and hand it to a friend, intentionally or accidentally, and it is not a HIPAA violation. That's because YOU, the individual, has the right to distribute your medical information as you desire... even if doing so is done accidentally and/or is a security risk. So if you did not wipe your old laptop of your medical information before you sold it to a Facebook buyer, that buyer's possession of the information is not a HIPAA violation. If the buyer reads the information they received, it is also not a HIPAA violation. A covenant of sale cannot be made to impart any responsibility or obligation on the buyer for the disposition of the property being transferred to the buyer outside of anything in a WRITTEN and SIGNED contract of sale. In other words, If the seller left their bank account information on the computer they sold, cash on the barrelhead, the buyer's possession of any information on the computer in that context is not illegal. The buyer's only legal obligation was to pay the agreed asking price. However, if the buyer uses that bank information in an illegal way (theft, extortion, etc.) THEN the information possessed becomes an illegal instrument in the commission of a crime, and an entirely different set of laws come into play.
Legality of data on legally acquired computers is not a black and white issue. The legality stems from the use of the content. Other examples included installed software. That would fall under licensing agreements. Is it illegal to possess a copy of WordStar on an old CP/M machine, or is it only illegal to use a copy of WordStar on an old CP/M machine? That's all governed by whatever license agreement is in effect for the software. I'm pretty sure 99.9% of us very loosely imply that it's OK to use WordStar due to its general abandonware nature. But I will say this... if you say you don't use unlicensed software, you're a damn liar and you know it!
As for the other content I mentioned. For example, the Last Will and Testament files. Officially, LW&Ts are public records if and only if the testator dies and the LW&T is filed in probate court. But a file of any random name then becomes a Shrodinger's Cat of a LW&T. You don't know for sure what it is until you open the file. As a buyer of a computer with unknown content, I doubt if you're still bound to any legalities, even if you actually view the content of the file. Tony addressed a couple of notions on this situation. One, that if a file on a legally acquired disk is unrecognizable for its purpose, you could simply delete it. Two, if you have an intention to offer a previous owner of the computer a copy of their data back, you need to open it to know what's in there to perform that action.
Again, I cite these examples to show that any legal obligation of a current owner of content contained in a legally acquired computer system is not a black and white issue. Personally, LW&T files mean little to me. I'd much rather have the space they take up instead of the file. As for other items, like resumes that may be found, resumes are marketing documents intended to market the individual to those who could potentially lead the individual to employment. So, who can be defined as one who could POTENTIALLY lead an individual to employment? Again, not a black and white issue. "Bobby" can give copies of his resume to his friend "Billy" and tell him to give them to people he thinks might be hiring.
Is the content of that resume private? Is it illegal to possess a copy of someone else's resume? I seriously doubt it based solely on intent. It was the intention of the individual to get their name, contact information, and a brief history of their job history out into the world in hopes it could lead to employment. If the resume source file contained the term "confidential", that would change things a bit. But as far as the legality of a resume file as a private document, one would be hard pressed to assert such a fact. But in this case, the person who is named in the resume I found on my Kaypro had died in the late 2000s. I determined that from public information that noted his death, along with employment history matching the content of the resume. So from my point of view, the resume file certainly implies a lot for the computer's provenance, but it's hardly a secret for its content.
Overall, an underlying point shared by those who responded is this... we do have a degree of obligation in regards to the disposition of the content of computers we acquire. However, we will always disagree at some level to the extent of that obligation. As for the legal status of the content, it's not a blanket issue equally covering everything contained on the disk. Each "file" most likely is governed by a different set of laws pertaining to its content and/or use. Ethics is more likely the doctrine to be applied to content disposition. Legality is only a part of the decision making process while applying ethics to the problem.
Jeff Salzman
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:10 PM Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
Well, while I have a lot I could post on these matters, I won't. I'm not a lawyer and these are legal matters. The rest is discussion not advice.
Certain content one might obtain from others accidentally on an abandoned computer, is outright illegal to own and distribute. Delete it - period. Other content is proprietary and still in distribution, thus an actionable issue by the active producers of that content.
And of course, most of us with a clue know what is "private information". Nobody here is "researching" people's private information. This is a vintage computing discussion. Private information must be deleted, copies only to owners who want it and are given opportunities to ask. Most people seem to be indifferent; some are not.
The rest, is about technical content of old programs out of use, and possibly original programming done (as in sources, binaries). These things are, in my opinion, the business of those of us in vintage computing.
What to do about finding that stuff, has been in discussion for decades. There's common practices about that content. While owners could take actions, many owners are disinterested in doing so, or "unavailable", or in some cases have released their published works. Owners have rights, and the right to say "delete". At least they used to, when content resided in their own hands. Another subject.
Informing former owners about discovered content beyond impersonal programs and documents, has some merits both to us and to the prior owners. Tony shares his experience, that he's informed some owners about protecting their data.
All that said, I'm informed by the posts on this subject, from persons who identify their sources of authority on their decisions (Tony mentioned HIPAA compliance for instance). And by various experiences discussed.
Authority and or experience matters to me, when I see advice, certainly when I give it. I don't say I have much authority, other than years of practices; I have no authority on legal matters, little on business. I'm a technologist by training and historian by circumstance.
Myself: I preserve the history of development of certain programs and hardware on my Web site. Much of that is published information, descriptions and repairs of hardware, documentation, sources or disassemblies. Some of it is biographical information from public sources and personal correspondence (republished by me with permission). Generally I have permissions, as owners of content have the rights to say "no", and privacy rights.
Over the decades: I've been contacted by content-owners or their heirs or their associates and customers. Most thank me for recognizing those known to them, a few for recognizing themselves! Some provide more information. Some people want their privacy, or at least used to when privacy existed. And some, are no longer interested in certain past works.
So it seems to me:
If the VCF Inc. chooses to, they might gather some informed and authoritative opinions and recommendations and practices, and make that information available, as a service. They may also choose to do so, to inform their officers and volunteers as to "best practices" within the VCF collection.
One service might be, to identify kinds of content - such as I and others have identified - and suggest the kinds of practices one might take. That service alone, may help persons in deciding what to do, where to seek advice.
But I'm not credentialed in most of these matters. I have certain practices I follow. Mostly I tell people "this is at your own risk. Seek professional, legal or more experienced advice. I'm not responsible for your consequences. Make your own choices." Otherwise I lead by example and effort and results, I hope.
regards, Herb Johnson
-- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com or try later herbjohnson AT comcast DOT net
participants (7)
-
Adam Michlin -
Bill Degnan -
Dave McGuire -
David Gesswein -
Dean Notarnicola -
Herb Johnson -
jsalzman＠gmail.com