|
Computer Privacy Digest Vol 1 #104
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 01 Dec 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 104
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Lucky Supermarkets copies social security numbers on to checks.
Magnetic strip on driver licenses
Re: magnetic stripe
Re: Re: Blockbuster announces plan to use data from video rentals
Re: Comp Priv Digest
Re: Re: Blockbuster announces plan to use data from video rentals
My Technophobia.
Privacy in VA
Phone Privacy: Call Records
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the
effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy
(Moderated). Submissions should be sent to
[email protected] and administrative requests to
[email protected].
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.200].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 09:20:28 PST
From: Phydeaux <[email protected]>
Subject: Lucky Supermarkets copies social security numbers on to checks.
This appeared in misc.consumers and I thought it would be of interest
here.
reb
======================================================================
From: [email protected] (David B. Whiteman)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Lucky Supermarkets copies social security numbers on to checks.
The California DMV has started to require a social security number
when applying for an initial Calif. drivers license or identification
card, or for renewing them. This is suppose to be used as an aid for
tracking down fathers who skip out on child support payments (but they
require a social security number from males and females). The signs
all over the DMV clearly state that the social security number is used
internally and will not be printed on the license or ID card, which is
true. However all the new licenses and id cards have a magnetic
strip. Now if you wish to make a purchase at a Lucky's Supermarket
and pay by check the license is passed thru a magnetic card reader --
and the social security number is read from the card and printed on
the back of the check. Therefore the number which is not suppose to
appear on the license is simply available to any merchant that has
access to a card reader.
------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Rujith S DeSilva)
Subject: Magnetic strip on driver licenses
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 18:15:39 GMT
In article <[email protected]> elee@bonnie.ics.uci.edu writes
(in reference to having supermarkets' using a magnetic strip on driver
licenses to validate checks):
>The other interesting point being discussed on the bboard was that of exactly
>what information is stored on the magnetic stripe that isn't visibly printed
>on the card.
I would not be happy, even if all the information on the stripe was
already printed on the card, because it would make it so easy for the
business to start keeping records on its customers. In the U.K., it's
illegal to keep records of more than name and address (I think) without
registering the database with some government agency; what's the
situation in the U.S.A.?
[Moderator's Note: It's perfectly legal for most businesses to keep
records on its citizens. The one exception being video rental
places. ._dennis ]
Rujith de Silva.
Carnegie Mellon.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 16:53:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "L. Jean Camp" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: magnetic stripe
> The other interesting point being discussed on the bboard was that
>of exactly what information is stored on the magnetic stripe that isn't
>visibly printed on the card. I would sure like to know, and who exactly
>is capable of reading and using this information. Could the strip contain
>information such as a person's credit record? If so, a person with bad
>credit could conceivably be denied access to certain privileges that she
>would not have been had the magnetic stripe not been issued.
However, if our credit was included on our cards, the need for credit
reporting companies would end. Services would still exist for those who
lost their cards. It woudl be easier to limit the flow of data from a
storage facility that is _not_ a necesssary part of the credit market.
This could make it much easier both to control the dissemination of our
credit information and to assure that it is correct, as we could see it
written. If anyone besides myself has ever tried to correct a credit
report, you'll know that it is nearly impossible.
Jean
------------------------------
From: Charles Mattair <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: Blockbuster announces plan to use data from video rentals
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 20:21:29 GMT
I spoke with a VP at Blockbuster's corporate headquarters in Ft
Lauderdale (305 832 3000) re this. They definitely plan to do this.
They have no plans to divulge this information to anyone outside the BB
organization.
After some amount of discussion, he allowed they might be able to
strike my name from the program and would check into this. Will post
any subsequent info I get.
Questions for the legal eagals:
[Moderator's Note: I will attempt a answer for each one. ._dennis ]
1. Given that a corporation is a legal person, after a fashion, and
assuming BB keeps Sound Warehouse as an unconsolidated sub, is it
in violation of the Video Rentals law if it makes rental
information available to Sound Warehouse?
A corporation is a legal entity not a person. It depends on
what type of information it is keeping.
2. Assuming the promotional literature makes a statement to the
effect "you liked Ishtar enough to rent it" (that is, divulges the
name of a video or otherwise indicates a particular class of
videos I rented) and that BB sends the promo literature something
other than 1st class, does the the (reasonably) expectable lack
of privacy in the mailing constitute a defacto violation?
No.
3. Assume the same mailing as in 2 above. Do I relinquish my rights
under the act, once I have received the mailing, if I do not take
every reasonable step to preserve the privacy of the
information? That is, given I have no expectation of privacy in
trash set out on the curb, am I now bound to open every piece of
junk mail to ensure I don't discard a BB mailer?
You have no rights under the act with the possible exception
of a lawsuit. Unless you suffered real damages you can forget a
lawsuit.
4. Assume 3 above except I open the mailer. Has BB in effect
transferred the responsibility to ensure privacy to me? If my
neighbor happens to see the mailer in my house, who is in
violation, me or BB?
No one.
5. Again, assuming the same mailing as in 2 above, what safeguards
exist to prevent BB from sending promo literature to Clarence
Thomas to a valid but incorrect address which just happens to be
a _Weekly World News_ drop box? Assuming the mailing is not 1st
class, there are no legal restrictions on who may open and read
this mail; in effect, the law is totally and legally
circumvented.
[Moderator's Note: An overall note on this posting. Don't depend
upon laws to protect your privacy. Unless you have a lot of money
to throw away on legal fees the law as it affects most people is
worthless. A video doesn't really care what you as an individual
watch; only customers as a whole. ._dennis ]
--
Charles Mattair [email protected]
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Never try to teach a pig to sing - you waste your time
and it annoys the pig. (West Texas saying)
------------------------------
From: Carl Oppedahl <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Comp Priv Digest
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 21:29:35 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
In <[email protected]> Robert Ellis Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>PRIVACY JOURNAL, PO Box 28577, Providence,
>RI 02908, has published COMPILATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL
>PRIVACY LAWS since 1974. The 1992 edition costs $29.
>The book includes 600 laws, on Social Security numbers,
>electronic surveillance, credit records, health, financial,
>schools, Caller ID, personnel, criminal records, and much
>more. There's a state-by-state chart on each
>category.
I have the book and can recommend it.
>Our monthly newsletter, PRIVACY JOURNAL, answers
>virtually every question that comes up on the
>Computer Privacy Digest. It's available for a
>special rate of $65 a year for Digest participants
>-- from PRIVACY JOURNAL, 401/274-7861.
For those who follow privacy, this is a very important journal.
I recommend it, too.
>Reach the publisher via MCI mail at rsmith,
>510-1719.
Well, for Internet people the way to address Mr. Smith is
[email protected]. I think if you leave off the leading
zeroes it will still work.
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578 fax 212-765-2519
------------------------------
From: Sam Lowry <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: Blockbuster announces plan to use data from video rentals
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 16:32:55 GMT
In article <[email protected]> "Roy M. Silvernail" <[email protected]> writes:
>Richard Thomsen <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> [email protected] writes:
>> >Needless to say, Blockbuster does not get my business. If you don't like
>> This is an interesting comment. Because a company does not rent out movies
>> that you want to see, this is "censorship?" I thought this was a newsgroup
>> about privacy. What about the privacy of the company, and its right to
>> rent what it wants? Why does it have to rent what you want?
>
>
>Your message does bring up an interesting point, though. While we are
>all understandably concerned about our privacy, the very organizations
>we decry for violating our privacy must have some reasonable expectation
>of privacy, as well. Since the two imperatives obviously conflict, how
>should this conflict be resolved?
>
What you are telling me is that companies, which are not a human
being has the same rights as a living person? This is a problem we
all will have to deal with. Do companies have rights?
[Moderator's Note: Corporations do. ._dennis ]
[email protected]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 19:43:49 -0500
From: Multilingual Technogies Corporation <[email protected]>
Subject: My Technophobia.
Here's why we should be worried about technology and our privacy.
It's not because of evil conspiracies. It's much more banal then that.
Ordinary people are in charge of and/or run technology, people who are
afraid of their bosses, mostly tired of life, quite comfortable
assuming the bureaucratic role. "No" always involves less hassle than
"Yes". Very much trapped in what Stanley Milgram called the "agentic
state". ("Obedience to Authority" - a classic, and still available in
paperback. Everybody interested in any aspect of behavior should read
this.) Perfectly good and charitable people running the databases at
TRW and others places, dealing on a daily and hourly basis with
computer botches, stolen cards, a fight with the spouse, money worries,
kid problems, etc. Just one careless keystroke, and a reputation goes
into limbo.
Some chiropractors use an electrical stimulation device on the back to
relax the muscles in preparation for adjusting the spine. Similar
devices attached to the genitals of a subject in some Guatemalan prison
are a very effective method of interrogation. In "Prisoner Without a
Name, Cell Without a Number", Jacobo Timmermann tells how, before one
session started, the technician that was about to torture him asked for
his help in getting his son into college, and other pleasant banter,
before turning on the current. Ordinary people doing ordinary jobs
that just happen to be destroying other ordinary people. The banality
of evil.
That's what scares me.
GB.
------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Richard Lee)
Subject: Privacy in VA
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 21:09:23 GMT
I will be moving to the DC area shortly, and have a few questions re
privacy issues in VA.
1. SSN on DL
According to recent posts, your SSN is your Driver's License number
unless you object. Is getting them to use something else difficult? (I
suppose it may depend on the mood of the clerk.) Do they have an
algorithm for making an alternate number up, or what?
2. SSN, CC#, Phone # on checks
What is VA law on stores wanting to write any of the above on your check
before honoring it?
[Moderator's Note: I sure as hell hope they don't restrict the
practice. You have no *RIGHT* to cash a check. A store has a
legitimate need for the SSN. ]
3. "Caller ID"
My reading of the N VA C&P Phone Book is that C&P offers "Caller ID" but
does _not_ offer any form of blocking!! Is this really the case? Is it
possible to get some kind of blocking even though they don't advertise
it?
[Moderator's Note: Not unless you are law enforcement. ]
4. Etc
Are there related issues I should know about but haven't thought to ask?
Responses (preferably email) will be greatly appreciated. I will be
happy to pass on relevant experiences after I move and deal with these
issues.
[Moderator's Note: Once again I have to ask: Does the knowlege of
one SSN affect that's person privacy? I say no. All the SSN does is
act as a global indentifier. In today's technology it is not
difficult to for a legitimate business to get a person SSN. You
don't need a SSN to get a credit report just a name and address.
._dennis ]
------------------------------
From: "Kip J. Guinn" <[email protected]>
Subject: Phone Privacy: Call Records
Organization: University of Denver, Telephone Services
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 92 17:39:29 GMT
Apparently-To: uunet!comp-society-privacy
Do phone companies keep records of local calls made from your telephone?
I have heard references to "phone records"--mostly in articles about
someone being investigated by the police--and wonder if they meant
local calls, or long-distance.
I can see where long-distance calls would be in records, but do they
actually keep logs on local calls made from each residential phone?
That would seem to be an awfully huge chunk of data... And a big
invasion of my privacy, too! Caller ID is bad enough for some
people--women's shelter's, etc-- and I don't like the fact that if I
call to complain to the police, or a company, etc, that they know my
home number (which I try to keep fairly private), but if local calls
are routinely logged--heck, what do you do?
Kip
[Moderator's Note: They do not keep track of the local numbers you
call. Most switches do have the capability to do so if there was a
compelling need. You might disagree with the concept but that
information belongs to the company not to you. I hope the fact that
medical records belong to the doctor and not to the patient doesn't
surprise you. ._dennis ]
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #104
******************************
|
|
