|
Computer Privacy Digest Vol 1 #112
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.
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsac5.pica.army.mil) by delphi.com (PMDF #3207 )
id <[email protected]>; Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:29:46 EST
Received: from PICA.ARMY.MIL by Fsac5.pica.army.mil id aa08397; 14 Dec 92 17:26
EST
Received: from fsac5.pica.army.mil by Fsac5.pica.army.mil id aa08392; 14 Dec 92
17:23 EST
Date: 14 Dec 1992 17:23:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <[email protected]>
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#112
To: [email protected]
Errors-to: Comp-privacy Error Handler <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 14 Dec 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 112
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Problems with V112
Department of Energy gains spy power, paper says
Phone Number Ownership
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#110
Re: Privacy in VA
Re: Privacy in VA
Re: Fully automated speeding tickets
Re: Fully automated speeding tickets
Re: Digitized Pictures and Signatures
Seizure (was Re: Digital Licenses in NY State)
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
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:21:38 EST
From: Computer Privacy List Moderator <[email protected]>
Subject: Problems with V112
Some of you might have gotten 2 or 3 aborted attempts at Issue 112.
That's what I get for putting out an issue while doing 12 other things at the
same time.
dennis
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 92 12:09:04 CST
From: "Len E. Elam" <lelam%[email protected]>
Subject: Department of Energy gains spy power, paper says
Keywords: DOE spy collect overt
content-length: 1565
I spotted this in the Monday, December 7, 1992 morning edition of the
{Fort Worth Star-Telegram} on Section A, Page 10:
-Start-of-newspaper-article-
Department of Energy gains spy power, paper says
From Wire Reports
HOUSTON -- The U.S. Department of Energy has won approval of
procedures that allow the agency to spy on citizens, a newspaper
reported yesterday in a copyright story.
According to documents obtained by {The Houston Post}, U.S. Attorney
General William Barr granted permission Oct. 7 for the DOE to "collect,
retain and disseminate information" on Americans, expanding a 1981
executive order.
However, the agency said the new procedures don't neccessarily mean
the agency is spying on citizens.
"DOE may collect information only through overt means, and is severely
restricted as to the use of any special techniques, such as electronic
surveillance or physical surveillance, which are generally reserved to
other agencies," the department said in a written response to the
{Post's} questions.
-End-of-newspaper-article-
Does anyone have any more information on what the DOE is doing, what
kind of information they are collecting, what steps are being taken to
insure that the information is accurate (especially before they
"disseminate" any information) and the reason they feel the need to do
this?
--
Who Am I?: Len E. Elam | Disclamer:
Email: [email protected] | I speak only
or [email protected] | for myself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 08 Dec 92 16:45:27 EST
From: tim gorman <71336.1270@compuserve.com>
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at AED.PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Phone Number Ownership
There have been several messages concerning ownership of phone numbers in
the past digests. It is my understanding from North American Numbering Plan
documentation that the numbers belong to the public in the number plan area,
i.e. World Zone 1.
It is the responsibility of the industry to administer the NANP resources
fairly and impartially to the mutual benefit of users and service providers.
Central Office codes within an NPA are administered by the dominate LEC,
number assignments within a CO code are administered by the switch owner.
Administration of the NANP resources may at times require changing telephone
numbers for certain subscribers, such as with an NPA split or when splitting
a wire center into two new wire centers due to growth requirements. For the
telephone company to arbitrarily take your existing number and to reassign a
new one would, however, be an undefendable action, at least in my opinion. I
am sure the PUC would have something to say about such an action. The courts
probably would also. Thus the telephone company doesn't really "own" the
number any more than you do. Your number may get changed as part of
administering the number resource but that should be the only time.
Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 92 21:24:59 PST
From: Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#110
I am real sorry guys. If the idea is use my DL number, not my SSN, so I
can evade my obligations, I am against it. There is enough evasion of
obligations already.
Now I am sure most folks who bother to participate in the conference have
a more abstract view of life. But I will tell you there are folks who will
run up a long string of bills on "trust" and then screw those who trusted
them. As a result, us trusting folks are saying we want SSN, DL, first born
child, and whatever else we can think of.
The alternative is that we will not trust you and tell you to go screw
yourself when it comes to credit. If you have the hard green, you are
covered. If not, prepare to cough up everything if you want $$$ from me.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 00:28:25 EST
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Path: mtu.edu!cescript
From: [email protected] (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Nntp-Posting-Host: fishlab0.fsh.mtu.edu
Organization: Michigan Technological University
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 05:28:18 GMT
In article <[email protected]>, David C Lawrence
<[email protected]> writes:
> In <[email protected]> [email protected] (John DiLeo, CSB) writes:
>
> > Actually, I'm not so sure about DC. However, radar detectors are
> > illegal in Connecticut, and the presence of one in the passenger
> > compartment of a vehicle (including under the seat, unplugged) can
> > (or at least once did) carry a pretty hefty penalty. If one was
> > permanently installed in another state (the variety where the
> > transceiver is behind the grill, and the control unit is in the
> > dash) you could only be ticketed if they believed it was operating.
>
> This isn't directly a privacy issue, but ...
Isn't use of electronic surveillance devices illegal under federal
law? (from the days of Watergate). Wouldn't that make the use of
police radar illegal, without a warrant?...
--
Charles Scripter * [email protected]
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Privacy in VA
From: Ed Boston <ed.boston%[email protected]>
Date: 9 Dec 92 21:00:00 GMT
Organization: Phantasia BBS - Boise, ID - 208-939-1350
Reply-To: Ed Boston <ed.boston%[email protected]>
MLS>Also, any truth to the rumor that the cops can tell if it is on or not.
By monitoring the frequencies of the IF section of the detectors, it is
possible to detect if one is on or not.
Ed
---
. OLX 2.1 TD . A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and <occupant>.
------------------------------
From: Paul Olson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Privacy in VA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
Date: 14 Dec 1992 14:41 EST
Apparently-To: [email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, MICHAEL LAUREN SHERMAN <[email protected]> writes...
>>
>Agreed, the problem is that if you have a radar detector, especially a built
>in like my father has, and live in Md. but are often in Va. I imagine it may
>be quite a pain in the ass (I never really asked him if this was the case)
>Also, any truth to the rumor that the cops can tell if it is on or not. If
>not my advice is get a built in and turn it off before the cop gets to the car.
>--
What I end up doing is just turning mine off. That way, the VSP can't pick it
up on their radar detector detectors.
Yea, it is possible to detect radar detectors. Apparently, some detectors give
off a small amount of microwave activity themselves. The VSP have a box to
detect changes in the level of ambient microwaves, and can tell if you're
travelling with one. I know, from being stuck in traffic behind someone with a
cheap detector, that some detectors to emit. Mine is a Bel 956W, the top of
the line which is supposed to be undetectable. I suspect it's because it has a
zinc chassis. The unit is smaller than a pack of cigarettes, and weighs almost
half a pound. I've driven behind and along side other folks with Bel
detectors, and mine has not been set off. But I'm not going to run the risk of
having a VSP officer seize mine and smash it on the ground, as they've been
known to do. I paid too much for it.
>
>MICHAELLAURENSHERMANMICHAELLAURENSHERMANMICHAELLAURENSHERMANMICHAELLAURENSHERMA
>N I THOUGHTS OF THE WEEK: 1 Float like a M
>I MICHAEL LAUREN SHERMAN C Butterfinger, stink like a beet I
>H 215-758-0207 H 2. If you uncle Jack was on a horse andC
>A E he was done but couldn't get of on his H
>E [email protected] A own, would you help your uncle Jack A
>
__ Paul J. Olson - VAX Systems Manager & Resident Amiga Addict
C= /// Voice - 301/286-4246, 301725-5501
__ /// DECnet- DSTL86::OLSON
\\\/// Internet - [email protected]
\XX/ Disclaimer: Statements in my messages are wholely my own.
AMIGA "[the universe originated] as a quantum fluctuation
of absolutely nothing." - Guth & Steinhardt
------------------------------
From: Richard Pierson <[email protected].com>
Subject: Re: Fully automated speeding tickets
Reply-To: Richard Pierson <[email protected].com>
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 10:33:55 GMT
Apparently-To: [email protected]
I do not think privacy will have more than a passing comment
made on it. The bottom line is $MONEY for the state, Photo
radar is a money machine and that is what drives govt in
these years of high unemployment, less people paying taxes,
more interest in town, state and federal budgets. In NJ if
you drive the speed limit you WILL GET HIT. I have been
watching it climb every year to 70mph during rush hours.
Know how much $ that translates into over the months it
would take to beat it in court.
--
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES
and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH #2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: [email protected].com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 05:50:05 GMT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fully automated speeding tickets
Organization: Sorcerer's Apprentice Cleaning Services
If I were nabbed by photo radar, and decided to fight it in court,
I'd be sure to subpoena *everybody* who handled the photo radar system,
and request that the equipment itself be made available for inspection
as part of the discovery process. "Everybody" includes the installer,
the folks who calibrated it, read it, handled the record possibly even
the manufacturer. As somebody in the non--submission business puts it,
If you're not having fun, you shouldn't waste your time in court.
If they see it's going to be difficult and expensive for them to win,
they may drop it, because their intent is to make a profit.
They may respond by throwing the book at you, but for a speeding
ticket that's usually not much different from what you pay if you plead guilty.
--
# Pray for peace; Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 [email protected] AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Nov 12 - Anniversary of Indonesian massacre in East Timor, 1991
# Indonesia first invaded in 1975, and about 1/3 of the people have been killed.
------------------------------
From: Richard Pierson <[email protected].com>
Subject: Re: Digitized Pictures and Signatures
Reply-To: Richard Pierson <[email protected].com>
Organization: Leave the %$#*%$# Bylaws Alone
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:11:46 GMT
Apparently-To: [email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD,
516-282-3093" <[email protected]> writes:
|> Several people have discussed digitizing drivers liscense signatures
|> and
|> pictures and also digitized signatures on voting records.
|>
|> My employer issues digitized IDs for every employee, guest employee
|> and
|> contractor on site (the ID number IS NOT the SSN). The signature is
|> made using an ordinary felt tip pen and when the picture is taken,
|> both
|> are recorded on a CD for later reproduction on a credit card-like
|> piece
|> of plastic with a magnetic stripe on the back (no, I can't find out
|> what
|> if anything is on that stripe according to Personnel and Security).
|>
|> I do worry about the NY DMV having this kind of information though,
|> since it is not the world's most efficient organization.
What ??? You object to the little bit of "free enterprise"
that the state clerk might engage in by selling the info
to interested parties..how "unAmerican" can ya get.
Had a friend who was 3 months behind on his mortage payments,
he got 10-20 mail offers for the next 6 months offering "low"
22% interest rates on loans to "help him" catch up, "No credit
check required, just sign on the dotted line and put a stamp on
the return envelope", they stopped after he got caught up and
paid the house off though, he and his wife took 3 months off
to tour Europe and he paid his mortgage in advance telling them
he would be gone, they screwed up and took one payment and the
rest off his principal.
NYDMV not efficient..what other organization except maybe
NJDMV or PennDOT can screw up your license and registration
at renewel time and then take a year to tell you about it.
Actually NJ is pretty good, at least you can talk to a person
without driving 2 hours like in Penn (Harrisburg). I took a
car off the road to clean up and sell when I bought a new one
for my wife (both in her name) six months later they still had
the older one registered along with the new one ON THE SAME PLATE.
I could not get the older one a plate without filling out a request
form at the agent I was using..would take 2 weeks to get a new plate.
It was faster to sell the car from my wife to me and get a new bill
of sale, then I could get a plate "instantly". It took 2 weeks alone
to find out the plate was not changed, they would not tell me over the
phone (or the agent either..and she works for them) what plate was on
it.
Some police departments are using cellular communications and gif
format for dmv licenses. They can access your picture, signature and
history from the police car using a modified PC. The response time
for the whole file is 30 seconds and it works very well thank you.
They also have it tied into the full data base for criminal history
and other items of interest and can literally update your file
(including picture) completely if they have the camera handy incase
you have grown a beard or shaved one off recently.
I wonder how much longer it'll be before everyone has "implants"
"for indentification puproses" with "the public good in mind" what,
you don't want one, what are you hiding.
--
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES
and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH #2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: [email protected].com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 00:30 GMT
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <[email protected]>
Subject: Seizure (was Re: Digital Licenses in NY State)
In the latest issue of Comp-Privacy, "Hoops McCann" tells about
his experience with some agents of the Internal Revenue Service
seizing some of his property. I suspect either he fails to
state the whole story or he did not tell whichever lawyers he
talked to the whole story:
1. If the bank actually acted upon an order to sieze funds
where the order carries an obviously non-matching signature,
the bank is liable, and not just for the $2,000.00, but
perhaps $2,000,000.00 for _negligence_. All it takes is
for someone to compare the order with the signature card
on file at the bank. If the two signatures do not match,
where an ordinary person can see that they do not,
I think negligence becomes fairly obvious.
In the absence of a hold harmless clause (where someone at
the IRS claims to have the authority to do this act and can
indemnify the bank for obeying the order) the bank may have
liability where any ordinary person could see that the paper
carried a non-matching signature.
2. There is a federal case - I may not have the exact title,
but it is almost exactly the same issue, and it is on
the order of something akin to _Bivens v. Six unknown agents
of the treasury_ in which someone got damages against a
federal agency where he could not identify the people who
unlawfully broke into his property, but they were federal
agents.
3. I think that forging a ficticious order which took his
property represents an intentional violation of his rights
under the _Civil Rights Act of 1869_, 19 USC 1984, which
provides for civil suits against someone who deprives
someone of their civil rights while "acting under color of
law."
4. He should write his congressman, as well as the ACLU, the
local newspapers and television stations and major national
news shows.
If his comments are correct, a lawyer should easily have seen
a very juicy and potentially _very lucrative_ civil rights case.
---
Paul Robinson -- [email protected]
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #112
******************************
|
|
