|
Computer Privacy Digest Vol 1 #116
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, 21 Dec 1992 19:06:45 EST
Received: from PICA.ARMY.MIL by Fsac5.pica.army.mil id aa11423; 21 Dec 92 18:11
EST
Received: from fender.pica.army.mil by Fsac5.pica.army.mil id aa11419; 21 Dec
92 18:07 EST
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:06:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <[email protected]>
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#116
To: [email protected]
Errors-to: Comp-privacy Error Handler <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 21 Dec 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 116
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Re: Schools and SSN
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1
Re: UPS Digital Clipboards
Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers
[Jerry Bryan: Blockbuster Video]
Sallie Mae and SSNs
Re: Blockbuster Video
Re: Blockbuster Video
Re: Blockbuster Video
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob deFriesse <rj@cadre.com>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Reply-To: rj@cadre.com
Organization: Cadre Technologies Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:55:15 GMT
: Not that this is a privacy issue, but I thought that banning radar
: detectors was technically a violation of federal law. I think
: there is a federal law on the books, dating back from the '30's,
: which affirms citizens' rights to receive signals broadcast anywhere
: in the electromagnetic spectrum.
While it is illegal to ban any reciever, the law also states that it
is illegal to use a reciever in the commision of a crime. This is
how they justify the prohibition of radar dectectors.
The problem I have with this is that a radar detector prohibition
assumes that a crime has or will be commited even though there
may be no proof of the crime. The counter argument is that a radar
detector is good for only one thing: to facilitate the violation
of speed limits. This is not good enough. The law is clear.
Receivers are always legal unless used to commit a crime. If
there is no proof of a crime, there is no crime.
--
The software engineer's credo: Eschew Obfuscation
Rob deFriesse Mail: [email protected].com
Cadre Technologies Inc. Phone: (401) 351-5950
222 Richmond St. Fax: (401) 351-7380
Providence, RI 02903
I don't speak for my employer.
------------------------------
From: The Jester <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:37:14 GMT
Organization: Republicans for Sanity
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (StarOwl) writes:
>Not that this is a privacy issue, but I thought that banning radar
>detectors was technically a violation of federal law. I think
>there is a federal law on the books, dating back from the '30's,
>which affirms citizens' rights to receive signals broadcast anywhere
>in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Well then I know of at least one instance where that law was amended
and this has A LOT to do with privacy. As has been pointed out on
this group before, making a Cellular telephone call is like talking
to the other party on a loud speaker. Well fearful of giving the
general public a viable encryption medium for cellular telephone,
the congress passed a law making it illegal to listen in to that
frequency. I'd say I'm constantly amazed by the idiocy of congress,
but to be honest, nothing much surprises me anymore.
The Jester
--
The Jester
PGP v2 Key available via finger
Hit Me, Beat Me, Make me Program in Assembly
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 15:58:58 -0700
From: Doug Thompson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Schools and SSN
Apparently-To: [email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Brad Whitlock) writes:
> And by the way, do you demand to see the original SSA-issue SSN card?
Alabama recently (last 2 years) began requiring SSN's for all students
entering school. No SSN, no school.
What's even worse, is they simply REFUSE to accept the number by itself, they
require the actual SSA-issued card. My sister was a week late starting school
because they wouldn't let her in the doors without a SSA-issue card. It
took a week to get a new one made, we had lost the original from when she
was born.
After moving here to utah, my primary school sent home 3 forms
one for each child in that school asking for SSN. After sending a
reply letter stating my reasons for NOT providing the numbers
I went a spoke with the clerk about how it was received.
She said, it was okay, but cause more clerical work to generate
a new number. As they knew that each child already had a number
the SSN became the default. I've been trying for the last year,
since becoming familiar with the SSN problem, of shielding my
kids numbers.
[Moderator's Note: What do they do if parents refuse to give the
SSN? It seems to me the best way for parents who want teach their kids
on their own to get around all the legal requirements that one must go
through in order not to send kids to school. ._dennis ]
PS Utah also requires SSN for drivers licences :-(
------------------------------
From: Eric Hunt <bsc835!ehunt%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1
Summary: Don't post me to the list
Date: 20 Dec 92 01:36:57 GMT
Organization: Birmingham-Southern College
> Alabama recently (last 2 years) began requiring SSN's for all students
> entering school. No SSN, no school.
>
> [Moderator's Note: Is this colleges, high schools, or primary schools?
> ._dennis ]
It was her 10th grade year. She's in the 11th now. Public School. Very pissed
off mother, incedentally. "If the number is good for the IRS, by god it should
be good enough for [insert principal's name]" [grin]
--
Eric Hunt | [email protected] (preferred)
Birmingham-Southern College | [email protected]
Birmingham, Alabama 35254 | ^--- Nothing longer than 100 lines
------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: UPS Digital Clipboards
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:08:26 GMT
Ed Ravin <[email protected]> writes:
>I do this for most new groups that I join, just to see how far and wide
>they will scatter my name. For example, the amount of mail I receive
>from other groups when I joined the Sierra Club is frightening -- fortunately,
>the stream of mail withered away when I renewed and scribbled "STOP SHARING
>MY NAME WITH OTHER MAILERS" on the renewal form.
I usually get a brick, wrap it in brown paper, and glue the envelope I get
from other groups on top of the brick, writing on the envelope 'Delivery
Refused'. Since the sending company must then pay the extra postage on the
brick, I seldom get a followup from a company, although one company was stupid
enough to send me two more notices, so on the third (total) notice from them,
I wrapped up about four bricks in a small box and glued the envelope on the
top of this box. I never got another notice from this company!
allen
------------------------------
From: Leonard Erickson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:27:23 GMT
[email protected] writes:
>I don't know if this applies to private residence numbers, but recently, MCI
>has been advertising in California that if you want lower rates on your
>800-number charges, you can transfer from Pacific Telephone and TAKE YOUR
>800-NUMBER WITH YOU. This kind of implies that the number belongs to you,
>not to the telco.
800 numbers are a special case. They are being made "portable" so that you
can change long distance companies without the penalty of having to get all
your business cards, ads, etc reprinted.
800 numbers are just a translation table lookup anyway. They merely "map"
to a specific "normal number".
Regular phone numbers are most *definitely* owned by the phone company.
Ask the folks who have had their number changed when the phone company
put in a new exchange here!
--
Leonard Erickson [email protected]
CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO: 1:105/51 [email protected]
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 23:04:17 EST
From: Brinton Cooper <[email protected]>
cc: Jerry Bryan <[email protected]>
Subject: [Jerry Bryan: Blockbuster Video]
Organization: The US Army Research Laboratory
Jerry Bryan <[email protected]> writes...
> ...Blockbuster Video... wanted
> my driver's license number, my SSN, a credit card number, where
> I worked, and my boss's name. I balked on the SSN, they would not
> give in, and I walked out.
I recall Blockbuster wanting a credit card number so that they could
charge me if I returned a tape late or not at all. I balked and asked
if there were an alternative. The alternative was a one-time fee of
$5.00. This seems to be an insurance premium (perhaps self-insurance)
to indemnify them against loss of property. Seemed reasonable, so I
paid it. I didn't tell them my SSN or where I worked. This was several
years ago.
_Brint
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 07:17:09 EST
From: Dave Niebuhr <[email protected]>
Subject: Sallie Mae and SSNs
One of my daughters recently obtained a student loan guaranteed by
Sallie Mae, the quasi-governmental agency created to purchase these
loans made by banks and other financial institutions, similar to
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The problem is that Sallie Mae uses my SSN, not my daughter's, as
the account number. I called Sallie Mae and the person on the
other side stated that he couldn't do anything about it and that
I should address a letter to his supervisor (naturally).
I've done that and have yet to receive any response.
While filling out the forms for financial aid (many of them), I
didn't see one instance of the Privacy Act being stated; I complained
about that too.
I am curious to see what answers (non-answers) that I receive.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: [email protected] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Blockbuster Video
Date: 19 Dec 92 23:38:15 CST
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jerry Bryan) writes:
> I just had my first encounter with Blockbuster Video. They wanted
> my driver's license number, my SSN, a credit card number, where
> I worked, and my boss's name. I balked on the SSN, they would not
> give in, and I walked out.
BLOCKBUSTER must being using different forms in different areas. The forms
used as the St. Louis stores have the word "optional" written over the space
for the Social Security Number. That may be because Missouri uses the SSN
as its driver's license number (records sold to anyone for $1, or in bulk
for 1 cent each).
However, its the "Membership Terms and Conditions" that have the real privacy
related stuff (on a seperate piece of paper from the Application).
Membership Terms and Conditions
[...]
3. Member authorizes BLOCKBUSTER Video to release information contained
in this Application or generated through the use of the membership card.
[...]
2/92
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: [email protected], Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
------------------------------
From: "Glenn R. Stone" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Blockbuster Video
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:12:01 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: The Group W Bench
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Doctor Math) writes:
>A friend of mine had an experience with Blockbuster that went like this:
>Jealous ex goes to Blockbuster, convinces staff that he has permission
>to check out tapes using her account, never returns the tapes, she gets
>stuck with a large bill (it just appeared on the credit card statement).
>Complaints to Blockbuster management (both verbal and written), while
>not ignored, did no good whatsoever.
What? without a membership card? If Jealous_ex still had the victim's
BB card, well, *maybe* it's her fault.... if BB took ex's word, with no
card, "seeya in court." Also, every time I went (note tense) to BB, they
still process a credit voucher.... the solution is to notify your credit
card company and have them challenge BB to come up with a signed, imprinted
voucher.
(more BB slamming deleted)
I dunno, mebbe the BB franchise group in Atlanta is just better at it
than most.... but I'm still not going back because of the records thing...
-- Glenn R. Stone ([email protected])
"The place of the government is to LEAVE THE PEOPLE ALONE!"
-- Leary
------------------------------
From: Charles Mattair <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Blockbuster Video
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:57:32 GMT
In article <[email protected]> Doctor Math <[email protected]> writes:
>
>Conclusion: Blockbuster's concept of 'security' is: "We have authorization
>to charge your credit card." It would seem to be all the security they
>need - this way, they're never out any money :) :( :(
>
>It could be argued that there are other video rental stores, but it can
>also be said that Blockbuster would rather this not be true, and is likely
>doing everything they can to eliminate the competition.
Based on my experiences, BB has no security. Our (me/wife's) account is in
her maiden name and I never carry my card. I never have any problems renting
movies - it appears the counter droids are happy if you can come up with a
name the computer knows.
Another local store uses your phone number for a customer number and never
checks ID.
--
Charles Mattair [email protected]
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Cheap, fast, good - choose two.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #116
******************************
|
|
