|
Computer Privacy Digest Vol 2 #001
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 Mon, 04 Jan 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 001
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Zip+4 Problems?
Zip+4 Problems?
Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Re: SSN and new baby
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: Paul Olson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:43 EST
In article <[email protected]>, robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes...
>
>Interesting discussion, but obviously limited to the US. In Canada
>the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, simply made them
>illegal. No question of constitutional rights, or court challenge...
>just plain made them illegal...
>
Yea, interesting considering that my Beltronics detector is manufactured in
Mississauga, Ontario.
>Obviously the US needs to have its constitution changed, to make it
>possible for the Executive Branch to simply follow the same course,
>for the good of ALL drivers. After all, speed kills. Congress would
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Geeze, and after all these years of people bashing the U.S. for "exporting
death", it's finally discovered that Canada has unleased it's industry of death
on the U.S. Guess you guys finally got fed up with us south of the border folk
affecting the Labatt's taste test polls! ;-) (This paragraph mumbled because my
tounge is in my cheek. I grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, about as
Canada as folk in the U.S. become. I even pronouce "about" the way Peter
Jennings does!)
>
>Bob
>---
> RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
> RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
__ 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
------------------------------
Posted-Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:08:08 GMT
From: "Bryan D. Boyle" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Reply-To: "Bryan D. Boyle" <[email protected]>
Organization: Exxon Research & Engineering
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:08:08 GMT
In article <[email protected]>, robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes:
>Interesting discussion, but obviously limited to the US. In Canada
>the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, simply made them
>illegal. No question of constitutional rights, or court challenge...
>just plain made them illegal...
>
>Obviously the US needs to have its constitution changed, to make it
>possible for the Executive Branch to simply follow the same course,
>for the good of ALL drivers. After all, speed kills. Congress would
>love it, wouldn't they? Look at all the porkbarreling eliminated this
>way. US Taxpayers might actually SAVE money, too.
Interesting point-hope we (south of your border...) don't do the same.
Factoid: since 1973, when speed limit was lowered to 55 from 60, highway
death rate in absolute numbers has not changed significantly. It seems
to be remaining constant at 50K persons per year. Speed doesn't kill,
loose nuts and drunk drivers kill. It is absolutely insane that 6-lane, smooth,
flat interstates have a limit of 55 MPH. But down here, it is not a
speed issue, but a monetary issue. In NJ, 42% of the tickets written
for speeding are for the range of 56-65MPH. Raising the limit to 60
would eliminate a lot of these, thus depriving the slimepuppies in
government of their revenue.
Second point: some of us down here like to think that we can manage our
lives quite nicely, thank you, without the heavy handed bureaucratic
intervention of the government mongrel. With full awareness of our
social contract, and need to constantly recognize our responsibilities
to our fellow citizens. We don't need some government dweeb lecturing
us or shaking a pointer or tsk-tsking what we do.
(but, then, I am somewhat of an anarchist....)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:56:35 EST (Wed)
From: "John R. Levine" <[email protected].ma.us>
> I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
> "extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
> other than "where to send the mail"?
No. The ZIP+4 is based solely on the address. You can buy a set of thick
books from the post office that give the address to zip+4 mapping for the
entire country.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected].ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
------------------------------
From: Carl Oppedahl <[email protected]>
Subject: Zip+4 Problems?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:13:34 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
> I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
> "extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
> other than "where to send the mail"?
Have you ever looked in a Zip+4 directory? That's where you would
find the answer. In an apartment building with, say, 200 units it
will typically narrow things down to 12 or so apartment unit mailboxes.
So ... if you are the type who leaves out the apartment number from
your address on purpose, the Zip+4 might give some of that back to
the reader of your address..
I recall learning where Dustin Hoffman lived here in New York
because it happens he got enough mail he had his own Zip+4 assigned,
and there in the nine-digit Zip code directory for New York was
his listing in some apartment building. So, even though he had
an unlisted telephone number and tried to keep his address out
of general public knowledge, there it was for all to see in a directory
anybody can buy for $12. (He has since moved.)
--
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578 fax 212-765-2519
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 11:49:13 -0500
From: "Glenn R. Stone" <[email protected]>
Subject: Zip+4 Problems?
Reply-To: [email protected]
In the referenced article, [email protected] (Dewey Coffman) writes:
> I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
> "extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
> other than "where to send the mail"?
In some instances, especially a P.O. box, it will uniquely identify the
address in and of itself.... it's designed to at least get the carrier
within a couple blocks at most of the destination, even on a rural route.
I imagine that any database that would show buying habits would give fairly
good neighborhood demographics given plus-4 codes in addition to the usual
five (which can and often do define a fairly large area). On the other hand,
instead of putting name and address for my return address on bills, etc.,
I simply put my plus-four zip in the upper left hand corner and leave the
other lines blank.... fie on these student loan companies that want you
to put everything but your mother's maiden name (they have a space for
not only your account number, which is based on SSN, but your bloody
PHONE NUMBER) in the return address space...
So, no, putting plus-four on mail that's already got a full address doesn't
help the database goops (except for stats purposes), and IMHO, it's a good
way to *preserve* privacy with respect to the casual snooper-of-mail; even if
it's not perfectly secure, it makes it considerably more difficult for them
to figure out where you are.... or even who, if the integrity of the envelope
isn't breached.
Glenn R. Stone ([email protected])
Anyone ever notice that the Secret Service's initials are SS?
------------------------------
From: Eric Hunt <bsc835!ehunt%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:13:04 GMT
Organization: Birmingham-Southern College
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] Coffman) writes:
> I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
> "extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
I looked my ZIP+4 up in the massive tome the USPS publishes. All I found is
that only two addresses on the planet have this ZIP+4. So, someone knowing
my Zip+4 alone could conceivably look it up and come pay me a visit.
--
Eric Hunt | [email protected] (preferred)
Birmingham-Southern College | [email protected]
Birmingham, Alabama 35254 | ^--- Nothing longer than 100 lines
------------------------------
From: John Keating <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:08:37 GMT
Organization: Cray Communications, Inc.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] Coffman) writes:
> I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
> "extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
> other than "where to send the mail"?
I don't think that it gives too much information, other than a closer
approximation as to your residence. For example, my street has two +4
zips, 8420 and 8421. The even numbered zips are for those whose house
number is even (presumably everyone on one side of the street has even
addressed, and the other odd) and the odd zips are for those whose house
number is odd. A local post office should have a listing of +4 zips, and
what they mean. (I believe that some +4 zips reference post office boxes).
John Keating
--
John William Keating, III /-----------------------------------------
-+=< Cray Communications, Inc. >=+- | If you do something stupid after reading
formerly: Dowty Communications Inc. | this message, it is your own fault, not
keating%[email protected] | mine nor the company I work for. -me-
------------------------------
From: Ed Ravin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:19:04 GMT
Organization: Not Just Another Pretty Face
In article <[email protected]> Dewey Coffman <[email protected]> writes:
> I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
> "extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
> other than "where to send the mail"?
Of course it does. First of all, remember that your ZIP code already tells
a lot about you -- there are marketing databases all over the country that
have set up criteria like "Dinks with Dough" or "Snowbird City" to describe
the people they presume are living in various ZIP codes.
Now, add to that the precision of ZIP+4. At the very least, ZIP+4 codes
are unique to a single block. In denser areas, they may be unique to a
single apartment building or set of floors (or even a section of mailboxes)
in a building. If the marketing database folks have got their act together,
I'm sure this information will start to become useful to them.
The only bright spot on this stuff is that the Post Office reserves the
right to change the +4 portion of a ZIP+4 code. As a matter of fact, anyone
who sends mail at the discounted rate with the ZIP+4 is supposed to check
the ZIP+4 codes every six months or so against the Post Office's master
database. You can buy it on CD-ROM, 9-track tape, and even on floppies
or paper directories for selected areas. I still get mail with all three
ZIP+4 codes that have been assigned to my apartment building over the
past few years.
As you may have guessed already, because of these databases, it doesn't
matter a whole lot whether you supply your ZIP+4 to someone who wants it--
they can always look it up themselves. The databases software allows you
to supply a street address and city name or ZIP code and it spits out
the corrected street name (standardized spellings, etc) and the ZIP+4.
So the answer to your question is no, giving out the ZIP+4 doesn't give
out any more info about yourself that they couldn't get anyway. And if
they are going to send you any bulk mailings, they will not only get your
ZIP+4 anyway, they'll probably chuck the one you give them if the Post
Office's databases have a different one. Yes, the ZIP+4 will make targeting
much easier for bulk mailers, direct marketers, and especially political
groups that mail to specific gerrymandered election districts, which often
have no correspondence to ZIP code boundaries.
--
Ed Ravin | I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology
[email protected] | where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature
philabs!trintex!elr | returned to our mammal brothers and sisters,
+1 914 993 4737 | and all watched over by machines of loving grace
------------------------------
From: Dick Grady <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:30:25 GMT
In article <[email protected]> Dewey Coffman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
> "extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
> other than "where to send the mail"?
No. In fact, it usually is a little less specific than your street
address. For example, on my street, there are about 10 houses per "+4"
code.
--
Dick Grady Salem, NH, USA [email protected]
So many newsgroups, so little time!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: SSN and new baby
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:04:50 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[email protected].ma.us>
>What experience have people in this group had in keeping the SSN of a newborn
>private? I have heard that some hospitals insist on submitting the paperwork
>to the Social Security Administration to obtain the number.
Although I haven't yet dealt with a newborn baby, I find that about half
of the dealings I have with any hospital involve telling them that I have
no interest in doing yet another stupid thing that is their "standard
policy." We have a little dance we do whenever I go in in which I tell
them that I don't know my SSN, I don't care what my SSN is, that none of
the many pieces of paper in my wallet have my SSN (sometimes they want to
look, but they usually give up after the driver's license), and they have
absolutely no use for the damned thing since neither they nor my insurance
company use it to identify me.
Getting an SSN for a child involves the parent filling out and signing a
form and sending it to the SSA. What's the hospital going to do if you
refuse to fill it out, keep the baby? Remember, you're the customer.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected].ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #001
******************************
|
|
