|
Computer Privacy Digest Vol 2 #005
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 Sat, 09 Jan 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 005
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Worries about privacy could tone down success of ID caller
Re: SSN and new baby
Re: Posting Email (was Re: Final Answer to Tavares)
Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Re: Zip+4 on CD-ROM?
Mass. driver's license S numbers -- really different?
Social Security Numbers
Re: SSN
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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:25:25 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[email protected]>
Subject: Worries about privacy could tone down success of ID caller
From the 1/4/93 "Boston Globe"
Worries about privacy could tone down success of ID caller
Jonathan Yenkin
Associated Press
Boston - Caller ID, a phone service touted as an electronic peephole to let
customers see who's calling, is making its way around the country. But it may
not become a ringing success because of privacy worries.
The service, which displays the number and sometimes even the name of the
caller, is available in more than 20 states and has won praise for deterring
obscene and annoying phone calls.
But because of privacy concerns, many states have slapped on restrictions that
phone companies fear will undercut the service's value.
"At what point does the subscriber say, 'It's not worth it anymore?' I don't
know," said Clifton Metcalf, a spokesman for Southern Bell in North Carolina.
"We're going to find out."
The restrictions imposed by utility regulators allow callers to block their
numbers from appearing on a display unit by the phone. This can be done by
pressing certain keys when making each call, or, in some states, by having the
line blocked off entirely from being decoded by Caller ID.
After the state imposed such restrictions in Massachusetts, New England
Telephone officials found them so onerous that they initially withdrew their
plans to offer the service.
Susan Butta, a spokeswoman for New England Telephone, said executives worried
the restrictions might make the service harder to sell. They eventually changed
their minds and decided to try it.
U.S. West Communications, which serves more than a dozen states, decided to
include the blocking options in its proposals to utility regulators, not waiting
for officials to order them, said Gwen Law, a company project manager. Consumer
advocates and civil liberties groups say such restrictions are necessary. In
Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled this year [sic] that Caller ID -
without the blocking options - violated the state wiretap law.
Critics often point to battered women or undercover police officers as examples
of people who need to keep their phone numbers secret.
"There are some people for whom the risk of forgetting to block is very great,"
said Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America.
But New Jersey Bell, which pioneered Caller ID in the late 1980s, doesn't offer
any blocking, and fewer than 1 percent of customers have complained about phone
numbers leaking out, said company spokesman James W. Carrigan.
On the other hand, Carrigan said the service has helped deter nuisance calls.
About 200,000 New Jersey Bell customers, or 4.6 percent, subscribe to Caller ID.
That compares with a 28 percent acceptance rate for Call Waiting, which allows
customers to receive more than one call at the same time.
But Carrigan insisted customers in his state who don't have Caller ID still
benefit, "because the other people don't know whether you have the service, so
they won't make that (harassing) call."
In some places, phone companies say they are succeeding with the service despite
the restrictions.
Centel Corp. in Las Vegas, which serves southern Nevada, offers the blocking
options and still has more than 10 percent of its customers subscribing.
Dianna Fyke, a marketing manager for Centel, said there were some initial fears,
but once people get accustomed to the service it becomes "a matter of fact
thing."
------------------------------
From: Hans Lachman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SSN and new baby
Organization: Netcom
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:02:53 GMT
In article <[email protected]> [email protected].ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:
>>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.
>
>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?
It would seem reasonable to decline their offer to set your kid up with an
SSN since he won't need one until he starts working. I was born in '63,
and didn't get an SSN until around age 10, and the world didn't come to an
end. I suggest you just act like not having a number is the most natural
thing in the world, and maybe we'll infect others with that attitude.
Hans Lachman
[email protected]
------------------------------
From: Terry Carroll <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Posting Email (was Re: Final Answer to Tavares)
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:22:56 GMT
Reply-To: Terry Carroll <[email protected]>
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Amdahl Corporation
In article <[email protected].edu>,
[email protected].edu (John M Morrill) writes:
> One of the biggest misconceptions about the
> copyright laws is that a copyright is a means to control the distribution
> of what you write.
That's not a misconception.
"Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title
has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ... (3)
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by
sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending" 17 USC
106.
However, the "first sale" doctrine as codified in 17 USC 109 (one of those
sections that 106 is "subject to") limits the distribution right by
permitting transfer of a particular copy of a copyrighted work by the lawful
owner of that copy.
I'm directing followups to misc.legal
Terry Carroll - [email protected] - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
------------------------------
From: "T. Archer" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: University of Tennessee
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:50:50 GMT
Apparently-To: [email protected]
In article <[email protected]> robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes:
>
>JD> No, not at all. The states base their law on their right to
>regulate
>JD> what equipment is used in a vehicle. Virginia got burned early on by
>JD> confiscating detectors they could not prove was being operated in
>JD> the vehicle. Thus the use of radar detector detectors.
>JD> This is the same basis used to rationalize scanner bans and red/blue
>JD> flashing light bans. Whether this rational would withstand a Supreme Court
>JD> test is anyone's guess.
>
>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.
>
It never ceases to amaze me how differently US and Canadian citizens view
their governments.
Whether or not speed kills is irrelivant. Radar detectors do not kill, and
should not be regulated unless the present a danger to the public. Wanting
to know where radar emitters are is not a crime.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Re: Zip+4 on CD-ROM?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:17:53 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.
In article <[email protected]>, Ed Ravin <[email protected]> writes:
|> 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.
|>
I figured this was true, I contacted the USPS and they gave me
the name of a company that had it on CD-ROM, course they wanted
$1500 for it. Anyone know of any other Zip+4 sources on CD-ROM?
-dewey
---
Dewey Coffman ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey%ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com
Consulting @ IBM [email protected]
11400 Burnet Rd All opinions are mine.
Austin, TX 78758-3493, USA (512) 823-6463
===============================================================================
EPA Stratospheric Ozone Hotline, 800-296-1996, IRS Info & Refunds, 800-TAX-1040
------------------------------
From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" <[email protected]>
Subject: Mass. driver's license S numbers -- really different?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:05:10 GMT
Last time I had my driver's license renewed, I was pleasantly surprised
to see a sign posted indicating that you could request a non-SS number.
I was even more surprised, when I made the request, to find that it
was "sure, no problem." (I expected a baffled look, 'gee I dunno nobody
has asked about it, please wait here ten minutes will the people behind
you get angry while I consult my supervisor').
So now that I have an "S number" -- the non-SS numbers all begin with S --
I keep wondering. My S number is not exactly an anagram or transposition
cipher of my social security number -- but there are some distinct similar-
ities. Probably just a coincidence, but it does make me wonder. Any
other S-number holders out there? Are the S numbers really assigned
freshly, e.g. if mine were S01234567 and the next person behind me
requested one would they get S01234568? Or are they derived from the
social security number by some simple algorithmic process?
The other thing I wonder about is whether the S number subjects me to
any subtle discrimination. I _haven't_ noticed any. But I wonder if
people assume I must be some kind of deadbeat evading skip-tracers ....
Just a little recreational paranoia, folks, nothing to be concerned about.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
[email protected]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:36:00 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject: Social Security Numbers
John Levine writes in Vol 2 #1:
> the hospital have
>absolutely no use for my SSN 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.
I wonder how long it will be that hospitals don't want to use the SSN as an
identifier. My employer recently switched from using employee numbers (no
relation to SSN, or anything else) to SSN's for health insurance processing.
Also, I'm quite sure that the Social Security Administration now requires a
copy of a birth certificate before issuing a new SSN for a baby.
Peter Capek
------------------------------
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at COR3.PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Re: SSN
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:11:56 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[email protected].ma.us>
>And, unlike names and addresses, a person's SSN cannot be duplicated or
>changed. An SSN, once issued, is ours to keep. It never changes. The SSN is
>truly the "universal identifier."
I have read that due to 45 years of clerical errors there are over four
million people who have either more than one SSN or use an SSN also used
by someone else. It is a gross oversimplification to claim that the SSN is
unique.
>With a correct SSN in hand, an employer will be able to
>obtain a broad spectrum of data of great significance in pre-employment
>investigations. Without it, however, the employer will be blocked from
>receiving accurate information.
This is also grossly oversimplified. You're probably referring to the
personal data banks kept by outfits like Equifax, in which roughly 1/3 of
the records contain data that is obsolete or just plain wrong. It would
be more correct to say that the SSN makes it easier obtain unverified
and often inaccurate information. Also note that the only two data banks
legitimately indexed by SSN, those kept by the SSA and IRS are legally
off limits to prospective employers, whether or not they have an SSN.
>SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER TABLE
>
>AREA HIGHEST GROUP NUMBERS STATE OR TERRITORY
>NUMBER odd<10 even>=10 even<10 odd>10
>
>000 none none none none unassigned
>001 09 74 none none New Hampshire
...
You might also tell us when you compiled this table. Since several
million new SSNs are issued each year, tables like this rapidly go out of
date.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected].ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #005
******************************
|
|
