|
Computer Privacy Digest Vol 2 #007
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 Thu, 14 Jan 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 007
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Re: SSN
Re: SSN
Privacy in my workplace
Re: Detector Detectors (WAS Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions)
Re: Cal law on credit card purchases
Re: Mass. driver's license S numbers -- really different?
SSN as a red herring
Re: SSN and new baby
Re: SSN and new baby
Re: SSN and new baby
Re: Radar Detectors
Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
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: Ed Ravin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:56:21 GMT
Organization: Not Just Another Pretty Face
In article <[email protected]> "T. Archer" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>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.
Who says radar detectors _don't_ "present a danger to the public"? If
you follow lawful speed limits you don't need them. There are certain
items known as "burglar tools" that if the cops find on you, they will
assume that you are planning to commit burglary with them -- what else
can you do with a radar detector besides using it to reassure that you
can break speed limits with impunity?
[Moderator's Note: You're underlying assumption is that breaking speed
limits is dangerous. This is not necessarily true. You statement about
burglar tools is incomplete. Most states have laws that ban the
possession and use of burglar tools. Since most burglar tools also have
legitimate purposes, that law is normally only used in conjuction with actual
burglaries. The original statement made by "T. Archer" was that the radar
detectors themselves are not dangerous.
I would like to bring up a debate on the speeding laws and radar
detectors but it really doesn't belong in this group. Maybe rec.autos
._dennis ]
--
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: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Date: 13 Jan 1993 18:02:16 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
"T. Archer" <[email protected]>:
> 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...
This is wrong actually. In some provinces detectors are okay. They
did this because when they were illegal, tourism went down.
Also, the above poster doesn't understand Canadian law, which, like
US Law, is based upon British Common Law. Our governments can make
anything illegal, but it will get shot down in a court challenge
if it's unconstitutional or goes against precedent or Common Law...
>>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
> It never ceases to amaze me how differently US and Canadian citizens view
> their governments.
No kidding. As a Canadian I am enraged at how some actually _encourage_
our governments to make like more difficult for all of us.
> 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.
Precisely. Radio receivers themsleves must NEVER be made illegal.
There are other ways to catch speeders. The easiest is with two
sensors that are a known distance apart.
--
[email protected] no nifty .sig
The weight of one's wallet is inversly proportional to the size of
one's heart. -- me
------------------------------
From: John McGing <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SSN
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:59:30 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt MD USA
Reply-To: [email protected]
SSA reissues those tables a couple times a year. PLaces like Florida,
Arizona and California require the updates, the rest holds together pretty
well. They're not secret or anything, and writing to SSA will get you the
latest version.
John
--
[email protected] or [email protected]
SSA, your FICA tax people woodb!oss2cc!jmcging@soaf1
J.MCGING on GEnie 70142,1357 on Compuserve
------------------------------
From: Rick Tait <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SSN
Date: 12 Jan 1993 15:52:23 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
Does anyone have any similar files on the UK National
Insurance Number?
[Moderator's Note: PGP signature validation was deleted by me. ._dennis
]
--
Cheers, __o
Rick \<,
_________________________________________________________________()/ ()_
Rick Tait, Dept GM21, NMBASE Group, TSE, LON40, Tel: ESN (730) 3352
------------------------------
From: Paul Buder <[email protected]>
Subject: Privacy in my workplace
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:09:42 GMT
I administer a system and would like some samples of how other
workplaces define their policy of what the sysadm is and isn't allowed
to do. In my workplace there are many people that feel ambivalent
about computers and I would like them to have a clear idea of what
level of privacy they can expect. Specifically, I would like to put in
writing that the sysadm isn't permitted to look at the contents of
files in users personal directories, but is allowed to look at things
such as file names and sizes. Also in the events of emergencies such
as files growing out of control in a personal directory that they can
be removed. I would rather not box myself into an unforeseen corner so
would be interested in seeing other companies policies. I'm sorry if
this isn't the most appropriate place to post. I couldn't find
anything closer in my 2000 line .newsrc.
[Moderator's Note: You might want to try comp.admin.policy ._dennis ]
--
[email protected] Not affiliated with TECHbooks Paul Buder
Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)
------------------------------
From: Dennis W Fitanides <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Detector Detectors (WAS Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 15:46:19 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire - Dover, NH
I have heard that certain detectors are detectable, but I think BEL makes
a line of "undetectable" detectors that have super-sensitive circuitry and
leak nothing out the antenna. I don't know how reliable they are--only saw
an ad in Popluar Science (I believe--might have been P. Mechanics, too).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:39:19 -0800
From: David Gast <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cal law on credit card purchases
Thanks for your comments. I found out that they can ask for ID, but
normally cannot write any info down.
David
------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Joshua A. Tauber)
Subject: Re: Mass. driver's license S numbers -- really different?
Organization: Matsushita Information Technology Laboratory, Princeton, NJ
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:20:40 GMT
In article <[email protected]>, "Daniel P. B. Smith" <[email protected]> writes:
|> [...]
|> 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]
|>
I had an "S-number" for years before I moved out of state. Most
people never even notice.
Actually, I found it to be an advantage several times. Due to a
combination of poor printing technology and people's expectations most
people read the "S" as a "5". Even rent-a-cops got it wrong.
Thus, the "social security number" which appears in serveral organizations
records to identify me, is a figment of the license reader's
imagination.
-jat42
--
Joshua A. Tauber
Matsushita Information Technology Laboratory | Email: [email protected]
182 Nassau Street, Third Floor | Phone: +1 609 497-4600
Princeton, NJ 08542-7072 USA | Fax: +1 609 497-4013
------------------------------
From: Carl Ellison <[email protected]>
Subject: SSN as a red herring
Date: 13 Jan 1993 00:03:55 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
To me, the SSN is just one of many IDs which would allow some record about
me to be correlated with some other record. However, I assume that there
are many such identifiers or characteristics -- either alone or in
combination with others.
Has anyone considered how to conduct one's life in order to avoid all such
correlation of records? [This strikes me as possibly a cryptographic
problem, thus the cross-post.]
--
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison [email protected]
-- Stratus Computer Inc. M3-2-BKW TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298 FAX: (508)624-7488
------------------------------
From: Mike Brokowski <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SSN and new baby
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:06:18 GMT
So what is the whole story here regarding how long the state will
stay out of the business of "registering" our kids before they
throw your butt in jail?
It seems clear that a SSN is needed to claim a child as a dependant
(if s/he is over 1 year old), but, if you don't claim the child as a
dependant, does the state care? And what about this birth
certificate business? Isn't a child's existance cerification enough
of its birth? Is there some law forcing parents to tell the state
whenever a child is born? Do these "certificates" become part of a
publically accessable record? When was this policy enacted?
So many questions...
Just curious as always,
- Mike
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 22:55:42 CST
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SSN and new baby
Organization: AT&T
In article <[email protected]> Tom Wicklund <[email protected]> writes:
>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Hans Lachman) writes:
>
>>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. ....
>
>Nope, you now must get a social security number for your child by
>age 1. The SSN must be included on the parent's tax return. This was
>to cut down on the number of false dependents reported on tax returns.
>
>[Moderator's Note: This is *only* true if claim him/her as an exemption.
> ._dennis ]
>
>.... Of course, if
>you don't want to claim your child as a dependent I suppose you don't
>need an SSN. I'm not sure the IRS would mind if you pay the extra tax
>instead.
This costs you about $350-700 per child (skipping the exemption), plus
the Earned Income Credit (up to $350). In addition, if you use other tax
loopholes (or incentives) to set up savings/mutual-fund/etc. accounts for
your kids, you can take the gov'ment for another $150-200 (more if they
are 14 or older and can claim their entire non-wage income). US Savings
Bonds, "College Bonds", etc. all require the SSN (as far as I can tell).
Of course, you could just pay your "fair share" (no loopholes), and
Uncle Sam would be happy. But it won't last until they start working,
at least in Illinois. Why? Because the paperwork to get your kid into
Drivers Education in High School (about age 15) requires their SSN.
Kids want that license so bad, they will apply for a SSN on their own.
In fact, they would be willing to publicly display their SSN on their
foreheads, and put every other family member's SSN, AMEX, VISA, Blockbuster
and YMCA membership number on the application if requested. The IRS carrot
of $1000/year tax savings pales in comparison to a driver's license....
Al Varney - just MY opinion
a measly $1000/year tax savings,
------------------------------
From: John Nagle <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SSN and new baby
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 02:41:44 GMT
Apparently-To: [email protected]
"M. Adams/StarOwl" <[email protected]> writes:
>According to the IRS, if you wish to claim a child over age 1 as a
>dependent for tax purposes, that child *must* have a SSN.
Why not just tattoo on the SSN at birth? Preferably as a bar code.
John Nagle
------------------------------
From: Matthew B Cravit <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detectors
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 10:22:39 EST
> From: [email protected] (Graham Toal)
> Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
> Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:11:22 GMT
>
> In article <[email protected]> Richard Pierson <[email protected]
re.com> writes:
> :There is also a product on the market from uniden that
> :you plug your detector into and when is senses a radar
> :detector shuts off your radar unit, a Detectors, detector,
> :detector so to say (Just saw one in truckstops of america
> :last wednesday for $90.00).
>
> This sounds like a con to me; how can you detect a radar-detector? Surely
> they're passive devices? Also, why would anyone except the police want one?
>
> Or do we have one too many 'detectors' in the description above?
As I understand it, this product is supposed to detect the police RADAR and
shut off the detector, not detect other radar detectors. Or, it could sense
the unit that police have for finding radar detectors (beeps when an operating
detector is nearby). From what I can understand, radar detectors do leak a
small amount of microwave radiation, which can be detected by these Radar
Detector Detectors. In fact, if you put two radar detectors right next to each
other on a table, the will usually start to beep, since they detect the
microwave leakage from each other. (Might this be a good way to test radar
detectors?)
/Matthew Cravit
Telecommunications/Computer Science Major,
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48825
[email protected]
71442.225@compuserve.com
Michig
------------------------------
From: Richard Pierson <[email protected].com>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 17:14:57 GMT
Went back and looked at it, what it is supposed to do
is pick up the signal from a "radar detector detector"
{Read Revenue enhancers} and shut yours off before the
"radar detector detector" {Revenue Enhancers} detects
your radar detector and NO I WONT TYPE THAT AGAIN.
Also Uniden is a reputable company as far as I know, their
detectors are theft attractors (I've lost 2 so far before
I hard wired front and rear remotes into my truck). The
range I do not know about as I don't know how the radar
detectors work, whether they are "Passive" or whether
the operator goes "Active" to get a "Reflection" back from
the suspected radar detector.
I do not drive like I used to in my last job in Field service
so CT and VA do not concern me anymore, if NJ and PA
suddenly decided to outlaw radar detectors I might consider
researching it further. I normally drive between 60 and 65
and the state police leave me alone, now on the bike it's a
different story but thats personal.
--
##########################################################
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.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #007
******************************
|
|
