|
Computer Privacy Digest Vol 2 #010
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 Wed, 27 Jan 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 010
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Anti-privacy is Anti-Caller ID)
Computers Freedom and Privacy '93, Mar 9-12
Innocent man jailed 9 days by computer match
Is the List Still Operating
Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID
Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID
Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Calling Number ID
Re: Radar Detector Prohib
refused store charge card when i declined to provide ssn
Request to Post Office on S
Any more News on Akron BBS troubles?
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: "Michael T. Palmer" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Anti-privacy is Anti-Caller ID)
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:49:17 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA
[email protected] (Terry Parks) writes:
>>Most of the other people who read this group are using "privacy" to
>>refer to their right to keep to themselves any and all information
>>which they consider to be nobody else's business.
>You have this right regardless of Caller ID. If you wish to remain private,
>simply choose not to call me, period!
Please, Terry, please. We pay for our phones for other purposes besides
calling *you*. We need to use them to call *potential* business contacts
to check on services and prices, and we don't feel that we need to surrender
our privacy to do so.
Stop trying to cast CNID as only applicable to calling individuals. YOU
probably do not collect names and addresses and sell them to telemarketers,
so you don't represent the problem the rest of us are trying to avoid with
CNID. Besides, how would CNID be of less use to you if the rest of us could
have our blocking? You won't answer the call regardless, so your privacy
is preserved. And businesses won't be able to collect our names and numbers,
cross-reference them with our addresses, and sell them to telemarketers to
harrass us while we're trying to eat dinner: INVADING OUR PRIVACY.
And please don't tell me not to call the businesses. Businesses aren't
required to advertise which of them use CNID, so we don't have the information
we need to make an informed decision about which ones we should even bother
calling... and it's to THEIR BENEFIT that we call them in the first place;
they exist to serve us, not the other way around.
--
Michael T. Palmer | "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any
[email protected] | other way than one which will conceal it
RIPEM key on server | from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:16:06 -0800
From: CFP-93 Conference <cfp93@snyside.sunnyside.com>
Subject: Computers Freedom and Privacy '93, Mar 9-12
CFP'93
The Third Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy
9-12 March 1993
San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel, Burlingame, CA
The CFP'93 will assemble experts, advocates and interested
people from a broad spectrum of disciplines and backgrounds in
a balanced public forum to address the impact of computer and
telecommunications technologies on freedom and privacy in society.
Participants will include people from the fields of computer
science, law, business, research, information, library science,
health, public policy, government, law enforcement, public
advocacy and many others. Some of the topics in the wide-ranging
CFP'93 program will include:
ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY - looking at how computers and networks
are changing democratic institutions and processes.
ELECTRONIC VOTING - addressing the security, reliability,
practicality and legality of automated vote tallying systems
and their increasing use.
CENSORSHIP AND FREE SPEECH ON THE NET - discussing the
problems of maintaining freedom of electronic speech across
communities and cultures.
PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST ON THE NET - probing the problems and
potential of new forms of artistic expression enabled by
computers and networks.
DIGITAL TELEPHONY AND CRYPTOGRAPHY - debating the ability of
technology to protect the privacy of personal communications
versus the needs of law enforcement and government agencies
to tap in.
HEALTH RECORDS AND CONFIDENTIALITY - examining the threats to
the privacy of medical records as health care reform moves
towards increasing automation.
THE MANY FACES OF PRIVACY - evaluating the benefits and costs
of the use of personal information by business and
government.
THE DIGITAL INDIVIDUAL - exploring the increasing
capabilities of technology to track and profile us.
GENDER ISSUES IN COMPUTING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS - reviewing
the issues surrounding gender and online interaction.
THE HAND THAT WIELDS THE GAVEL - a moot court dealing with
legal liability, responsibility, security and ethics of
computer and network use.
THE POWER, POLITICS AND PROMISE OF INTERNETWORKING - covering
the development of networking infrastructures, domestically
and worldwide.
INTERNATIONAL DATA FLOW - analyzing the issues in the flow
of information over the global matrix of computer networks
and attempts to regulate it.
The conference will also offer a number of in-depth tutorials
on subjects including:
* Information use in the private sector
* Constitutional law and civil liberties
* Investigating telecom fraud
* Practical data inferencing
* Privacy in the public and private workplace
* Legal issues for sysops
* Access to government information
* Navigating the Internet
INFORMATION
For more information on the CFP'93 program and advance
registration call, write or email to:
CFP'93 INFORMATION
2210 SIXTH STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94710
(510) 845-1350
[email protected]
A complete electronic version of the conference brochure
with more detailed descriptions of the sessions, tutorials,
and registration information is also available via anonymous
ftp from sail.stanford.edu in the file: /pub/les/cfp-93
or from sunnyside.com in the file: /cfp93/cfp93-brochure
or via email from listserv@sunnyside.com by sending email
with this text: GET CFP93 CFP93-BROCHURE
------------------------------
From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[email protected].rpi.edu>
Subject: Innocent man jailed 9 days by computer match
Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:51:50 GMT
Here's theq latest reason why I'm suspicious of database matching. This
makes innocent people guilty by default unless they can prove their
innocence. In contrast to pre-computer days, it is now much cheaper for
the system to cost an innocent person a lot.
This information is from clari.news.law.crime.violent, Message-ID:
<[email protected]>, 15 Jan 93.
A woman was abducted and robbed in Michigan in Nov 91. One criminal was
arrested and her car impounded. A man called "Larry Jefferson" tried to
pick the car up.
Police did a nationwide search for people with that name with previous
court appearances. (The article said "appearances" not "convictions".)
In Florida they found a real Jefferson, who had been imprisoned for
contempt for not paying child support. Although he had an alibi and had
never even been to Michigan, he was arrested and held for 9 days while
Michigan tried to extradite him, based only on this match. Luckily for
Jefferson, Florida refused to let Michigan have him w/o more evidence.
Finally Michigan agreed that Jefferson was not the man.
--
---------------------
Wm. Randolph Franklin, wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077; Fax: -6261
ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:52:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Eugene Levine <[email protected]>
Subject: Is the List Still Operating
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dennis - is the list still up? I haven't heard from you or it in awhile
and miss the conversation.
--Gene Levine
[email protected]
[Moderator's Note: I think the digest might have been dormant for a week.
I am clearing out about 30 articles today. BTW, if someone does not
recieve anything in a 10 day period please send me email as something
might have gone wrong. Even if I don't receive submissions I will at
least try to put something out at least once in a 10 day period.
._dennis ]
------------------------------
From: usviking <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:10:56 GMT
Organization: Society for the Elimination of Forgetfulness and... umm...
[email protected] (Terry Parks) writes:
> we are already on. We also, of course, in the absence of Caller ID never
> give out information to businesses on the phone:
>
> "Hello, Pete's Pest Control"
> "I'm overrun with ants, please come soon."
> "Well, what's your name and address."
> "I'm not going to tell you, it's my privacy."
> "Click...."
Bad example. Ordered a pizza by phone lately? Called for a taxi? To
check movie times? To order tickets? I pay to keep my number unlisted,
thankyouverymuch. I'd rather choose who has access to that information.
-- [TANSTAAFL] --- [email protected] --- 1:107/236.1 Fight-O-Net ---
"Destruction of the empty spaces is my one and only crime." - Black Sabbath
JR / POB 179 / Greenlawn NY 11740 USA | Free Cyberia | Visualize Whirled Peas
------------------------------
From: "Michael T. Palmer" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:35:09 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA
[email protected] (Terry Parks) writes:
>>Bad example. Ordered a pizza by phone lately?
> "Hello, Pete's Pizza and Pasta, Pete speaking."
> "I'd like a pizza Pete please."
> "Okay, what's your name and phone number?"
> "I'm not going to tell you, it's my privacy."
> "Click..."
>Does this mean you have never gotten an unwanted phone call?
>>I'd rather choose who has access to that information.
>You do, in fact you have TOTAL CONTROL over who can get your number with
>Caller ID. Unlike the many other ways over which you have no control
>and have nothing to do with Caller ID. If you don't want me to have
>your phone number, then don't call me.
Terry, you're missing the entire point. Sure, when you call someone to
place an order (whether for killing ants or delivering a pizza), your name
and address are *required* for the services to be delivered.
However, if you're just calling to find out how much a particular
exterminator *charges* for his services, you don't want to be placed on
his mailing list from now until kingdom come, and also to have him sell
your name and address to who knows whom (kiddie porn magazines?). And
if you call to find out the movie times for JFK, you don't want the
movie house selling your name to book companies that deluge you with
offers for other conspiracy theory books and magazines.
THIS IS THE POINT -> When you use your telephone to request information
from a business to DETERMINE IF YOU EVEN WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH THEM
you should not have to surrender your privacy. Maybe YOU just call the
first exterminator in the book and say "Come kill my ants, I don't care
what you charge" but REAL PEOPLE do care what they're being charged.
So we call around to find the best price for the best service. Why
should using the telephone be any different from walking into their
store and asking them for their prices? Do you honestly believe that
you should have to turn over your name, address, and phone number
before they'll even talk to you?
So quit with the silly anecdotes about ordering a pizza and then not
saying what your address is. I UNDERSTAND that you want to control who
calls your home and interrupts you... but CNID alone doesn't serve your
purposes well, and causes a great deal of other problems. Like another
poster mentioned, let's look for solutions like the box that won't even
ring your phone unless the caller types in a code - so no matter where
your girlfriend/wife/child is calling from (a home with per-line
blocking? with your current setup you wouldn't even answer it because
it's blocked!) your phone will RING and you'll ANSWER IT because you
KNOW it's someone you want to talk to.
--
Michael T. Palmer | "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any
[email protected] | other way than one which will conceal it
RIPEM key on server | from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon
------------------------------
From: David Neal Miller <[email protected].edu>
Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Calling Number ID
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:37:02 GMT
The situation is even worse in Columbus, OH, where Caller ID is
soon to go into effect. Here, there is _no_ way of sending one's
ID at at number where all-call restrict is in effect, i.e. no
reverse code. This effectively raises the stakes for those who,
like our family, plan to opt out of the system.
--
David Neal Miller
Internet: [email protected]
Bitnet: miller.3@ohstmail
------------------------------
From: Dave Dargo <oracle!us.oracle.[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: Oracle Corp., Redwood Shores CA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:05:32 GMT
[email protected] (Craig Wagner) writes:
> ER> [Moderator's Note: You're underlying assumption is that breaking
> ER> speed limits is dangerous. This is not necessarily true.
>While it's true that it's "not necessarily true," it's _not_ the case that a
>driver can _know_ that it's _not_ dangerous, and therefore shouldn't be doing
>it. He may see no other cars on the road, and the driving conditions may be
>perfect, but he has no way of knowing precisely the road conditions ahead of
>him, or whether or not there's a driver waiting to turn onto the road, and
>expecting any oncoming traffic for which he may be looking to be no further away
>than could be expected based upon the posted speed limit.
This assumes that the government's posted speed limit is the correct
speed limit to be able to observe such things based on the road
conditions. The current max of 65 (still 55 in most places) has
nothing to do with road conditions or reaction times but rather
with some vague in-defensible (IMHO) federal government policy.
You would probably find more people willing to obey speed limits
if they were actually set based on local road conditions and
necessary reaction times. Many roads with which I am familiar
would have limits closer to 100 MPH than the current 55 MPH.
Which leads me to the opinion that speed limits are designed to
further revenue enhancement policies than allowing the free
movement of individuals. IMO, if you want to cut back on traffic
accidents and allow free movement you should remove most speed limits
and replace them with drastic fines for unsafe lane changes,
tailgating, etc. I doubt that you will find many accidents caused
solely by excessive speed, but rather by some other contributing
factor such as whipping in and out of lanes or following two closely
for the speed being driven.
Just my $.02 worth.
Dave Dargo (ddargo@oracle.com)
------------------------------
From: Eric De Mund <[email protected]>
Subject: refused store charge card when i declined to provide ssn
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:48:28 GMT
[originally posted to misc.consumers, misc.legal. -ead]
comp.society.privacy, alt.privacy people,
at robinson's of santa barbara, i was offered a store charge card and a
10% discount on my purchase. the register clerk made this offer when i
was about to pay with my mc. all he needed to see were my ca driver's
license and a major credit card. oh, and halfway through the
application, my ssn.
i politely refused, and he informed me that the credit bureau/reporting
agency that he was about to call (*) would unconditionally deny my
application without an ssn. i decided to purchase the items with my mc
and skip the 10% discount.
after re-reading the ssn-privacy faq's "lenders and borrowers" section,
in which it states:
Banks and credit card issuers and various others are required by the
IRS to report the SSNs of account holders to whom they pay interest
or when they charge interest and report it to the IRS.
i wondered whether store charge card issuers also fell under this
rubric. i don't recall being asked for my ssn as part of the application
for my mervyn's card. is such a practice legal (especially in
conjunction with a 10% discount)?
eric de mund <[email protected]>
(*) or whomever he was about to call for an immediate answer to the
question, "should we offer this guy a card?"
------------------------------
Organization: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Washington Of
From: Dave Banisar <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:47:48 EST
Subject: Request to Post Office on S
Request to Post Office on Selling of Personal Information
In May 1992, the US Postal Service testified before the US House of
Representatives' Government Operations Subcommittee that National Change of
Address (NCOA) information filled out by each postal patron who moves and
files that move with the Post Office to have their mail forwarded is sold to
direct marketing firms without the person's consent and without informing
them of the disclosure. These records are then used to target people who
have recently moved and by private detective agencies to trace people, among
other uses. There is no way, except by not filling out the NCOA form, to
prevent this disclosure.
This letter is to request information on why your personal information
was disclosed and what uses are being made of it. Patrons who send in this
letter are encouraged to also forward it and any replies to their
Congressional Representative and Senators.
Eligible requestors: Anyone who has filed a change of address notice with
the Postal Service within the last five years.
Records Officer
US Postal Service
Washington, DC 20260 PRIVACY ACT REQUEST
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a).
The Act requires the Postal Service, as a government agency, to
maintain an accounting of the date, nature, and purpose of each
disclosure of information about individuals. I request a copy of the
accounting of all disclosures made of address change and mail
forwarding information that I provided to the Postal Service. This
information is maintained in USPS System of Records 010.010.
On or about (date), I filed a change of adress notice
requesting that my mail be forwarded from (old address) to (new
address). The name that I used on the change of address form was
(name).
This request includes the accounting of all disclosures made by
the Postal Service, its contractors, and its licensees.
I am making this request because I object to the Postal
Service's policy of disclosing this information without giving
indviduals an option to prevent release of this information. I want to
learn how my information has been disclosed and what uses have been
made of it. Please let the Postmaster General know that postal patrons
want to have a choice in how change of address information is used.
If there is a fee in excess of $5 for this infomation, please
notify me in advance. Thank you for consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
CC: Your Congressional Representative
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510
Your Senators
US Senate
Washington, DC 20515
------------------------------
From: neilshnn@mse.cse.ogi.edu (Neil Shannon)
Subject: Any more News on Akron BBS troubles?
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:32:34 GMT
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute, Material Science & Engineering
On the December 2nd an article was posted telling about the legal
troubles of teh Akron BBS titled "Dangerous precedents in Sysop
Prosecution". It indicated that the sysop would be going to trial
for Kidde Porn on the 4th of January.
Is there any new information?
Neil Shannon
neilshnn@mse.ogi.edu
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #010
******************************
|
|
