Date: Fri, 01 May 92 16:34:29 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#009 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 01 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 009 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Cordless phones RE: Should political speech be censored online? Privacy in your Car Public key software for Macintosh Re: Free TRW Credit Report 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 comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.200]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Rose Subject: Re: Cordless phones Reply-To: mrose@stsci.edu Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 16:12:25 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net On 29 Apr 92 23:51:19 GMT, ugtalbot@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU (George Talbot) said: >Craig DeForest writes: >>If people don't want me to hear their conversation, they ought not to >>be shooting photons at me! > I don't think that I agree with you. I have a cordless phone. ... >You seem to be of the opinion that if my conversation is >transmitted over copper wire, then I have a right to privacy, but if >it's transmitted over the air, then I don't. Regardless of his opinion, the law treats cordless phones very differently than regular one. Bizarre as it may be, cellular phones are treated more like non-cordless phones. >I am of the opinion that it is impolite and possibly even >immoral to listen in upon another's private conversation without being >invited. So? Saying it's rude does not stop anyone from doing it. I always assume that my cordless phone conversations are being listened in on by everyone in a 3 mile radius. I also presume that everything on work computers is being read by everyone in the building. That it is rude for people to read my files or listen in on my conversations is irrelevant - there are people who do it, and if I want privacy it is ultimately up to me to provide it. And speaking of doing something about it, I saw something somewhere on the net, perhaps here, about a new motorola cordless phone that scrambled from handset to base. Does anyone have information on that - like where can I buy one and how does it scramble things? Any scrambling that would render that speech unintelligible to a Radio Shack scanner would be ok, real encryption like a STU would be even better. If they are available, has anyone listened to the scrambled speech? There was a WW-II (?) voice scrambling system which did such a poor job that an eavesdropper with minimal training could understand the conversation perfectly. -- Mike Rose, mrose@stsci.edu, 410-338-4949 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 92 08:29:34 -0600 From: Richard Thomsen Subject: RE: Should political speech be censored online? Brinton Cooper writes: >Glenn Tenney proposes to become a member of the U.S. Congress. Perhaps >he should find out how the typical, hardworking U.S. taxpayer feels >about using machinery and communications funded by the U.S. taxpayer to >advertise his candidacy for the Congress. Ted Lemon writes: > As a typical, hardworking taxpayer, I would appreciate it greatly if >all candidates for political office used the electronic media to >advertise their campaigns, and made themselves available to answer >questions posed by other users of that medium. I think you are missing the point here. Some of us work at government installations, and there are VERY STRONG rules against using government equipment for personal reasons. I have heard of someone who was fined and whose computer access was cut off for a month because he made vacation plans using email from a government computer. We have been warned that we can lose our jobs if we even copy personal information on the copy machines. These are regulations that specify how government equipment is to be used (and not to be used). I suspect that the "typical, hardworking taxpayer" would not appreciate government equipment that is being paid for by tax dollars being used for personal gain, including advertising (enter cynical mode - unless it directly benefited the aforesaid taxpayer directly). And the "typical hardworking taxpayer" does not have access to the internet. In fact, I suspect that the "typical taxpayer" would consider the Internet a complete waste of money anyway, as they do not directly benefit (even assuming that they could understand what it is). Even if Glenn Tenney is running for Congress, most of the people paying for the equipment do not belong to his district, and would not appreciate funding his candidacy, in any respect whatever. Of course, our imperial Congress is exempt from its own rules. So THEIR use of government equipment for personal gain is acceptable. But for us lowly peons..... There are other rules, including the Hatch act, that forbid a government employee from political advertising and campaining USING GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT AND/OR AT GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS. What he/she does on his/her own time is not at issue - just at government facilities with government property. So do not confuse this with censorship of someone's first amendment rights. Richard Thomsen rgt@lanl.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 92 9:35:38 EDT From: Brinton Cooper Subject: Privacy in your Car Risks-digest (risks@csl.sri.com) is currently carrying a thread which began with the report of a cellular phone customer whose car phone rang when he was out of his home area. The call was from the cellular vendor serving his then-local area "welcoming" him to their services. This has prompted the thread which includes discussions of the intent of cellular companies to track geographically *all* their customers as part of the move to have your phone number ring you anywhere you happen to be. I decided not to copy all the traffic to this forum, but I recommend it to all who are interested in privacy and technology. _Brint ------------------------------ From: raph@fnalnh.fnal.gov Subject: Public key software for Macintosh Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 16:06:41 GMT Apparently-To: uunet.uu.net!comp-society-privacy Does anyone know of any software for the Macintosh that does public key encoding? For those who don't know what public key encoding is: it is to keep messages private, even when they are intercepted. The difference is that it is not necessary to give the recipient of the coded message the secret key to decoding the message, as is true with the usual methods of encoding. Instead, the person to whom the message is intended publishes a "key" that can be kept in a public place. To send a coded message to that person, your software takes her public key, and your message, and encodes the text. Only she will be able to decode the text, because she uses a "private key" known only to her that produced the public key. She can easily decode any message sent to her that was encoded with her public key; but it takes days with a supercomputer to crack the code without knowing her private key. Cordially, Jim Hawtree ------------------------------ From: Khan Subject: Re: Free TRW Credit Report Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 16:28:46 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu In article MCULNAN@guvax.georgetown.edu writes: Regarding getting a free credit report from TRW: >Include all of the following in your letter: full name including >middle initial and generation such as Jr, Sr, III etc., current >address and ZIP code, all previous addresses and ZIPs for past five >years, Social Security number, year of birth, spouse's first name. >Also include a photocopy of a billing statement, utility bill, >driver's license or other document that links your name with the >address where the report should be mailed. Does this strike anyone as a bit excessive? It's obvious that TRW does not need ALL of this information in order to pull up your credit records. The most they need is what is asked for on credit card apps, loan apps, and job apps: Your name, your current address, possibly one prior address if you have moved recently, and maybe your SSN. By giving them all that other stuff, you're only helping them to compile more personal information about you. Suppose they didn't have your spouse's name in your file - they do now, if you send in the letter giving them everything in that list. I know when I send in for my free credit report, they won't get anywhere near that much info from me. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #009 ******************************