Date: Tue, 05 May 92 12:58:47 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#012 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 05 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 012 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Cordless Phones Re: Cordless phones Re: Cordless Phones Re: Followup on institutional use of SSN CITY & STATE Article Re: Modem Tax (N Re: Cordless Phones 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]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 May 92 17:31:27 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Cordless Phones How do those involved in the discussion of privacy and "cordless phones" see their points and concerns as playing re: questions of privacy and PCNs? Peter Marshall -- ------------------------------ From: "david.g.lewis" Subject: Re: Cordless phones Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 19:06:07 GMT In article consp04@bingsuna.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) writes: >In article >ugtalbot@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU (George Talbot) writes: >> [...] 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. > >The Supreme Court said in a recent decision that this is precisely the >case. If you use a cordless phone then there is no expectation of >privacy. But what if I'm talking on a corded phone to someone who is using a cordless phone? I still have an expectation of privacy -- I know that cordless phones broadcast in the clear, so I *didn't* buy one -- but I have no control over the person I'm talking to. If someone monitors my conversation, do I have a cause of action against them? Or did I give up my expectation of privacy by the act of calling someone -- or receiving a call from someone -- who is using a cordless phone? Do I then have a cause of action against the person who, without my knowledge or permission, forced me to lose my expectation of privacy? Will we see another law that will make it mandatory to notify the other party that a call is on a cordless phone, like the 15-second beep for recording notification? And isn't this getting rather unmanageable? >Since it's you who decided to transmit it over the air, then it's you >who's given up the expectation of privacy. If the party I'm talking to is using a cordless phone, *they* decided, not me. ------------------------------ From: Khan Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 14:44:45 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu In article abc@brl.mil (Brinton Cooper) writes: >Continuing the discussion on cordless phones Scott Coleman asserts. > >>"I have a cordless phone, but I do not use it. It sits at the bottom of >>my electronic junk box in my closet. I refuse to use it because it is so >>incredibly easy for anyone with a $50 scanner to pick up cordless phone >>conversations from as far away as 2 miles..." > >What I have is a lot of trouble with the ability to receive cordless >phone conversations from two miles with a cheap scanner. Sounds like you're still using the rubber duckie antenna that came with it. For just a few dollars more, you can get a REAL antenna (a wire cut for the appropriate length to pick up the 46 - 49MHz band), hook it up to your cheap scanner, and pick up cordless phone calls for MORE than 2 miles. >For heavens' sakes, my cordless phone link begins to peter out when I >climb to the second story of my house. Your cordless phone uses a telescoping antenna about a foot long. Compare this with a decent dipole of the proper length (10 feet or something like that) and you see immediately why your range is so limited. Stick a decent antenna on yourt cordless phone and watch the range increase dramatically. But be certain to remove it right away, since I think legthening your cordless phone antenna is illegal. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 92 11:25:15 PDT From: hibbert@xanadu.com Subject: Re: Followup on institutional use of SSN I'll add society.privacy to the list of groups for the SSN FAQ. If people complain to me or the moderator, I'll stop. Chris-- hibbert@xanadu.com AMIX: CHibbert uunet!xanadu!hibbert MCIMail: CHibbert [Moderator's Note: Thanks. I will post it as a special issue. _Dennis] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 92 18:34:12 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: CITY & STATE Article [From "Under Surveillance," in the 4/6/92 CITY & STATE]: ..Iowa state Sen. Richard Varn, chairman of a National Conference of State Legislatures task force on information policy...[says,]"Privacy is...an issue waiting to become a crisis, depending upon circumstances.... We should be dealing with this concern in a systematic way before the issues turns into a crisis.... Our task force is just beginning to look at the issues involved,...and they are complex...." GIS technology poses special privacy problems.... In many states,...statutory responsibilities may not be clear under local public records acts...and only nine states have laws that acknowledge electronic distribution of information.... Despite concerns about the privacy of individual data, most states aren't looking at restricting public information.... But many states are examining their policies on the packaging of information and the recovery of costs involved in providing data to commercial users.... -- ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Modem Tax (N Date: Mon, 4 May 92 20:22:34 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@UCSD.EDU In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes: >You can call from anywhere in the continental US to CompuServe's mainframes >in Columbus, Ohio for TWENTY FIVE CENTS PER HOUR. Can you make any other >long-distance phone call for $0.25 per hour? And the government enforces >this inequity by law. I am fairly certain that this statement is counter-factual. As far as I know, CIS charges several dollars per hour for such connections. Your "libertarian" argument is bogus. A deregulated long-distance telephone industry would not recognize an InterExchange Carrier as being different from any other customer. There might be regulated Local Exchange Carriers, and there might be long distance carriers that would have regular business lines into the LECs; receive calls, and forward them. The originating local segment would be paid by the caller; the terminating local segment would be paid by the IEC, who is indeed the originator of the second local call. Presumably, the IEC would roll the cost for this segment into his rates. The "Enhanced Service Providers" operate on exactly this basis today. I fail to understand why you consider this unfair. -- / Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 92 18:12:04 EDT From: Anthony Rzepela Subject: Re: Cordless Phones In , when Dan Boyd spoke on cordless phones, he inadvertently opened a new topic RE: expectations of privacy, and use of the newest technology. In Mr. Boyd's view, it is the medium ONLY that provides users reasonable expectations of privacy. In our increasingly crowded world, in which we are simulateneously losing control over delivery of so many vital services, this model is outdated. I think of "Dances w/ wolves" when two of Costner's hosts make love in the teepee and Costner, unaware of custom, watches. Do the homeless lose rights to privacy because they "choose" not to live within four brick walls? What this gets down to is: privacy costs $ now. In the next 10 years, the COST of privacy will skyrocket. Want a secure, cabled, phone line? Pay triple. Don't want your grocery purchases tracked? Be willing to pay the higher prices for people not in our "Shopping Club". In an ongoing mini-debate going in PC MAG, Jim Seymour blasts the supposedly mindless consumer who wants quick services (ATMs, credit card approval over phone, etc.) but does not want the social costs. His tack is that we can choose NOT to participate in this hi-flow info world. Supposedly, we can choose NOT to use the proverbial cordless phones. This will not always be so. If you don't think it has started, witness the poster who told tales of woe re: trying to NOT be identified by his Social Security number @ school. How many hours of potential wage-earning time did he spend trying to keep his life to himself? How much privacy can we afford? That is the new, evil question. +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Anthony J. Rzepela rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu | | Resource Mgr, CVI Computer Center (215) 448-7741 | +------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | Mail Stop 110 | | | Hahnemann University | | | Broad & Vine Sts. | | | Philadelphia, PA 19102 | | +------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ "I can't stop thinking about Tony...wondering where he is, what he is doing, who he is with, what is he thinking, is he thinking of me, and if he'll ever return some day." ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #012 ******************************