Date: Fri, 08 May 92 16:46:18 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#017 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 08 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 017 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears E-mail privacy should be independent of carrier. Re: SSN's from AT&T Re: TRW Reports Re: TRW Reports Re: FBI Interest in Mailing Lists Re: Privacy and Law and Order 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: Bob Weiner Subject: E-mail privacy should be independent of carrier. Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 06:37:57 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net In article abc@brl.mil (Brinton Cooper) writes: > It depends upon who owns the computer hosting your electronic mailbox. > I believe (and others can probably cite chapter and verse) that, if your > mailbox is hosted on your employer's machine, the employer's ownership > gives him/her authority to have access to any files you keep on the > machine. This is certainly true for all levels of government and for > machines owned by private companies. It may, by inference, apply to > universities, etc. The ignorance that yields this kind of widespread corporate view on information privacy comes from a biased analysis that asks only "What can we do with this technology?" not "What should we do, given what we know we can do?" For example, someone could buy my time for an hour or longer just to get me to give them my thoughts but this does not entitle them to everything in my mind. Although it could, it does not. Because society has generally come to understand that there is a right to mental privacy. No such right has been widely recognized in our electronic mediums such as e-mail within a private network, even though it should be easy to recognize the direct parallels to both paper mail and telephony. A call that goes from one extension of a PBX to another of its extensions never passes through any "common carrier" network, yet I am fairly certain, it is protected in the same way, because we recognize that there is more to the issue at stake than just the status of the carrier that transfers the signals. I often make the distinction between data (bits with no semantic significance) and information (semantically relevant bits) to begin discussions with people. But not a lot of people out there make such a distinction yet, since they have not been educated to do so. There is no need for privacy of data but there is for much information. Whether something is information or not must be determined contextually, just as privacy rights must be evaluated contextually. So answers to issues of privacy that we can socially tolerate are not to be found in asking questions such as "who's equipment was involved" but only in "who were the conversants," "what was the conversation on," "in what capacity was the conversation held," etc. Although this may seem to represent impossible fuzziness which could not be used in legal situations, the legal situation deals with similar circumstances in deciding cases of intellectual property all the time. Bob -- ``During the Gulf War, President Bush announced to cheering crowds the Patriot had "intercepted" 41 out of 42 Scuds that it was fired at. General Robert Drolet defended Bush's statement at last week's congressional hearing, saying that "intercepted" meant only that "a Patriot and a Scud passed each other in the sky''. -- New Scientist 18 April 1992 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 7:09:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Re: SSN's from AT&T In issue #1, Volume #15 michael.scott.baldwin@att.com writes: >>I just got this bounce message from a machine at AT&T having responded to >>a message someone sent to comp.compilers. It appears that their mailer >>uses employees' SSNs as the internal acccount ID and thoughtfully blats >>the SSN on any mail bounce message. The original message had a different >>return address in the text at the end, so we'll see if that works better. > >*I* wrote that code! The Usenet access machines at AT&T do use SSN as >a key into the corporate database to route e-mail; the database has each >employee's current e-mail address (and phone, FAX, room, etc), so the >Usenet machines look it up each time rather than maintain their own copy. When AT&T does this, do they include the privacy statement detailing why the SSN is required and to whom they will divulge that number and any data associated with it? Instead of using the SSN, why doesn't AT&T use an employer assigned number that is unique to an individual. It seems to me that AT&T could do better than using an SSN for an employee id for e-mail purposes. My employer specifically states that, when logging into a computer system, no personal identification whatsoever is to be used as a method of access any system. This includes employee id number. Dave Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 92 12:43:03 -0400 From: zimmer@gw.wmich.edu Subject: Re: TRW Reports A while back, I found out about TRW's free service regarding your credit file with them. I sent for and received the report. Several items needed to get corrected; I sent them my correction request. Some time later, my request was returned because I hadn't included my SSN. I immediately resubmitted my correction request, pointing out that TRW had supplied my SSN on the forms they had sent me, copies of which were in my correction request. This didn't sound to promising. A few weeks later, TRW had acted on my correction request. They even supplied addresses for the other two large credit info bureaus, stating I write them and they would also allow be to see and correct my credit info (for free!). While TRW appears to have some problems, it looks like they're becoming more consumer (can't think of an appropriate word here) oriented. They and/or the other services I am now working with in correcting my credit info do require *lots* of information. I first hesitated, since I don't like giving out this stuff, but upon reflection supplied it, as it does rather uniquely identify me and it's not the kind of stuff that businesses (or others) typically know about me. Incidentally, I recently requested my mortgage amortization schedule from the bank and needed to supply ONLY my mortgage account number. It wouldn't have been to hard for someone else to get that kind of info. Montgomery Wards, when successfully soliciting business over the phone with you, does ask for private information you've previously supplied them to verify you are who they think you are. W WWW WWW MM MMM UU UUU U Roy Zimmer W WW WW MM MM UU UUU U zimmer@gw.wmich.edu W W W W MM M M M UU UUU U University Computing Services W WW MM MM MM UUU UU Western Michigan University ------------------------------ Subject: Re: TRW Reports Date: Fri, 08 May 92 10:36:50 PDT From: "Willis H. Ware" I send a private message to Mary Culnan about the TRW freebie. Much of what I said to her has since been said in many messages, and she has responded. But let's look at this one from another point of view. First, someone should have a look at the form to be used when one requests and pays for a so-called credit report. I haven't done this for a long time but my recollection is that very minimal identification information used to be requested. Next, it is clear that this process must be fully automated. A data entry action from the incoming request, or from an automated process that triggers on time, initiates the action but from there on it's strictly a computerized event. If the match is made satisfactorily, a computer generated response is printed, may well be stuffed into a window envelope automatically, and dumped into outgoing mail. If the match cannot be made, it would simply to print and mail a "sorry, cannot identify you on the basis of information submitted; would you care to give use more information and try again?" What would be the cost of this to TRW? We cannot guess because the completeness and accuracy of their database is probably a closely held proprietary secret. If very few matches would fail on the basis of simple ID information [e.g., name, current mailing address], then the cost is trivial. If most would fail, the intent of this seemingly public-action process would be thwarted. So condition of the database entries is an important aspect of the consideration. Given the broad array of sources that Mary has cited for TRW's database, it is clear that it has gone far, far beyond simply credit data reporting, and is into the general information business of list selling. The database -- one conjectures -- might not be in such good shape and what more expedient mechanism to clean it up than offer a free goodie in exchange for a lot of information from the respondent! I remain suspicious of the real -- as opposed to apparent -- motivation of TRW and as I said to Mary privately, "someone probably got a big raise for inventing this caper." Willis Ware Santa Monica, CA ------------------------------ From: Tim Weaver Subject: Re: FBI Interest in Mailing Lists Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 13:17:15 GMT Followup-To: alt.conspiracy Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu >I just got some mail (obviously from a mailing list) for my father, >who has been dead for 14 years; it was from a political party he was >never associated with. I think we may have the FBI involved in some >witch hunts again, if they buy stuff like this. > Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice. I see no reason to assume the FBI is involved in this one. It's probably just a political party that bought a bum mailing list. Followups to alt.conspiracy -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Weaver (tweaver@kzoo.edu), Database Programmer/Analyst, 616-383-5656 Snail: Kalamazoo College 1200 Academy Street Kalamazoo MI 49007 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson) Subject: Re: FBI Interest in Mailing Lists Date: Fri, 8 May 92 15:14:29 GMT When I worked for American Express, the transaction support people would routinely hunt people down by their use of the American Express card for the FBI. Try it, just call and say that you work for the FBI, and are trying to find a potential kidnapper named XX. A credit card is a monitor of your activies. Wayne Peterson [Moderator's Note: Isn't it illegal to falsely represent yourself as a law enforcement official? I would hope the FBI or any other agency would have a warrant first. _Dennis ] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Privacy and Law and Order Date: Fri, 8 May 92 10:04:11 PDT From: "Robert E. Laughlin" Some body finally said some things that I want to reply to. > >Date: Thu, 7 May 92 22:48 PDT >From: John Higdon >Subject: Privacy and Law and Order (was: Cordless Phones) > [several lines deleted] >They are those who blithely insist that no effort should be >required on their parts to ensure success or protect anything they value, >including privacy. On of the rules of life that an old man learns, eventually, is that several things in life are not free. They must be paid for. They are usually expensive. One of these is freedom, reference in my life time WWII. Another is privacy. This country is based on the idea. See the constitution, where it talks about billeting troops in your house or unusual search and seizure. [deleted many lines about things we do all the time to protect ourselves, that I agree with.] >> Heat-seeking technology can tell when someone is >> in a house and pretty much the nature of their activities. Our >> gov't has not responded to protect its citizens from the intrusion >> of new, sophisticated information-gathering techniques. End result: >> as technology gets smarter and more sensitive, even our body heat >> enters the realm of what we are broadcasting "for all to see", > >Just what is it that you believe that "heat seeking technology" is >going to reveal about you? What kind of activities do even eccentrics >such as yours truly do in a house that would be so damaging if someone >figured out what they were? If you can get off this "nothing to hide" >attitude and look at it flatly, you could see my point. No, it is no >one's business what I do behind closed doors, but if someone devised a >way to "look through my walls", is that the end of the world? >I will bet there are very few people who even care what you or I >do behind closed doors. I left this next section in because there are large groups of people in this country that are attempting to use *ANYTHING* that they can find to control what we do that can in any way be associated with sex. This is true even when those activities that *they* associate with sex are with in your own home. For example I once heard a person explain to a mother that she should not allow her two year old child observe her bathing the new baby, because the view of the babies genitals would warp the two year old. The person was serious enough that he/she suggested that the police would be called for child abuse. The present laws in many of our cities and states have laws just this ridiculous on the books. These laws can only be enforced by observing what goes on "behind closed doors". > >-- > John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 > john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! > What I am trying to say, John, that I agree with most of what you say. On the other hand privacy is important enough so that we can not drop our vigilance and some times have to take steps to make sure that the wonders of technology are not misused. I do not mean to rail against technological advances, only in how some people use the results. bel -- Robert E. Laughlin NCCOSC RDT&E Div (NRaD) |The problem with These opinions are mine. I do not speak for NRaD. |making software idiot- email bel@nosc.mil From Compuserve my email address|proof is that idiots is ">INTERNET:bel@nosc.mil". |are so clever. Joe Buck ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 May 92 11:37:34 PDT From: Conrad Kimball Subject: Re: Privacy and Law and Order John Higdon writes: > People who complain about having to exert energy to dial '*67' or > watching when they use the cordless, or any other trivial precaution > are much like a person who feels that it is his right to flounce down > Mission Street at 12:30 AM carrying a wad of $100 bills in plain view. Why should I *have* to exert energy to dial '*67'? I should be given the option to exert less energy by signing up for line blocking. The objection to '*67' is not so much that it takes up too much energy, but rather that the phone companies are lobbying *very* hard to prevent my having access to readily-available technology that makes life easier for me (line blocking). In that case one has to question their motives. If I was given the option of selecting my line's default to be either blocked or unblocked, with a '*' code to temporarily reverse the default, I'd be a happy camper. Unfortunately, that's not in the phone companies financial interests, so they try mightily to offer only those combinations that serve *their* interests, rather than *mine*. Have you ever used a computer program with some horrible user interface, and cursed the designer? Well, what we are discussing here, in the CLID debate, is the design of the caller's and callee's user interfaces. If the design were such that the caller could readily customize his blocking characteristics, and the callee his block-blocking characteristics, I believe much of the noise and heat over CLID would evaporate. As it is, however, the phone companies are trying to impose a user interface design that is deliberately rigged to be in their best interests instead of the user's. In this light, given the choice between implementing a new technology with a bad user interface versus keeping the current technology, it's very understandable why many people would opt for not implementing the bad design. Instead of the pro-CLID faction railing against Luddites or whatever, they should rail against the phone companies who are insisting on the bad design. > Much is made of the ability of retail operations to track one's > purchases. Why is this such a big deal? Again I ask: who has suffered > any harm as a result of this alleged intelligence gathering? I would > have been more annoyed to have lived in Smalltown, USA, at the turn of > the (last) century. Anyone who wanted to know (my friends and enemies > alike) could, in pleasant chit-chat with Mr. Smith (of Smith's General > Store) find out a lot more about me than merely about every one of my > purchases. Somehow, being on some reel of tape in some tape vault, with > the data being impersonally scrutinized by some marketing types does > not upset me much. Agreed that Smalltown, USA, was not an environment conducive to privacy. However, in the intervening years, many people have come to enjoy a level of privacy that wasn't feasible in Smalltown, USA. Now along comes some technology that, with respect to privacy, is moving us back to the Smalltown, USA, situation. Many people don't like that. Just because there was a time in the past when privacy was less than in our current situation is no rebuttal against the desirability of privacy. Must we tolerate (nay, even aid and abet!) repeats of the shoddy history of credit bureaus such as TRW, in which the worst problem is not so much that they have a lot of data (which some would argue is a problem in itself), but rather that so much of the data they have is incorrect, and use of which can seriously damage people. This problem can be attacked either by stopping the collection of information (probably hard to do) or by requiring the data collectors to make their actions known to the subjects, and provide mechanisms to ensure that the information is accurate (an approach that the Scandinavian countries seem to favor). If the burden on the data collectors of this second approach is seen by them as being too much, I say "too bad", and good riddance to them. However, even if we can somehow ensure the data collectors have accurate data, there is the problem of using it improperly (in the statistical sense) to reach invalid conclusions. Some people have raised concerns about lifestyle data being fed to insurance companies, which being *very* highly motivated to reduce risk, raise rates or refuse coverage in situations that do not in fact warrant it. And, when they raise your rates or refuse you coverage, how are you to know the basis for their unjust decision? To return to your Smalltown, USA, situation, yes, this information about you may well have been available to the other residents; what's different, however, is that you were in a (roughly) equal power position with them, which you most decidely are *not* with an insurance company, or other faceless, large corporation (or even the government). As for your recurrent theme of "why be concerned until there is proof of harm", what is wrong with some forward-thinking analysis of possible or likely impacts of technology before we implement it? Many times a little bit of pre-implementation thought and attendant redesign can avoid major problems down the road. Must we always blithely embrace new technology and worry about the consequences later? This seems to be recurring in many areas of modern life, in which it is a standard tactic to maintain the status quo by demanding "proof" that some challenged practice or technology is harmful: - The greenhouse effect. One side: "I think there is trouble brewing". Other side: "Prove it". Serious possibility: by the time we have "proof" acceptable to the other side, it may be too late to avoid disastrous consequences, even when there is a real possibility that efforts to combat the problem will be economically positive in the moderate-to-long run. - Smoking. One side: "It causes many deaths". Other side: "Prove it". Result: many, many deaths before we have "proof" acceptable to the other side, which *still* tries to obfuscate the issue of proof. - Logging's impact on species such as the spotted owl. One side: "Logging is causing irreparable harm to species that require old growth habitat". Other side: "Prove it; and besides, who's more important - people or owls?". Serious possibility: by the time we have "proof" of the damage, the resource is lost forever, and the loggers are out of work anyway, albeit 10 or 20 years later. In my opinion this all boils down to an inability or unwillingness of many (most?) individuals, and society as a whole, to think beyond the immediate benefits of a current practice or a proposed technology. Too bad for all of us, and especially for our children. Conrad Kimball | Deliv. Sys. Tech Support, Boeing Computer Services cek@sdc.boeing.com | P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35 (206) 865-6410 | Seattle, WA 98124-0346 ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #017 ******************************