Date: Wed, 13 May 92 17:43:51 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#025 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 13 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 025 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Moderator Mistake Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: Census Bureau Database Re: Seminole ACCESS Re: SSN's from AT&T 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: Steve Barber Subject: Moderator Mistake Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 05:09:03 GMT Excuse me, Mr. Moderator: this message appeared with my name in the From: line. I didn't post this (I don't even agree with it), and this should be apparent from the signature at the bottom of the message. I remember you mentioning recently that some of your newsgroup management software was broken. It apparently still is. |-------------Beginning of Message-----------------------| In cmcl2!panix.com!sbarber@uunet.uu.net (Steve Barber) didn't write: >> I tend to agree that a new moderator or perhaps no moderator would >>be a solution that could satisfy all parties. People who believe in >>principles of privacy should also have strong beliefs in freedom of >>expression, as both are fundamental elements of a working democracy. A >>new moderator would certainly allow for an opening of debate on many >>related issues, and leave no room for reprecussions against those >>who's postings could jeopardize their employment. Are there any other >>opinions on this? >> - Bill Currie >> duxbury@sfu.ca > > >Recognizing appropriate topics of discussion is also important. >While I also believe in freedom of expression, I have no interest >in reading the election platform of an American congressional >hopeful. I would like to see this forum restrict itself to topics >that aren't better coverered in other forums. > >I don't believe that the restrictions, or possible restrictions, >on the moderator that may be due to his employment will in any >way prevent the discussion in this forum. Political campaigning >is, IMHO, best left to talk.politics or another more appropriate >forum. > >I support the moderator in his actions so far. It is necessary to >discriminate to some degree or else we'll be wandering all over the >map, so to speak. >Brian Hendrix bhendrix@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca >Edmonton Remote Systems: Celebrating 10 years of service to Northern Alberta -- |-------------End of message -----------------------| [Moderator's Note: Steve is correct. It appears that Brian Hendrix sent this message. I apologize to both Brian and Steve for the mistake. This was not a software problem but an editing problem. Thanks for letting me know. _Dennis.] Steve Barber sbarber@panix.com "The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation. ------------------------------ From: Bob Weiner Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 01:09:36 GMT > One of the reasons that many people are against 'intrusive' laws is > because they disagree with the rational "If you have nothing to > hide, then you don't need to worry." However what I have failed to > see is a single cogent explination of WHY the rational of "If you > have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" is a bankrupt > one. First, the word is 'rationale'. The matter is simple and much like the reason we have a presumption of innocence in the legal system. The burden should be on the accuser or in the case of privacy, on those who want to expose something. Basically, the view is that privacy, like presumption of innocence, is a right. There is no need to justify one's exercise of that right but there is need to justify infringement upon it. The argument stated above in the excerpt is also useless. Obviously people have things to hide or there would be no notion of privacy. The fact that they want to hide them says nothing about the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of private matters, it merely says that they are private. So it is wrong to make an oversimplification that says that 'open' means good and 'closed' means bad. Many of us who feel there is nothing wrong with our bodies still cover them with clothes in public irrespective of the law, because for many reasons we feel it is the right thing to do. In a similar vein, thoughts are kept private because people feel no need to share them. I doubt anyone would argue that if you had only licit thoughts that you should be obligated to share them all. I have a feeling the Jester knows all this already. Bob -- What is baffling and annoying so many people is that something that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or feel is becoming so important -- digital information. And no one's helping them cope. ------------------------------ From: Steve Cavrak Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 01:45:44 GMT "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" - sounds like an opening line by the KGB, CIA, FBI, Stassi, or you name your favorite terrorist group, - sounds like an incorrect inversion of, "if you are fearful, you must be hiding something" - i.e. you are the cause of your own fear. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEY !@ - I have the right to an unlisted phone number - I have the right not to have a telephone at all - I have the right not to carry identification - I have the right to travel without telling anyone where I am going - I have the right to carry money - I have the right not to carry money - I have the right not to be searched WITHOUT DUE CAUSE. HEY! This is America. These are the rights that make it so. We don't need to apologize for them, we need to celebrate them, to assert them. Geez. Steve [Moderator's Note: Do you really have a right to an unlisted phone number? What type is it? God Given, constitutional, moral, or another type of right? What entity gave you this right. Constitutional rights only apply to what the government does to its citizens not what private entities does to citizens. What about the "right" of the Telephone Company to give you service on it own terms. It is TPC that gives you phone service and it is their number not yours. It is only for your use while you pay for the service. _Dennis] ------------------------------ From: Carl Ellison Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 13 May 92 04:27:50 GMT In article viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes: >In ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: >>[...] WHY [...] "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to >>fear" is a bankrupt one. > > [...] the worry may not be with what we have to hide, but how much >security and liberty we have released so that others may probe for >anything we may be hiding. Exactly! I think it's no mistake that the line "if you have nothing to hide..." sounds like a Nazi's line in a WW-II movie. The statement presumes that only criminals would want privacy and therefore that no one should have it. It is an argument against the citizen's right to privacy. In fact, it is a mistake to get into such an argument. The government has no right to invade my privacy. I am protected from unreasonable search by the Bill of Rights. If I bother debating with someone who takes the stance indicated, I'm playing into the notion that I have no such fundamental right and instead have to justify my desire to keep things private. I require no justification. This right is mine. I am free to choose to keep things private on the silliest of whims and not even let someone else know my criteria. ------------------------------ From: "Phillip J. Birmingham" Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 07:38:08 GMT Apparently-To: uunet.uu.net!comp-society-privacy In article , ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: > One of the reasons that many people are against 'intrusive' laws is > because they disagree with the rational "If you have nothing to > hide, then you don't need to worry." However what I have failed to > see is a single cogent explination of WHY the rational of "If you > have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" is a bankrupt > one. Would anyone care to provide a concise explination of WHY the > previously mentioned rational is wrong? And please, though examples > are useful for illustration of a point, they do not make one. > The Jester I should retort, as Carl Ellison and others have, with "what's wrong with having something to hide?" I don't think you'll accept that, though, so.. It's bankrupt because it is a mutation of the argument "Loyal (random group) needn't worry about ..." "Law-abiding citizens of the People's Republic need not worry about prisoners being used for slave labor." "People who keep their noses clean don't get beaten up by the police like Rodney King did." "Why do you object to being required to wear that yellow star on your clothing? Are you ashamed of being Jewish?" To steal an objection from Philip Zimmermann's documentation for Pretty Good Privacy 1.0, "If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards?" This is a form of an argument that can be twisted to justify practically any action the government cares to take. Therefore it is useless as a rationalization, as it does not discern right from wrong. (Unless you care to argue that there is nothing wrong with any of the actions implied above, in which case we have nothing left to discuss.) -- Phillip J. Birmingham birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough... ------------------------------ From: "H. David Bonnett" Subject: Re: Census Bureau Database Date: 13 May 92 14:35:08 GMT In article , jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes: |> It's illegal for the Census Bureau to give out information that can be |> narrowed down to individuals. ..[Deleted]... |> I do think you have a legitimate concern about matching the Census |> tract data with other databases to narrow it down...maybe it's time |> to get the Census Bureau to enlarge their minimum census areas |> to a few thousand people. To expand on this, I wish to offer a (possibly apochryphal) story: The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) utilizes any and all resources to find unregistered/"illegal" residents. The Census form asks for sufficient information to make these individuals identifiable (to the Census). INS asks for the list of people (or addresses, doesn't matter) which are flagged as "suspicious"; Census refuses based on the above law; INS then asks for list of census tracts (approximately a city block); this is fine: INS now has a much more constrained area to search. All of this is legal, whether it is in the public interest, I hestitate to judge. Think about the situation where someone could describe you sufficiently to exclude most others: Census could legally provide the census tract in which you live, from there it is simple to find the actual address. -dave bonnett- Center for Seismic Studies; Arlington, VA bonnett@seismo.css.gov : (703) 276-7900 Pop Kid Internationale ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 May 92 11:26 EDT From: michael.scott.baldwin@att.com Subject: Re: Seminole ACCESS John G. Otto writes: | Beginning next, all FSU students, faculty and staff will have a new ID | card, a new ATM card, a new long distance calling card, and a new credit | card, *whether they want it or not*. The Seminole ACCESS card will | force students to allow the university to record their every financial | transaction How does it "force" this? By outlawing cash purchases on campus? You are worried about cash machines off campus. Students aren't allowed to have their own bank accounts and use cash, even off campus? My! And you are forced to use MCI for all of your long distance calls, on or off campus? How draconian. | every book they check out from the library or borrow on reserve Every library I know of keeps track of who checks out books. Your problem here is that the data is more easily accessible now? Hm, I suspect that it's not hard for the administration to get to that data for *any* library. | their every move in or out of any building or any door on which an ACCESS | limiter has been installed...If someone in power decides to cut you off | and lock you out, it's soo much easier with the Seminole ACCESS system. Why *shouldn't* the administration be allowed to cut your access off? | What ever happened to the legal tender laws which have forced us to | accept these greenbacks in lieu of real money? If the university has | a debt to me, I should be able to collect it from the university in | cash, and I should be able to pay cash for what I owe them. You have a problem with the university writing you check?! Say, have you tried getting your tax refund from the IRS in cash? | PINs are too short to be very secure. With people cracking 100 digit | encryption keys using their home computers, one would expect a 4 | numeral code to be child's play. Usually a wrong PIN used 3 or 4 times invalidates a card. I don't think a hacker will have enough chances to crack a 4 digit code. ------------------------------ From: hibbert@xanadu.com (Chris Hibbert) Subject: Re: SSN's from AT&T Organization: Xanadu Operating Company Date: Wed, 13 May 92 17:47:10 GMT In article Dave Niebuhr writes: >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? Only government agencies are required to include a privacy statement. This may not be to your liking, but it's not useful to ask whether commercial organizations include one. (The question as to whether AT&T should be considered an arm of the government can be kept separate. In any case, no court will rule that they are bound by rules that apply only to the government.) >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 Niebuhr Doesn't an account ID constitute personal identification? What's the point of your statement? (It doesn't mean that all accounts should appear anonymous to the outside world, does it? Chris -- hibbert@xanadu.com AMIX: CHibbert uunet!xanadu!hibbert MCIMail: CHibbert ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #025 ******************************