Date: Thu, 21 May 92 17:24:03 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#033 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 21 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 033 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Explanation of support for free Caller-ID blocking. Re: Initiating a conversation should not require identification. Miranda rights provide basis for why non-criminals may not talk to police. Privacy is a right; protection from criminals is not. Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: Privacy and Law and Order (Long) Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: Privacy is a right Isn't personal privacy a little overrated ? Re: Caller ID decision Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: Risks of electronic auto tracing Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: Cordless Phones Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Privacy and property Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: "Nightline's discussion of camcorder tape as evidence" phone numbers and privacy 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: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: Explanation of support for free Caller-ID blocking. Date: Thu, 21 May 92 10:32:13 EDT >>>>> On 20 May 92 01:10:37 GMT, rsw@cs.brown.edu (Bob Weiner) said: Bob> [Article describes decision by Washington state to require free Bob> caller-id blocking is vehemently opposed by US West because they Bob> claim their business customers who pay for id recognizer ^^^^^^^^ Bob> equipment will get too many calls without IDs.] I don't recall seeing the adjective "business" in the U.S. West statement. I think that is an assumption on your part. The material you quoted later in the article referred to "people" who buy Caller-ID equipment. A whole lot of those people are consumers, judging by New Jersey's experience. -- Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ From: Bob Weiner Subject: Re: Initiating a conversation should not require identification. Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 14:44:55 GMT In article gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (John Rudd) makes a number of statements that I think just represent misunderstandings of how things like Caller ID and social interactions work: Subj: PRIVACY WINS OVER CALLER ID in the State of Washington > >From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 26, 1992 - > > Sounds more like "privacy of the called entity loses to the privacy > of the calling person. Entity who makes a call can choose to keep his identity secret, as can entity who receives a call. No one's privacy is lost. > I think if they're going to allow callers to block their ID, then > it should also be available that callee's totally block out those calls > that have no ID. 'It' is a matter of the kind of interface you have to the caller ID information. Your telephone company does not control whether you hook up a computer or other device to deal with the caller ID information. Thus, of course, you can have a setup that drops calls without ID information or that causes them not to generate a ring on your equipment. Knowing that, if you then want to require that your telephone company be forced through regulation to offer that kind of call filtration as a central office service, then you should have solid reasons why such regulation is necessary. > I know I don't want my call waiting set off by some > bozo who isn't willing to identify themselves to the level I have predefined > by my phone line (I don't have caller ID, but if I did, I'm would consider > this the "requirement to call me"). I certainly don't want my connection > to the net (I leave call waiting on, in case of an important phone call) > interupted by someone who isn't willing to tell me who they are. Personal choice, fine. Sort of like the kind of stero equipment you choose to buy. > My only reply to this would be that Caller ID supports the privacy of > the CALLED person. Since the Caller is the person initiating the action, I > don't think it is unreasonable to slightly lower their privacy level. There is the mistake. The fact that anyone wants to communicate with anyone else does not at all imply that they want to be identified. The fact that you have a phone does not mean that you want to talk to everyone that dials your number. Both of those behaviors remain protected with personal choice of caller-id distribution. Now, you may not get all of the information you would like in making your decision about whether to take a call, but you have no actual right to such information, and the mere fact that technology can make the information available to you does not suddenly imbue you with a new right. > If they don't want their privacy lowered, they don't make the phone > call in question. Wrong. Maybe they don't reach the party they wanted to reach. But you misunderstand the social interaction. If I stop you on the street and ask you a question and you ask me who I am first, there is no reason I have to tell you, just as there is no reason that you have to answer my question. You are confusing desires with rights. > Again, if you're calling me, I have the right to know who is "on the > outside of my door" before I "open my door". You are free to inquire, that is all. You are certainly free to not open the door. Nothing has changed in the telecommunications realm except that you have no way of interacting with the caller to see if he wants to identify himself without establishing the connection. If you don't like doing this yourself, look for a machine to do it for you. Answering machines have long had call screening "Hello. I will never pick up the phone unless you first identify yourself to this machine. Beep." Sure it may annoy your callers, but what do you care, you want to find out who they are through the door anyway. > I don't want to get calls from > telemarketing people, or certain other sources. And no, telemarketers DO > NOT have a right to call me. Hmmm. People don't have a right to knock on my door. People don't have a right to say, "Hey, buddy, want to buy a hot dog," on the street. You must have the wrong country. The legality of the situation is that telephone companies operate as common carriers who are not responsible for the content carried between two parties. No regulation nor moral precept requires them to build in security which isolates particular caller groups from others. So where does this supposed right come from? > I rent my line from the phone company. If > they want to use my line for their business, I have the right to deny that > use. See above. > If they don't want to identify themselves, then I see it as basically > the same as a person at the door who wont show sufficient ID.. You simply > don't open your door to them. Right. You don't interact with them. You, however, are asking that they not be allowed to even approach your property, no less your door. > The complication being that they may still have interupted something > you were doing, because call waiting can be destructive to your current > line activity. Therefore, having a "ignore these calls totally" setup is > probably the only thing that I'd consider viable. Perhaps the caller, in > that case, should get a message of "This line refuses to accept calls from > callers who block caller ID". Fine, but there is no right that supports a need for the phone company to offer a service that does that. Get a machine that does it for you or lobby that the phone company provide it on the basis of your *desire*. > At this point, the overhead being generated is probably a little silly, > but again, I feel the rights of the Callee FAR outweigh the rights of the > caller. You are confused about privacy rights and what they are. > Afterall, if the Caller doesn't want their privacy invaded, they > simply don't have to make the phone call. Another point you fail to account for is that often people have good reasons for making anonymous calls, which again, if the callee wants to ignore is just peachy. For example: "Hello, Battered Women's Center, I'm not sure what I want to do." "That's ok. We already know who and where you are and we'll have a police car over there lickity split, just in case. Better safe than sorry." ---- "Hello, city services aid? Can you tell me where I should call to find out about anonymous HIV tests?" ---- "Hi, I called about the car you're trying to sell." "What's your name." "Well, first I'd like to hear about the car before I give you my personal information." "I'm going to hang up if you don't tell me who you are." "Ok." "Ok....click." > * as an asside, a leading code could be sent that instead of > saying "no ID available", said "this person is or isn't blocking their > ID", separate from the availablility of their ID. Ah, you think technological capability determines privacy rights. You are just very mistaken. You should study these matters more in depth. > Thus, if you're > getting a LD call, and don't get their number, you know it's because of > LD.. because if they were blocking their ID, you'd have weeded them > separately. Because, of course, you have a right to weed them separately. > With the scheme I'm talking about, if the obscene caller blocked their > ID, the callee wouldn't even get a ring from them. :-) This is just an end justifies the means rationale. It doesn't bolster the argument you are trying to make about the callee's rights being trampled by not having regulation that guarantees them access to a new service that has been invented. > I also think that the "block of non-ID'd calls" should be abailable to > people who don't have Caller-ID. Just the general principle. I don't have > Caller ID..I don't want it. But if you are blocking your ID, I don't want a > call from you, even if I don't have caller ID. > > Hmm.. I wonder how hard it would be to get that passed.. Maybe I should > call the companies involved. I hope this helps you distinguish between rights and desires, and about common social interactions before you pursue whatever you feel like pursuing. Bob -- It's not racism, it's money. -- Michael Ventura, Boston Globe, 3/8/92 ------------------------------ From: Bob Weiner Subject: Miranda rights provide basis for why non-criminals may not talk to police. Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 13:43:01 GMT In article crtb@helix.nih.gov (Chuck Bacon) writes: > And yes, I'm damned angry at the "nothing to hide" attack. I had it > pulled on me by police forty years ago, and it still grates. Police > types like to use it because most people get tongue-tied, trying to > express their outrage. Just ask them (assuming your not in overt physical danger) to whip out their Miranda rights card and read it. It doesn't say, "Anything criminal you say...", it says, "Anything you say *can* and *will* be held against you." So right away you know that if a policeperson is asking you probing questions about private matters that they are not there to take your side. And that they can implicate you in wholly unrelated matters to that which they are investigating. Still, if I were a police officer I would certainly have a little bell in my head that would go off when someone refused to answer any of my questions. This is why we have a legal system under which the people who do the arresting are not the ones who do the convicting. Your day in court (assuming you get that far) does not come in front of the police but in front of a judge and possibly jury. Bob -- It's not racism, it's money. -- Michael Ventura, Boston Globe, 3/8/92 ------------------------------ From: Bob Weiner Subject: Privacy is a right; protection from criminals is not. Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 13:31:21 GMT In article ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: > In point for discussion remaining is:Which right is worth more? Your > right to privacy or society's right to be protected from criminals? There are privacy rights and a number of these are codified in law. There is no legal or moral right that compels society to protect everyone from potential criminals by using all means possible to establish evidence that implicates them in criminal behavior. There are both moral and legal means that sanction criminal, especially violent criminal, behavior. After the fact. Thus, although law enforcement officials may have you believe there are fundamental conflicting requirements at work here, that isn't true. Privacy rights should be protected. Then based on publicly available or legally sanctioned investigatory information, criminals should be prosecuted. The fact that crime occurs that is difficult for law enforcement officials to detect or verify, is no justification for fundamental right infringement. The end. Bob -- It's not racism, it's money. -- Michael Ventura, Boston Globe, 3/8/92 ------------------------------ From: Carl Ellison Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 14 May 92 20:18:56 GMT The proposition behind the trick question is that the government has the right to spy on us without being equally open and transparent to all citizens in return. The flaw is that this proposes a two-class system with the people in the second-class role. That is reversed from the basis of this country. Knowledge is power and in our democracy, the power lies in the people not in the government. It is therefore vital that the government have a minimum of knowledge about the citizens and that the citizens have a maximum of knowledge about the government. Result: prohibit encryption technology in the hands of the government; give it to the individual citizens only. After all: aren't we happy that Ollie North's criminal activities were available for public examination? ------------------------------ From: Emmett Subject: Re: Privacy and Law and Order (Long) Date: 14 May 92 03:29:14 GMT In article John Higdon writes: >> From: Conrad Kimball writes: > >> 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. > >Is this what it would take to satisfy you on the whole matter of CNID? >This comes under the heading of "feature implementation" and is so >trivial as be not worth mentioning, yet is would be, for you, the >salvation of CNID. Incredible. > Key words there are 'for you'. As for the 'feature implementation' argument, when is the last time you tried to get something changed after you accepted delivery? It's always made sense to me to get it right the first time. The fact that there is a controversy over this issue at all should show you that not everyone believes it would be offered as a feature. [ Argument that privacy shouldn't be given up now that we have it, deleted ] >And that, dear sir, is exactly why you and millions like yourself can >get credit cards, debit cards, instant store accounts, bank lines of >credit, property sale closures in days instead of months, and all of >the financial conveniences that are taken for granted these days. Do >you think that all of these companies and financial institutions would >just hand you the money if they knew nothing about you? In Smalltown, Do you think I would get letters about 'Terrific new products we're just absolutely positve you'll love hearing about, even when we send you yet another copy of this letter with a TENTH variant of your name on it.' if they new nothing about me?? >after you had lived there for about ten years, Mr. Smith might just >open a store account for you with a small limit. After another ten of >showing a good payment history (as observed and recorded by Mr. Smith) >you might get your limit raised. Of course all of this credit is only >good at one place: Mr. Smith's. > >Today, your credit is portable and easily obtained at new locations. >How did YOU think that it was possible to walk into a store for the >first time in your life and open an account? Magic? > >> 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. > >Then it should be corrected. I have done this myself; it is not hard. >Without this extensive database, we would be forced back into a >cash and carry society. While some may approve of that, there are many >more who would not. > Your argument is that you and others who share your opinion feel you would be inconvenienced if you were forced into a situation not of your choosing or of your liking. Guess what my argument is. >> 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? > >Try asking. Someone, somewhere started the "truism" that "they" are >unreachable, untouchable, and have unlimited power. I have received >such things as notices of cancellation and simply called the company to >get an explanation. In some cases, after discussing the matter, the >cancellation was rescinded. I am surprised that you give people so little >credit for being able to pick up a phone or write letters of inquiry. Why is this my responsibility?? These people are paid quite handsomely for providing information that is presumed accurate by their customers. Extending your line of reasoning leads to the argument that if I choose to eat food that has been shipped to a grocery store in a truck, then I'm responsible for doing maintainance work on the truck. >Of course, failing to mention those avenues of redress gives more >weight to your argument. And speaking of weight: > >> - The greenhouse effect. > >> - Smoking. > >> - Logging > >What do these things have to do with privacy? Is the implication that >the consequences are on a par with these things? Is this the only way you >can make your argument seem non-trivial? The most serious privacy >violations that could occur in modern society will not kill, mame, or >even cause much more than a minor annoyance or inconvenience. We are >not talking disasterous global climate changes here. We are not talking >500,000 deaths a year. We are not even talking about endangered >species. > No, we're talking about minor annoyances and inconveniences. Frankly, given a choice I'd just as soon avoid them. Besides, it's at least as important to me as the issue of death from smoking (I don't smoke) and will impact me personally a lot more than spotted owls (I doubt I'll encounter a significant number of spotted owls in my liftime, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen the last of the annoyances and inconveniances. Besides [ my turn to be dramatic ], falling two feet is pretty minor by itself, but if they happen to be the last two feet of a hundred foot drop, the results are noticable. [ Bluster about things I consider irrelevant deleted ] > >There is someone who asserted in print that we are all going >to get cancer because of electrical transmission lines. I would guess >that you must be in favor of shutting down our electrical grid until >someone proves him wrong. Never mind that it would disrupt our whole >way of life, destroy the economy, and literally make it impossible for >people to live in our cities. But we cannot take any chances now, can >we? > Until you hit the bit about shutting down the cities, you weren't doing too badly there. Shut 'em down says I. :-) >So it is with privacy. A few very noisy people are running around >announcing the death of all we hold near and dear because some nasty >people can find out our little secrets. Shall we return to green visors >and ledger paper until the theorists can come to a conclusion one way >or another? Does it really matter? > For someone who was just complaining about making sweeping statements just for effect, don't you think this is a bit much?? Personally I see it as a bandage. I'd rather do away with the nasty people that can 'find out our little secrets'. As far as I'm concerned it does matter. If it were an ideal world, I can't think of anything I've personally done in the privacy of my own home that I would really care one way or another if the world knew about (a few things that might disturb my mother, but such is life). Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the world (and even in Montana) who possess value systems that I choose not to subscribe to. Some of them have the clout to be more than minor annoyances. You used the metaphor of Smalltown, USA. In Smalltown, there was only one Mrs. Grundy, if you include Tinytown and Diminuitive-ville to the list we're talking about at least three Mrs. Grundys. How many do you suppose live in the New York or LA areas alone? Can you really blame me for not wanting to be forced to deal with them?? > >-- > John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 > john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! -- Larry Emmett v 'Computers are a lot like the God of the Internet:icsu8249@cs.montana.edu /o\ Old Testament. A whole lot of rules Bitnet: icsu8249@MtsUnix1.bitnet --- and no mercy.' -- Joseph Campbell ------------------------------ From: "J. Michael Blackford" Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: Thu, 21 May 92 07:45:19 GMT Actually quite simple. Wrong question. The burden of proof for necessity falls upon the "peeper" ... at least in a free society ... not upon the individual. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Blackford Internet: jmb@netcom.com Fax: (408) 973-0514 Compu$erve: 72345,66 --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "J. Michael Blackford" Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: Thu, 21 May 92 07:41:14 GMT ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: >In article egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) writes: >[Excellent discussion of basic logic that i was fully aware of and >am now beating myself for not remembering.. i.e. the basic if-then >conclusion with a false f means a true then] >>How do we discuss this from this point? >In point for discussion remaining is:Which right is worth more? Your >right to privacy or society's right to be protected from criminals? --- Egad! Enough! "Society's Right"???? Who shall speak for "society"?? Some self-annointed priesthood? And since when did "society" have a "right" to be "protected" from anything??? Is this an argument for parental government? (Yechh!) I've been hearing (on CNN, PBS, CSPAN) and reading (newspapers & magazines) references to a "citizen's right to be safe" ... this is hogwash ... and very dangerous hogwash, indeed! It reeks of prior restraint. A fundamental "freedom" in a truly free society is the freedom to break a law. Yes, and the acknowledged liability of punishment ... but, ONLY AFTER VIOLATION OF LAW. Now we see reams of legislation which target a priori acts which, per se, are not a "tort" (i.e. cause no other individual a harm) but which are percieved as leading to harmful actions. It's scarey. One of the interesting aspects of a general fear of dramatically increased capabilities of law enforcement agencies in identifying and aprehending individuals who break the law, is the implicit recognition that we've passed far too many laws prohibiting "politically incorrect" behavior. Now, about 80% of the population, thinking that only the "lesser" citizens would be aprehended, are starting to get uneasy about such laws being applied against them. Indeed, traffic laws are a good example. Police are equipping highways and intersections with video/radar devices capable of identifying every auto scofflaw. The outcry is louder than most rock concerts. Gee, folks, if you didn't want to comply with the law, why didn't you act to get it changed? They're (supposedly) OUR laws ... and we ought to have something to say about which ones we're willing to live with. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Blackford Internet: jmb@netcom.com Fax: (408) 973-0514 Compu$erve: 72345,66 --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "J. Michael Blackford" Subject: Re: Privacy is a right Date: Thu, 21 May 92 07:51:20 GMT Interesting ... and the bartender only has the right to know if the customer is over a certain age ... but, he usually gets to find out the date the customer was born. This is a simple example of a plethora of instances wherein our "right to privacy" in infringed upon by a requirement for too much information. Why not issue color-coded driver's licenses? One color for minors, another for adults? Because no government agency has any interest in protection of privacy rights. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Blackford Internet: jmb@netcom.com Fax: (408) 973-0514 Compu$erve: 72345,66 --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: John Artz Subject: Isn't personal privacy a little overrated ? Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 18:01:12 GMT It is with great reservation that I even suggest this topic, but it seems to me that our notion of a right to privacy has been vastly exaggerated and possibly to the long term detriment of society. If you limit privacy to the "right to be left alone" including such fundamental rights as the protection against unlawful search and seizure, I can certainly understand why people feel so strongly about privacy. However, once we leave our houses and participate in a series of social interactions we leave a trail of evidence which cannot be considered as private. Thus when I buy groceries or use my credit card, or make a phone call I create information about myself which belongs (IMHO) to someone or something (e.g. a corporation) other than myself. If I have a right to control that information, then I should also have a right to prevent people from gossiping about me, since that also includes disclosure of possibly incorrect private information. Controlling the dissemination of information about ourselves just doesn't work in the long run. Does the right to privacy also include the right to anonymity ? If I am walking down a dark street at midnight and someone challenges me to identify myself, do I have the right to withhold that information. I think that information about people should be freely accessible by anyone who is interested in it. I further think that we are attacking the problem of privacy from the wrong perspective. For example, if I don't want my name on some vendor's mailing list because I don't want calls during dinner, then the focus of my efforts should be on restricting who can call me, not on who gets the information. I could go on, but would like to hear some of your views on whether or not we wouldn't be better off if we just lifted all restrictions on the dissemination of personal information. John M. Artz, Ph.D. jartz@mitre.org +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A crisis is just the end of an illusion. -- Gerald Weinberg +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: "Life..." Subject: Re: Caller ID decision Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 17:46:11 GMT gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (John Rudd a.k.a. Kzin -- Big Electric Cat) writes: >NEELY_MP@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Mark P. Neely) writes: >>From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 26, 1992 - >>| PRIVACY WINS OVER CALLER ID >>| >>| Phone companies must offer free blocking service >>| P-I Staff and News Services >>| >>|OLYMPIA - Telephone companies offering caller-identification service must >>|also offer callers - free of charge - the ability to block display of their >>|number or location, a state commission ruled yesterday. >>| >>| The companies said an offer of free line-blocking, or automatic blocking >>|of the caller's name or number, would doom caller-ID service. > I think if they're going to allow callers to block their ID, then >it should also be available that callee's totally block out those calls >that have no ID. I know I don't want my call waiting set off by some >bozo who isn't willing to identify themselves to the level I have predefined >by my phone line (I don't have caller ID, but if I did, I'm would consider >this the "requirement to call me"). I certainly don't want my connection >to the net (I leave call waiting on, in case of an important phone call) >interupted by someone who isn't willing to tell me who they are. Well one option you have is to get rid of call waiting (myself, I feel that someone using Call Waiting on a data connection is insane) and get a seperate line. Then set up a forwarding setup so that calls that go to the first line when it is busy automatically go to the second line. There you have your CLID device hooked up as well. >>| Industry officials argued that free per-call blocking service - in which >>|the called dials three digits before making the call - has worked well in >>|other states and provides enough protection for those who do not want their >>|number disclosed. > Again, if you're calling me, I have the right to know who is "on the >outside of my door" before I "open my door". Typically, people will not block their number when calling a non- business. In response to a want-ad, perhaps they would block, to avoid possible seller's bias on the neighborhood that they are calling from. >I don't want to get calls from >telemarketing people, or certain other sources. And no, telemarketers DO >NOT have a right to call me. I rent my line from the phone company. If >they want to use my line for their business, I have the right to deny that >use. If they don't want to identify themselves, then I see it as basically >the same as a person at the door who wont show sufficient ID.. You simply >don't open your door to them. > The complication being that they may still have interupted something >you were doing, because call waiting can be destructive to your current >line activity. Therefore, having a "ignore these calls totally" setup is >probably the only thing that I'd consider viable. Perhaps the caller, in >that case, should get a message of "This line refuses to accept calls from >callers who block caller ID". Myself, I wouldn't use such a system if implemented at the telco. I don't think the phone company needs to know whether or not I accept calls from blocked phone numbers. I'd rather have a very simple device hooked up. You place it between the phone and the wall. When a ring comes down, the device traps it before it goes to the phone, and waits for the CLID number. If it comes up as BLOCKED, it won't ring through. If it comes up with a number or OUT OF AREA, it will ring through. Indeed, I want one for at least my data line, on which I run a BBS. Alternatively, on the BLOCKED signal, it can route to an answering machine on Announce Only which holds the recording you mention. Of course, this is incompatible with your desire to keep Call Waiting enabled, which required it be installed at the telco, which means billing will go up. >>| The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and the >>|Washington State Patrol both said they favored charging for the line-block >>|to ensure it was not overused. Law enforcement is a major supporter of >>|caller-ID technology, believing that when it is widely used the incidence of >>|harassing and obscene telephone calls will fall. > With the scheme I'm talking about, if the obscene caller blocked their >ID, the callee wouldn't even get a ring from them. :-) Same here, just that you keep your preference (immediately) private from the phone company. They'd have to do some "leg work" to figure out that you just don't answer blocked calls. >I also think that the "block of non-ID'd calls" should be available to >people who don't have Caller-ID. Just the general principle. I don't have >Caller ID..I don't want it. But if you are blocking your ID, I don't want a >call from you, even if I don't have caller ID. Again, that would require it at the telco end. Well, maybe not. You could subscribe to having the CLID information sent to your phone, and just not have a display for it. If $ is your motivation, you'd need to have "Blocked Blocking" cost less than CLID itself. I doubt the telcos would go along with giving that option and not CLID. (Although I believe that free blocking is available here even if the caller does not have CLID.) >Hmm.. I wonder how hard it would be to get that passed.. Maybe I should >call the companies involved. Better get a large number of people behind you, because they telco's weren't lobbying for callee's privacy. They're behind that when it serves their own interests. When faced with your proposal, they'll see it as an extra expense, and will be against anything that says it will be free. But then again, they could then turn around and sell the information on who blocks blocked calls. Then those businesses that would prefer to call blocked, like telemarketers, will know not to call your number, and increase their efficiency. Telco gets money, telemarketers get money, and you pay money. > Discussing whether or not machines can think | John E. Rudd jr. > is about as interesting as discussing whether | gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu > or not submarines can swim. --Dijkstra | (ex- kzin@ucscb.ucsc.edu) -- /// ____ \\\ | CAUTION: | |/ / \ \| | | Avoid eye contact. In case of contact, flush \\_|\____/|_// | mind for 15 minutes. See a psychiatrist if \_)\\/ | irritation persists. Not to be taken gberigan `-' cse.unl.edu | seriously. Keep out of sight of children. ------------------------------ From: "Life..." Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 17:10:55 GMT ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: >Would anyone care to provide a concise explination [sic1] of WHY the >previously mentioned rational [sic2] is wrong? The statement makes the incorrect assumption that if you are hiding something, that something is in some way illegal, or related to illegal activities. Since the assumption is false, the conclusion is invalid. -- /// ____ \\\ | CAUTION: | |/ / \ \| | | Avoid eye contact. In case of contact, flush \\_|\____/|_// | mind for 15 minutes. See a psychiatrist if \_)\\/ | irritation persists. Not to be taken gberigan `-' cse.unl.edu | seriously. Keep out of sight of children. [sic1] explanation [sic2] rationale ------------------------------ From: "Michael T. Palmer" Subject: Re: Risks of electronic auto tracing Date: 21 May 92 13:03:07 GMT wrf@speed.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes: >If everyone knew where your car was all day then they might: >- determine your customers and suppliers, to steal the former and >undercut, or badmouth you to, the latter, >- know when you're away from home, to break in, >- know how much time you spend on the road, to analyze your business in >general, >- know where to kidnap you, if you're an Exxon exec, or where to hijack >your car if it's valuable, or if you're carrying valuables, >- see that you're visiting someone for no obvious reason, and so see >that you might be in secret negotiations to buy or be bought or hire or >be hired, >- etc etc etc Excellent points. I'm sure that someone will jump on this, however, and claim that "oh, but only the government would have this information and they would NEVER allow it to be used in this way." Well, I think it should be clear by now that the "government" is really "humans" and ALL humnas are subject to power trips, enticement to hand over confidential or even secret infomation for sometimes paltry sums of money, mean-spiritedness, and other such foibles that make even the existence of such information a very risky proposition. The continuing revelations about people at the Social Security Admin. and other government agencies (like the IRS) selling information about citizens illegally don't exactly make me feel very confident that all those privacy act notices on government forms are worth the Xerox dust they're written with. -- Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23665 Temporarily a Techie: Center for Human-Machine System Research, Georgia Tech Voice: 404-894-4318, FAX: 404-894-2301, Email: palmer@chmsr.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond) Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 20 May 92 17:38:37 Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) asks: 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? The (incorrect) implication of "If you have nothing to hide" is that the only reason for secrecy is that you have something (criminal) to hide. To accept that proposition is to ignore that there are other reasons for secrecy. Alternate reasons include industrial, technical, negotiating, and commercial advantage derived from superior knowledge (which would be lost if the information were made public). Consider the reaction of someone possessing a trade secret to being told "if you have nothing to hide...". Information disclosure can result in economic and/or personal "loss", and while this is not the same as "fear", it is none-the-less a loss. Neither governments nor organizations should be permitted to impose such losses on other people or groups without restraint on when such actions may be rightfully permitted. -WBE ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 92 01:29:11 -0400 From: none@gmuvax2.gmu.edu Subject: Re: Cordless Phones In article , jangerma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jake Angerman) writes: > > lupine!mellon@uunet.uu.net (Ted Lemon) writes: > >Privacy *is* important. While it's impossible to prevent Joe Random > >Loser from listening in on your cellular phone conversations.... > > How would someone go about doing this? If my neighbor and I both > have cordless phones, why is it that when I pick mine up I don't > home-in on their conversation? Do my headset and cradle communicate > in some encrypted format (like some wireless LANs)? How does the FCC > handle all these different phone companies who want to make cordless > phones? Can you run out of frequencies? Each cordless phone communicates with it's base via a particular frequency. If by chance your neighbor's and your cordless phones both operate on the same frquency (possible but statisticly improbable) you could answer his calls with your handset and vice versa. Most certainly there are duplicate frequencies out there, just as somebody out there has the same door key as you do..... However, the chance of both you and your neighbor having the same frequency is again very low. Cellular phones are a slightly different case. Each phone is registered on a network, just like your computer is, and is given a unigue address on that network. Your cellular phone will only work on that one network, not on the one in the nextdoor. Note the difference with cordless phones. You can plug a cordless phone into any active phone jack and dial out, and anyone knowing the address of the jack can dial in. Tapping of cellular phones is illegal because it implies requires that an effort be made to determine someones address and tap into it. Cordless phones are much easier to tap. A cousine of mine was able to pick up a neighbors cordless phone on his walkie talkie that his parents bought at sears. Basicly, cordless phones do not utilize any private addressing, which is why there are no laws prohibiting their tapping. One final note, cellular phones aren't as secure as we would like to think. A friend of mine often picks up cellular phone calls on her shortwave radio. ------------------------------ From: "Richard A. Schumacher" Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 15 May 92 01:30:02 GMT >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? (BTW: The word is "rationale".) Because people disagree, sometimes violently, about what is worth hiding. For example, one person might go to absurd lengths to prevent people from learning the details of how he masturbates even though most people would probably find it uninteresting. For another example, many people do not want their tax returns made public even though they might not reveal anything which is, strictly speaking, illegal. Is the point now clear? (If you have no emotional need for privacy, or no appreciation for the need in others, then I suppose that no argument against the "nothing-to-hide" doctrine will have any force for you.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 92 07:44:59 -0600 From: Richard Thomsen Subject: Privacy and property From: Gary Greene > Indeed, >I find it difficult envision the right to own property without the >right to hold it private to yourself (the old Libertarian saw, I know). Actually, this DOES happen! I remember at my father's farm, we actually owned half of the public road in front. We paid taxes on it and leagally owned it, but could not hold it private to ourselves. This is also the case of easements across property. Richard Thomsen rgt@lanl.gov ------------------------------ From: Terry Carroll Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 21 May 92 02:37:39 GMT In article , ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: > There have been several posts regarding my quest for a definitive > statement regarding WHY the concept of "if you have nothing to hide > then you have nothing to fear" is wrong. However these posts have > consistently ignored the point I ended my post with, that examples > do NOT make a point, they only illustrate one. The responses seen so > far have been examples and lots of them, some good, some not, but > examples none the less. So far no one has been able to write a > concise explination of WHY they feel that this idea is wrong. We are > all in agreement that the statement IS wrong. Why is everyone > (myself included) having so much trouble comming up with a short, > direct, statement of why? 1) While you may have nothing to hide now, the same activities that are now "nothing to hide" might become something to hide in the future. Hiding them now, even though they do not need to be hidden today assures that they are hidden tomorrow. 2) While in your opinion, it should not need to be hidden, it may yet be the subject of persecution. Homosexuality is an example of this. Terry Carroll Amdahl, Computer and Systems Architecture "Chance favors the prepared mind" -Pasteur ------------------------------ From: The Wolfe of the Den Subject: Re: "Nightline's discussion of camcorder tape as evidence" Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 15:18:20 GMT garzepel@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU (Anthony Rzepela) writes: >Did anyone see ABC's "NIGHTLINE" Thursday, 5/14/92? > >Topic: Police use of video shot by "Newshounds", and whether there > was justification to issue subpoenas for such material. : : >Anyway, a GW University Law professor, who was pitted agasinst the >Los Angeles DA, finally got around to the meat of the matter 2/3 of >the way through the show. After all the dross about whether >citizens could be considered legitimate journalists, blah, blah, blah, >it got down to: we are protected Constitutionally from unreasonable >search and seizure by agencies of the STATE, not each other. Once >private citizens have started turning the camcorders on each other, >and the results are showing up in court as legit evidence, we do have >1984. Some "what ifs.." included: what if some citizen breaks in >your house, records your incriminating activities, and the >tapes become considered evidence, or at least grounds for request for >warrants from the DA. GWU-guy's basic premise: anyone with >a Sony becomes an arm of law enforcement. > >My own "what if..": what about when the police start hiring thugs to >do same? Several points: If the police "hire" someone to do something for them, they are providing "color of law" to that person, and they then come under the restrictions that apply to the police themselves. Police are not allowed to "entrap" [though this is getting unclear again :-( ] and neither are informants. Additionally, I would suspect that if citizen video becomes a problem in terms of evidence rules, somewhere [on the state level in a few areas] laws will be enacted to restrict their use. Besides, it has never been illegal for a citizen to come forward and say that "I saw X doing at on " Finally, are we *not* all the ultimate authority for law enforcement? One of the basic premises of government (at least in the USA) is that all powers are granted by the people, who retain the ultimate responsibilty for those powers? IM(ns)HO one of the main problems with the current culture is that folks are not willing to accept their own responsibility for the enforcement of the law and the administration of justice. Failure to speak out (by voting at least) is a major problem. -- Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury) news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news "We don't need no There is a real person who watches this account. stinking disclaimers" ------------------------------ From: Trevor Jim Subject: phone numbers and privacy Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 16:55:23 GMT The other day I got a call from an MCI droid; apparently one of my relatives gave them my number for the "Friends and Family" plan. The droid wanted me to switch to MCI, but I refused, with the excuse that my roommate handled the phone bill, so I couldn't do anything about it. The interesting thing is, after a delay of a couple of seconds, he was able to come up with my roommate's name, obviously from some computerized reverse phone directory. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since any phone directory has all the information needed for a reverse directory, and if the original directory is on computer, it's no problem to look up records by number instead of name. I'm curious about the history of reverse directories. Of course Ma Bell has had these all along, but I seem to recall that outside access to them was limited to law enforcement agencies. If there ever was such a law, it is obviously obsolete. Anybody know the history and current status of this? Would this have been prevented if we had an unlisted number? Where I live (Massachusetts), you have to pay a monthly fee to have your number unlisted. Is this the case in other parts of the country? ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #033 ******************************