Date: Thu, 28 May 92 17:25:41 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#036 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 28 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 036 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Caller ID decision Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN Re: Call waiting and Caller ID New amendment to Buckley Act of 1974 Driver Licenses 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: "david.g.lewis" Subject: Re: Caller ID decision Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 13:42:28 GMT In article gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (John Rudd a.k.a. Kzin -- Big Electric Cat) writes: > Yes,I know that Long Distance tends to block the ID automagically.. >I think that ought to be fixed (and if the LD companies would just support >it, it could be). If not, then the blocked calls should be local calls only.* > > * 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. The calling line identification is sent between switches by SS7. The reason it is not provided to the called party on LD calls is that there is not end-to-end SS7 connectivity between the originating office and the terminating office, because the connections between LEC and IXC are not yet SS7-signaled. The indication that a caller has invoked 'blocking' (presentation restriction) is carried in the same SS7 parameter as is the calling party number. Therefore, if the number is not available due to lack of end-to-end SS7, the presentation restriction indicator is not available for the same reason. Therefore, on a LD call, there is no way (short of sufficient SS7 deployment) for the terminating office to "know" whether or not the calling number presentation is restricted or allowed. The other thing you were looking for - a feature which would allow calls arriving with "presentation restricted" to not be delivered and instead routed to a recording - is currently implemented on several switches that support CLASS services (I know it's on the 1A ESS(TM) switch, and think it's on the 5ESS(R) switch; don't know about other vendor's products). If the call arrives at the terminating office with the presentation indicator set to "presentation restricted", the call is routed to an announcement independent of the state of the called party's line. If the call arrives and the calling party number is not available, the call is delevered with the "out-of-area" indication. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ From: Cristy Subject: Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 14:16:35 GMT In article idela!bell@uunet.uu.net (Mark Bell) writes: > >California now seems to have a law that one has to submit a Social >Security number for driver's license renewal. Does anyone have any >advice on how this can be avoided? What if one is a minister who has >taken a vow of poverty and doesn't have an SSN? There is only one thing you can do. Invoke your rights under the 1974 Privacy act and request that they tell you: 1: Whether disclosure of your Social Security Number is required or optional, 2: What law authorizes them to ask for your Social Security Number, 3: How your Social Security Number will be used if you give it to them, and 4: The consequences of failure to provide an SSN. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 gave authority to state or local tax, welfare, driver's license, or motor vehicle registration authorities to use the number in order to establish identities. -- cristy@dupont.com ------------------------------ From: hibbert@xanadu.com (Chris Hibbert) Subject: Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN Date: Thu, 28 May 92 00:20:44 GMT Mark Bell writes: >California now seems to have a law that one has to submit a Social >Security number for driver's license renewal. Does anyone have any >advice on how this can be avoided? > >Mark Bell This isn't quite right. The law requires a SSN in order to get a new license, and it won't be until next year that you have to give an Social Security Number to get a renewal. Dodging this requirement isn't going to be easy without a court challenge. Remember, this is the state; they don't even have to listen to your story, there's a law that says you have to give them an SSN. If you don't already have one, the clerk will be quite willing to tell you to go get one if you want a license. Is there anyone out there that's willing to challenge the new law in court? You'd have to be willing to go without a license while the whole thing meanders through the courts. The only plausible challenge I've heard is on the basis of the state constitution's provision of a right to privacy in Article 1. I'm willing to do a fair amount of leg work in putting the challenge together. (I'm a member of the Computers and Civil Liberties working group of the Palo Alto Chapter of CPSR, and SSNs are one of my hot buttons. I'm not a lawyer.) My license doesn't expire for a while, so I can't usefully refuse to give them a SSN. It's possible that someone who just wants a State-issued ID card would do as well for a test case, but it sure seems like the place to start is with someone who can refuse to give a SSN, and wants a card anyway. I'm serious about this. Please contact me if you're interested. Chris -- hibbert@xanadu.com AMIX: CHibbert uunet!xanadu!hibbert MCIMail: CHibbert ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 92 10:47:40 CDT From: Alan L Varney Subject: Re: Call waiting and Caller ID In article dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner (Dokken)) writes: >Just a note to the uninformed people spreading all sorts of rumers about >call waiting and caller ID. > >You WILL NEVER see the number from a person if you are using the line. This >is becuase the callers ID is sent between the First and Second Rings. Now >if you are familar with call waiting, the phone does NOT ring, it just beeps, >an entirely different notification technique. Also note that it happens >AFTER the first ring, so you can not tell in advance who is calling. Well, NEVER just gets closer and closer .... Bellcore and some vendors have been working for a couple of years on the Caller-ID delivery on "call waiting" problem. There are several things happening in the area of data delivery to analog customers, and this is just one small part of a bigger picture. Below is a slightly edited version of information I sent off to comp.dcom.telecom recently. But the requirements from Bellcore include the ability of exactly the ability to send Calling Party Number and/or Name during the "call waiting beep" interval. ******** Previously published in comp.dcom.telecom ************* Let me take the opportunity here to let those folks who are REALLY interested in the Caller-ID interface ("REALLY" means you might actually be willing to pay a few dollars for some documents, instead of just demanding free stuff) know what's new and evolving in this area. ... The "Caller-ID signaling" revisions alter the requirements for Caller-ID equipment at the Customer end and the CO end. They also place requirements on equipment in-the-loop, such as Digital Loop Carrier, Fiber-In-The-Loop, Remote Concentrators, etc. Other req. provide some of the usage requirements for the equipment, dealing with "Calling Identity Delivery" (Calling Party Number and/or Name), delivery during Call Waiting, delivery of information while on-hook and not ringing, etc. What requirements are available? Just look {my comments in braces}: - TA-NWT-000030, Issue 3, "Voiceband Data Transmission Interface Generic Requirements", April 1992, RFC 92-29, comments due by June 30, 1992. This is a proposed revision to a previous TA (TA-NWT-000030, Iss. 2) and original TR-TSY-000030 requirements. Bellcore does not have an expected date for release of the TR, but I would expect 1/93 or so, if industry disagreements can be resolved. {The TA has CO requirements for what is currently used for the calling number/calling name CO-to-CPE interface for an analog The current TR only covers data delivery while on-hook during ringing (between first and second ring cycle). The TA proposes a mechanism for data delivery during on-hook-idle and talking states. It is compatible with existing "boxes" only during the on-hook-ringing state. (An example of creeping featurism???) Appendix A of the TA is a revision of SR-NWT-002024, "CPE Compatibility Considerations for the SPCS-to-CPE Data Transmission Interface", Iss. 1, April 1992. The SR is just released, and now some not-obviously-related TA is proposing revisions! If you are a vendor interested in SR-NWT-002024, it appears you must comment on the TA-30 Appendix, unless you want to accept the new version of SR-2024 without comments!! There are MAJOR changes. The App. suggests that Call-ID memory be large enough to store information on an average day's calls (Bellcore doesn't specify that number...), that the display be multi-line so that all information on a single call can be displayed at once, that the display be backlit or illuminated. The requirements appear to allow information transfer from the far-end party during a call. During transmission, the CPE-to- handset/keypad path is muted. The timing is pretty critical, however. There are also requirements for inhibiting the data reception/acknowledgement when an extension is off-hook, and a suggestion that the CPE have an on/off switch that would allow disabling of the off-hook data detection. So if your answering machine is hooked up as an extension -- not through the CPE -- the "hacking" of the CPE would be prevented for calls while you are away. This would also minimize the interference during a caller's recording when a second caller "call waits" your answering machine. But to receive the Caller-ID-on-call- waiting information, all the extension telephones would have to be connected through the CPE.} ------ TAs can be ordered from: Bellcore Document Registrar 445 South Street - Room 2J-125 P. O. Box 1910 Morristown, NJ 07962-1910 Takes 3-4 weeks(!), and the RFC # is helpful, if known. You can also register as a vendor and receive future like-topic TAs automatically. Al Varney - the above represents my opinion, and not AT&T's.... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 92 15:59:21 EDT From: "RAVI A. KRISHNAN" Subject: New amendment to Buckley Act of 1974 I have just heard that there has been a recent amendment to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (Buckley Act). This amendment supposedly opens up a students admissions committee work notes to the student. Does any one know anything about this? Specifically, what is the name of the Amendment and where can a copy of the text of this amendment be found? I am very interested in seeing what else this amendment opens up and makes public. Ravi Krishnan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 92 17:18:34 From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator Subject: Driver Licenses Several people wrote to talk about different ways states identify people under 21 for driver's licenses. Thank God I grew up in Germany where they do not waste thier time on drinking age madness. Anyway it is time to close this thread as it really does not have to do with effect of technology on privacy. As a courtesy to the readers and submitted I have combined all the posters comments into one article. Dennis David Olsen wrote: Some states do. Maryland even does one better than that. If you are less that 21 years old, your photo is a profile. Your date of birth is still on the license, but no one has any reason to read it. Not all government agencies are lazy and ingorant. Ben Combee wrote: In the state of Georgia, driver's licences of minors have a red UNDER 21 stamped over the picture for that purpose. The birthdate is still on there, but for that kind of IDing, all a bartender need check is for the stamp. Carl Ellison wrote: There is at least one state (I forget which) whose drivers' license has pictures in profile for minors and front-view for adults. J. Michael <76117.367@compuserve.com> wrote: A Florida drivers license has different colored backgrounds for above and below the age of 21. Angelina Whitford wrote: Maryland has had profile shots of under 21 drivers for years. In just the past few years, they have added the words "Under 21" on the license. Over 21 licenses have full-face photos and (obviously) no "Under 21" printed on it. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #036 ******************************