Date: Fri, 29 May 92 15:59:13 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#037 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 29 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 037 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Perot Campaign and Telecom Privacy Re: Isn't personal privacy a little overrated ? My view on Caller ID Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: All my AmEx cards had no marketing release options with them. Re: Call waiting and Caller ID Re: Cordless Phones Re: AmEx Settlement The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.200]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 May 92 22:56:32 -0400 From: John Q Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." In article >2. Even if I had nothing to hide, the real-life data-collectors are very > inacurate. How many folks have been sending in to TRW lately to see > just how much stuff the had to have removed from their credit records? > Either by accident or malice, false information can be very damaging. Hear hear. I recently obtained a copy of my credit report and found a HUGE number of incorrect entries. Seems that someone else is either using my name, or has a similar one. In any case, the attempt to get the incorrect stuff removed has been hellish! The credit reporting bureaus flagrantly ignore the FTC regulations. Even worse, the FTC has told me that there is really nothing they could do about this, and forwarded me a copy of their interpretations of the regs. which differ markedly from what is on the paper. So, has anyone had a similar situation and been successful in getting the incorrect cruft removed? If so, PLEASE tell me how you did it! Frankly, I believe we should have laws similar to the German ones whereby the consumer can demand that their credit file be erased. Granted, nobody then will give you credit, but it's your option. Damnit, these people are selling information which belongs to US. The least they could do is be held accountable for getting it right! Q ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 May 92 12:37:11 PDT From: peter marshall Subject: Perot Campaign and Telecom Privacy Another side to "1-800 Democracy" and "Electronic Town Halls" re: the Perot campaign is suggested by a DALLAS MORNING NEWS article appearing in the 5/24 SEATTLE TIMES/SEATTLE PI. As political uses of communication tech goes, this article quotes Christopher Arterton, author of TELEDEMOCRACY and ELECTRONIC COMMONWEALTH, as saying "No previous use of technology has been 'nearly as extensive' as the one Perot seems to be preparing." According to the article, "Numbers from incoming calls to the petition committee have already been shipped to a database company called Telematch," who "can check phone numbers and addresses against other databases to get details about...hobbies, purchasing habits and other electronically available histories, if the Perot team so chooses. These profiles could be used to generate lists of Americans who have not called the...campaign, but whose background suggests they might be disposed to vote for him." The article notes Perot had founded Electronic Data Systems Corp., now a GM subsidiary, along with Perot Systems Corp. -- Peter Marshall(rocque@lorbit.uucp) "Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Grodberg Subject: Re: Isn't personal privacy a little overrated ? Date: Tue, 26 May 92 00:31:07 GMT In article jartz@bassoon.mitre.org (John Artz) writes: >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. [stuff deleted] I think you have framed a very good topic for discussion. Let me begin by asying I am glad you agree with the Fourth Amendment. As for you example of use of the credit card, I believe that such information should be considered both your property and the credit card companies property. Marc Rotenberg (sp?) of CPSR likes to say that such information should not be used for other than the purpose for which it was given, without the consumer's affirmative consent. For example, when I apply for a credit card, I am willing to give the credit card company detailed information about my finances, solely for the purpose of having them evaluate my credit-worthiness. I am going to be very, very unhappy if they decide to take out an ad in the New York Times and fill it with all the information I gave them. (Such and ad is not inconceivable: suppose my financial picture was really bad: bankruptcy, missed payments, unemployed. If they were to give me credit anyway, they might run an ad saying "Look at how bad this guy's credit is, and we gave him a credit line of $3000. Don't you think we'd do at least as good for you?") Similarly, when I buy a piece of furniture and charge it on my card, I am giving the credit card company information only for the purpose of correctly transferring money around; I don't at all like it that they then sell the information that I have spent a lot of money on furniture to anyone who wants to know. [An important component of the current debate is the disparity of information, and profit from it. If everyone could freely find out everything about anyone, then the privacy issue would be quite different. However, the people running businesses hide behind the business entity, and are thus shielded from the people whose privacy they are invading. The businesses sell information about individuals without their consent and often without thier knowledge. There is no way to buy an expensive (> $10,000) item without the government finding out about it one way or another. So people feel that their privacy has been infringed more than would be necessary as a normal course of living a part of your life in public.] A business might know all sorts of things about me, like how much I can afford to pay for a certain item, and how much I might like to have it, just from my credit card data. They might use that information as part of their negotiation with me over how much to charge me for the item. I, however, will have little ability to find out how much the item really costs them, or how low a price the can sell it for and still make a profit, so they have a great advantage in the barganing. There are hundreds of similar, practical ways in which individuals are hurt by their lack of privacy. Since privacy has been reduced in recent years, and since humans have an innate desire for a certain amount of privacy, the debate has been focused on restoring the status quo ante, rather than eliminating all privacy. I believe that people should be able to retain as much privacy as is possible, within the realm of reason. Certainly, Marc Rotenberg's limitation is a good starting point. As for your comment about gossiping, there are some things you can do. Presumably, you can limit the information you can give to people. To the extent people are saying untrue things about you that you are hurt by, you can sue them for slander. You can stop telling people things you don't want everyone to know. And, if Marc Rotenberg's sentiment became law, you could probably take legal action against them. You already have a case if you doctor or lawyer discloses information you gave them in confidence. This country is founded on the premise that we can find a balance among competing interests that will do the most good for the greatest number of people. A strenthening of personal privacy laws would clearly (to me) -- Jeremy Grodberg Commited to developing user-friendly products, jgro@netcom.com Because technology is supposed to make life easier ------------------------------ From: "Darren E. Penner (Dokken" Subject: My view on Caller ID Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 09:34:10 GMT I must say that as a subscriber to Caller ID I can see NO reason in the world anyone has a Right to keep their phone number a secret from me. These people are using a resource which I PAY to have installed in my house and as such, I believe that they should be forced to identify themselve to use this resource. The only situations I can see that may offend some people are the cases of the Husband/Wife being at the bar and then phoning home and being caught red handed by the system. But still, they made the choice to call home, and they made the choice to install the system in their homes. Oh well, if they implement that system in Alberta I guess that my answering machine will be taking a lot more of my calls for me. (As it is with the only partially complete net up here I get more than enough Unknown Number signals than I like, but surprisingly few people have paid the $0.75 to get 411 to call me anonymously... So I don't think the MAJORITY of the people want this service destroyed.... As free call blocking would do. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Darren E. Penner | dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca | Opinions are my KWM Consultants Limited (Work) | alberta!bode!dpenner | own unless stated U of A, Edmonton, (University) | Phone No. (403)-481-8785 | otherwise. ------------------------------ From: "James W. Melton" Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 27 May 92 03:30:00 GMT In article gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes: >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 My two cents (for what it's worth): The premise is invalid because we all have something to hide. This is the basic concept of privacy. Knowledge of a someone's personal details is called intimacy, and intimacy must always be given, never taken. The presumption of intimacy is called the invasion of privacy. Years ago, intimacy was more closely guarded by society: Use of first names was not assumed by every casual acquaintance (or sales person); the marketplace was always formal. The dropping of these societal barriers against personal intrusion has, I suppose, led some to believe that they no longer have the right, much less the ability, to control who has access to their private lives. Feeling this loss of control, many people have reacted to the intrusion into their personal lives by government, business, strangers. I presume that is the purpose of the newsgroup. Maintaining privacy and functioning in today's society is a delicate balance. Several years ago, I needed verification that I had registered with the Selective Service (Draft Board). I was given an 800 number. The lady I spoke with asked me for my Social Security Number. As I told her the last digit, she immediately called me by name. Scary, huh? ---- -- Jim Melton, novice guru email: flash@austin.lockheed.com | "So far as we know, our voice mail: (512) 386-4486 | computer has never had fax: (512) 386-4223 | an undetected error" ------------------------------ From: Bob Weiner Subject: Re: All my AmEx cards had no marketing release options with them. Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 20:22:43 GMT For the last 6 years, any AmEx card I've gotten came with a form which gave me a simple and clear choice whether or not I wanted my name to go out to Amex-related or for-sale marketing lists. So what is new in the Seattle Times report mentioned? Bob -- Given that much of society can't now deal with the pace of technological advancement, should we continue purposeful technology acceleration trends? ------------------------------ From: Bob Weiner Subject: Re: Call waiting and Caller ID Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 20:29:29 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net 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. This seems to imply that someone will never use caller-ID on an ISDN circuit, in which the separate D channel (data channel) is used for call setup and tear down control. Whether one or more B channels were in use would then be irrelevant as to whether one could be presented with the caller-ID info for another call. I see no reason why someone should presume that caller-ID (a generic service feature that can be implemented in many ways) be discussed only within the context of today's prevalent analog circuits. Bob -- Given that much of society can't now deal with the pace of technological advancement, should we continue purposeful technology acceleration trends? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Organization: Miles Inc., Diagnostics Division, Elkhart, IN References: Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:24:32 GMT In article ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: >TOTAL COMPLETE ABSOLUTE NONSENCE! I own a panasonic two channel >cordless telephone. There is an AT&T cordless on another line in the >house and our neighbors own their own cordless phone. The AT&T and >our neighbors phone each have only one channel. Guess what? The AT&T >is my channel 1 and the neighbors are on my channel 2. If I want to >listen in on either I just turn my phone on! when the AT&T phone >rings I can hear the ring through my handset (it doesn't actually >cause my phone to ring). If my phone is on channel two and my >neighbors phone rings, SO DOES MINE! The only reason they can't call >through my handset is because panasonic uses a code between the >handset and the base which tells the base that this handset is >authorized to call out. In addition, if I forget to change my phone >off channel 2 I often can't even answer a call from the handset >because of interference from the neighbors. I have to run upstairs >and touch the antenna from my handset to the base in order to answer >the call. So don't tell me about statistical probabilities. Either I >just hit a probablity so low that I'd have a better chance of >winning the lottery or your just plain wrong. > > The Jester Well, Jester, you are correct in stating that the probabilities of two cordless phones being on the same channel is somewhat higher than a previous poster suggested, however I think that your case IS a little unusual. Basically, since you have a two channel phone, and each of the other phones nearby are (presumably) 1-channel, each of the other phones has a 2-in-10 chance of having a common channel with your set. With two other phones, that would be .2 * .2, or .04 chance of both phones having a common channel with your set. The odds of one being on each channel or your set are somewhat lower. The math is left as an exercise for the reader (READ: I don't feel like doing it). So, yes, you did hit an off chance, but remember, the lottery is won by somebody :-) (Actually your odds of this occurrence are somewhat better than winning a lottery. I don't think you are a "black hole" of luck!) I would recommend that you head to your nearest Panasonic dealer and trade in your 2-channel set for one of their 10-channel sets. Then, even if there were 10 other cordless phones in your area, the odds of you being able to find at least one clear channel at any time would be extremely good. My fiancee lives in a high-rise in Chicago, and on the (rather frequent) occasions that she finds interference, she is quickly able to find a clear channel with her Panasonic 10-channel cordless. I also have the same model, and I almost never find interference (but then I live in a small town in Indiana). Disclaimer: I have no association with Panasonic other than as a satisfied customer. -- Rob Schultz At Home: At work: +1 219 262 7206 rms@andria.miles.com rms@miles.com {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!andria!rms {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!rms ------------------------------ From: rms@miles.Miles.COM (Rob Schultz) Subject: Re: AmEx Settlement Organization: Miles Inc., Diagnostics Division, Elkhart, IN Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:26:33 GMT In article lorbit!rocque@uunet.uu.net (peter marshall) writes: > The POST suggested that the AmEx settlement is thought to be >the first of its kind involving a credit-card issuer, and that AmEx >seems to be one of the most advanced users of such technologies. NY AG >Abrams stoated that he's proposed a new law requiring credit grantors >to disclose marketing uses of information and providing an "opt out" >choice for such customers. Citibank has provided this option for their VISA and MasterCard customers for over a year (I think). At one point I received a notice with my statement that discussed (in very glossed-over terms) the use/sale of customers' purchase patterns and provided a box to check if you did not want to be included in this "service". It required extra work (reading the blurb, checking the box, stuffing the notice in the envelope, mailing the envelope), but the option was there. > >-- >Peter Marshall(rocque@lorbit.uucp) >"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington. -- Rob Schultz At Home: At work: +1 219 262 7206 rms@andria.miles.com rms@miles.com {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!andria!rms {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!rms ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #037 ******************************