Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 17:33:56 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#040 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 02 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 040 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears An Alternative to Call Blocking Caller-ID and ISDN Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN Credit Reporting Accuracy 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: "Scott E. Preece" Subject: An Alternative to Call Blocking Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 20:28:51 GMT Perhaps there's a technology reason why this doesn't work, but... Why not just require each local company to assign each subscriber TWO numbers, not related to each other algorithmically (or, at least, one of them not derivable from the other). Instead of having call blocking send no number, have it send the alternate number, which is uniquely assigned to the caller but is not a number that someone can call back to? This retains the ability to identify harrassing callers (enhances it, since you could then eliminate real blocking and always have a traceable number attached to any incoming call. It retains the ability to recognize calling numbers as calls you want to grab or ignore. And it doesn't seem like it should cost much to implement. Since the space of numbers is limited, you might want to use simply make the new numbers 1 digit longer and use a new prefix to identify them (a letter, perhaps, if the standard allows that). -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 uucp: uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece, arpa: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 92 17:34 EDT From: michael.scott.baldwin@att.com Subject: Caller-ID and ISDN Here in NJ, ISDN/Centrex users are fully integrated with Caller-ID: any phone number that would show up at home on my Caller-ID box (which is most of 201/908) also shows up on my ISDN phone at work. Likewise, when I call a Caller-ID box from work, my office number (not a trunk line or main number) shows up on the box. This is even better than Caller-ID because there is no silly analog message between the 1st and 2nd ring; the info arrives in the SETUP message on the D-channel at the instant the phone starts to ring. Also, when I am talking and another call arrives, I again get the Caller-ID info on my display immediately. Curiously, these phones do not have any memory for calling numbers. I hook my computer to an AT&T 7506 API phone and store them that way. Caller-ID is much more useful in this configuration, I find. When I'm talking to person A and receive a call from person B, I can decide in real-time whether to tell A to hold or to let B leave a message. Depending on who A and B are, the answer changes. And yes, I know that number->name mappings aren't unique or 100% reliable, but after using it for years I find it to be good enough for all practical purposes. When I see INCOMING CALL (unknown ID), that tells me something too: it is probably *not* the president or my spouse from home. ------------------------------ From: egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) Subject: Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 22:59:19 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? I was dreading getting my new New Mexico drivers license this spring. New Mexico has always (relative to me anyway) had a space for the SSN. In years past, I have just not given it to them and there was no big deal. A few years ago, as a part of an overhaul of the national trucking something-or-other, congress passed a law that allowed states to require the SSN on drivers licenses. As some of you may recall from my post of paragraph 7 of the 1974 privacy act a few weeks ago, this gives the state the legal right to request the SSN. I took my social security card to the department of motor vehicles when the time came. I DID request to see the required notice from the 1974 privacy act. This turned out to be a good thing. First, the clerk didn't have any idea what I was talking about and had to find a supervisor. Second, I tried to be very polite and freindly at all times. Never piss off a bureaucrat. The supervisor finally found some memo that just happened to mention the federal law. I decided to let that count BECAUSE (drum role...) The supervisor found that my main objection was having the SSN out where everyone could see it who wanted some ID for a check to be cashed. It turned out there was a feature of the system, unknown to the local clerk, that allowed DIFFERENT numbers in the master data base. So... Now my SSN is in the New Mexico DMV computer as allowed by law. However, my new drivers license has the following in the SSN field: 000-00-0000 Maybe other states are as enlightened as New Mexico. Or was that just maybe a bug/feature of hte New Mexico computer system that will be "fixed" four years from now? Skip Egdorf hwe@lanl.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 18:04:23 GMT From: "Mark P. Neely" Subject: Credit Reporting Accuracy From: John Q Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." >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 Australian Govt. recently introduced (1988) a Privacy Act (which was then substantially amended in 1991 to make provision for credit reporting). Originally the legislation dealt only with privacy & govt. records. The amendments introduced strict requirements on Credit Reporting Agencies (CRA's) and Credit Providers (CP's) (who make use of CRA reports). Essentially it requires CP's to seek the express consent to their making various enquiries of - and the fulfillment of them by - CRA's. But the legislation also requires the CRA to purge its records of information which do not fall within certain categories (specified in the Act), and that they take every reasonable step to ensure the (a) integrity and (b) accuracy of their records! It also provides that CRA's must provide upon request copies of people's credit reports to the individuals concerned (free of charge if the requests are not more frequent than once every 6 mths). The legislation then sets out specific steps that an individual can take in having his/her credit report amended! In addition, a Privacy Commissioner has been appointed to "watch over" the legislation. Any Comments? Mark N. Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au Articled Clerk & Tutor - Law School, NTU, Darwin NT Australia DISCLAIMER: The views expressed herein are my own. They do not reflect the views of my firm nor those of the University. Unless otherwise indicated, the contents are not a formal legal opinion or advice. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #040 ******************************