Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 14:17:38 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#043 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 05 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 043 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#040 Re: [J. Michael Blackford: Re: Privacy is a right] Re: Privacy in video rental records? computer privacy info needed Re: Privacy in video rental records? Re: E-Mail Privacy Policy Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs is personal privacy overrated ? Re: Cordless Phones 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: Thu, 4 Jun 92 15:54:47 MDT From: David Wade Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#040 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 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. This is a good tactic, but Bernie, Ron, and the Brunette lady all were in the room as I fought this out, and they were obviously "putting you on". 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 Skip, this is not a good thing. This is a response to my spending an afternoon in the local office being shuffled upward through their "chain of command" to the head of Department of Motor Vehicles. He finally admitted that I was right, and that if I "just gave my SSN to them for now, they would have "the program" fixed in six months and they would then give me another Driver's License, free. Of course, nothing like that happened. I did finally get the license without the SSN, but I had to pay for it. And, they now have my SSN on their records, and you can be assured that EVERY TIME YOU REPLACE YOUR LICENSE IT WILL BE PRINTED ON THE LICENSE UNLESS YOU REMEMBER TO OBJECT AT THAT TIME. It also goes out with every query about YOU, to WHOMEVER MAKES THAT QUERY. A major portion of the problem is that the Head of Motor Vehicles resigned before the change was completed, and the new fellow, (i.e. one of the fellows I had to bulldoze through, to get to the top,) doesn't believe that the SSN stuff applies to his department. The exclusion due to the Privacy Act of 1974, (That Willis Ware left in!!! 8*) ) for various Depts of Motor Vehicles is sticking us here. Maybe other states are as enlightened as New Mexico. Or was that just maybe a bug/feature of the New Mexico computer system that will be "fixed" four years from now? Skip Egdorf hwe@lanl.gov Don't expect this to change unless WE do it. You, Me, Milligan, & Schmidt! ------------------------------ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& I promised myself ( when I turned 21, ) that I wouldn't ever again do anything just once. I think that solves a lot of problems; no high speed crashes into bridge abutments, no one-night stands, etc. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 18:16 PDT From: John Higdon Subject: Re: [J. Michael Blackford: Re: Privacy is a right] Steve Forrette writes: > This reminds me of the signs many places that sell alcohol display: "If > you're under 25, you must show ID" If you're asked for ID, is it a valid > response just to inform them that you're over 25, and thus don't have to > show any according to the sign? :-) Most of the ones I see these days say, "If you look under thirty, be prepared to show your ID." Ah, those were the days. The last time I recall being "carded" was when I was thirty-five. What a compliment! I almost thanked the bouncer. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 18:12 PDT From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records? Steve Forrette writes: In re: > >> s 2710. Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records >BTW, I believe this law was passed in response to the Judge Bork nomination to >the Supreme Court. Some reporter trying to dig up some dirt purchased a >complete list of all the movies that Judge Bork had rented, and published >parts of it in the paper. They were apparently looking for some titles that >people would find offensive. Is it not fascinating that many "privacy" laws come about as the result of some embarassment or inconvenience of public officials? As I recall, some Federal legislator was supremely embarassed when a cellular telephone conversation to which he was a party was made public. The result was the silly act which proscribes the monitoring of the cellular band. And is it not amusing that the California DMV database is secure from absolutely no one except "the people"? Any collection agency, bank, governmental agency from the Toonerville PD on up, or marketing firm can look at your DMV file with more ease than you can. Indeed, many credit and check verifying companies have direct connections to the DMV computer. Some privacy! -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Joe Zobkiw Subject: computer privacy info needed Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 02:12:33 GMT I am interested in finding some information on computer privacy as it relates to workers rights when companies install software that allows managers to "oversee" the documents, applications, etc. that are being run on the workers machines. If anyone knows where I can gather some info on these things (theses, papers, etc.) please email. Thanks in advance. -- -- joe zobkiw Internet: zobkiw@world.std.com -- AOL: AFL Zobkiw -- mac.synthesis.MIDI.THINK C.OOP.asm CI$: 70712,515 -- communications.networks.cool tunes... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 00:18:15 -0700 From: Robert Lenoil Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records? In article bc335@cleveland.freenet.edu (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.) writes: >> (2) A video tape service provider may disclose personally >> identifiable information concerning any consumer- >> ... >> (D) to any person if the disclosure is solely of the names and >> addresses of consumers and if- >> ... >> (i) the video tape service provider has provided the >> consumer with the opportunity, in a clear and conspicuous manner, >> to prohibit such disclosure; and >> >> (ii) the disclosure does not identify the title, >> description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio >> visual material; however, the subject matter of such materials may >> be disclosed if the disclosure is for the exclusive use of >> marketing goods and services directly to the consumer; Last year I went to rent a tape at a Blockbuster Video near me. To rent a tape, you must be a "member." Reading the membership application, I saw (in pretty small print) that I would be signing a waiver allowing Blockbuster to use my name and address for marketing purposes. I refused to sign with that provision in the contract, they refused to accept my membership, and I now refuse to do business with them. I believe that the Wherehouse (a California record chain) has a similar waiver on its rental receipts. So be careful of the fine print when you sign a rental slip at a video store - you might be giving them permission to sell data about what you rent. As to whether this lives up to the letter of the law - providing a "clear and conspicuous" opportunity to prohibit disclosure - I have my doubts. -Robert ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 7:15:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Re: E-Mail Privacy Policy In Volume 1 : Issue: 042 "Allan H. Levy" writes: >Also, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, >electronic files are treated in the same way as paper files. >The documents in the files of employees of the State of >Illinois are considered to be public documents, and may be >subject to inspection through FOIA. In such cases, the campus >Freedom of Information Officer must inspect files to >determine which portions may be exempt from disclosure. How does this policy affect students, visiting professors, etc? They aren't employees of the State of Illinois. Other areas are research collaborations, federal grants (which might have a security classification attached). I feel that a little tighter description of just whose files are available under the FOIA and whose aren't is in order. Dave Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: Dean S Banfield Subject: Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 14:42:08 GMT The current topic seems to be that SSNs can now be required on drivers licenses but in the good old days (10 years ago). I tried, quite unsuccessfully, to keep my picture off my CT driver's license when CT adopted a picture license law. My arguments were that the DMV had no particular need or use for a photo on a license, and that the imposition of such a stipulation was strictly for alternate law enforcement purposes and other commercial uses. Raising the drinking age was a HOT topic at the time and local grocery stores certainly didn't mind going along for the ride. Obviously, an SSN provides a much more powerful computer based invasion of privacy, but where do DMV departments around the country get off being the gatekeepers for IDing everyone in the country? Have there ever been any successful arguments made against photo ID licensing which apply generally to the citizenry. I know successful exemptions are made from time to time if you can prove that you own no photographs, are a religous zealot, etc, etc. It seems to me that the 'need to collect' argument which now swirls around SSNs on licenses has already been lost on the photo ID front. How can that original loss be undone. -- Dean S. Banfield Voice: (203) 656-1500 Real Decisions Corporation FAX : (203) 656-1659 22 Thorndal Circle email: dean@world.std.com Darien, CT 06820 ------------------------------ From: John Artz Subject: is personal privacy overrated ? Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 14:08:17 GMT Consider the following scenario: If I were a minor noble in a medieval feudal system and someone proposed the preposterous notion that everyone should should have a say in government and that each person should have the right to vote, I could think of many reasons why this wouldn't work. Officials would be elected based on popularity rather than competence. Demagogues would be elected. Those seeking election would appeal to the baser instrincts of the electorate. Better looking people would have a better chance of getting elected. People may even elect an actor being unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Of course all these things are true, but we feel that the benefits of having full participation in government via the one person one vote system far outweighs the drawbacks. (I realize that the system is not perfect, nor does it work out in practice as well as it does in theory but don't miss the point here). Now consider another scenario: If I were a citizen in the later twentieth century and somebody proposed the preposterous notion that there should be no restriction on the dissemination of personal information, I could think of many reasons why this would be a disaster. I might be denied medical insurance or employment. I might get calls during diner from lawn services. My mailbox might be filled with junk mail advertizing various consumer product. I might even be targeted by the Postal Service or the FBI because I ordered a tacky magazine. Of course all these things are true. But they have to be balanced against the benefits of unrestricted information flows. As a society we place a pretty high premium on freedom of information. We strongly support public education and librarys. We refuse to allow the government to keep secret information except in the most extream circumstances. People are willing to go to jail to protect the freedom of the press, or to prevent censorship. However, when it comes to personal privacy all this high minded social responsibility comes to a screetching halt. I suggested that there should be no restrictions on the dissemination of personal information and that unrestricted flow of information, personal or otherwise should be a tenet of our social philosophy in the same way the individual voting rights are a tenet. This does not mean that it should happend tomarrow. (Voting rights have taken centuries to evolve and still need lots of work). But it should be a goal that we are heading for rather than the current trend of placing more and more restrictions on personal information. John M. Artz, Ph.D. jartz@mitre.org +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A crisis is just the end of an illusion. -- Gerald Weinberg +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: Greg Earl Webb Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 14:55:13 GMT /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. The nice thing about a 10-channel phone is that there is a GOOD chance that someone in the neighborhood will have the same channel. These means you can wal around the neighborhood until you find someone with the same channel and bingo.... Free phone calls. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #043 ******************************