Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 17:58:24 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#048 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 11 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 048 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Concerns About New Phone Service Re: Privacy in video rental records? Re: Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs Re: Privacy and blood Ta-Ta for now... 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, 11 Jun 1992 13:38:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Concerns About New Phone Service In today's {Newsday} there's an article about a concern from the head of the State Consumer Protection Board regarding Call Return. The intro goes into a scenario where the phone is ringing while the homeowner is bringing in a bag or bags of groceries and misses the call (the radio ad is even better with the sound of breaking glass). This scenario was provided by a psychologist who described another scene that affected him where he called a "highly disturbed individual, a convicted felon" calling him back via *69 after the psychologist had called him. I quote here: "To my astonishment, this individual was on the line ... He was able to access my private unlisted phone in my home by pressing a code furnished by ... the telephone company." This has raised a concern with the CPB and it's head, Richard Kessell, a consumer activist who is not in favor of these provisions of CLASS service (I don't think he's in favor of any of them). According to him it's the case of technology meeting privacy head on and changes should be made by the NY Legislature. He wants to determine what is needed to insure that New Yorkers retain a standard of privacy that they've come to expect (I don't but that with telemarketers, junk mailers, etc. innundating me). "This service is meant to be a convenience for the customer," said Maureen Flanagan, a spokesperson for New York Telephone. "The experience in other areas where we have introduced it (Poughkeepsie and Rockland County) has been very productive." There are just two known problems with this service according to another NYTel person, and they surfaced recently from Long Islanders. The article goes on and Caller-ID is discussed with the emphasis put on privacy. It is my feeling that because the system is new, there are bugs that have to be worked out and the subscribers to these services made aware of the up and down sides to each individual issue and what is best for them. As for me, I plan to take CID with a per call block, Call Return (I've used it and like it), and Call Trace with a price tag of $1.50 per pop. One other item has surfaced -- Repeat Dialing. It's interesting but I don't see the need for it when I have a Redial button on my phone already. Dave Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 11:46:10 -0600 From: "j.a. fielden" Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records? In article you write: > >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 Hmmm, I had a membership with a Giant video store that became a Blockbuster video store not too long ago. When I rented a tape they didn't have me fill out any kind of membership form saying the original membership from Giant transferred. I never filled out an application form for Giant since my parents just listed me along with them. I wonder how their policy would apply to me since I never signed anything in writing agreeing with it. Do they also list this provision on their rental slip? ------------------------------ From: "j.a. fielden" Subject: Re: Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 11:56:07 MDT In article you write: < deleted > > >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. > Actually it was lost before that. Why does a licensce certifying me to operate a motor vehicle have to have my residence on it and anytime I move I'm supposed to report it within 30 days. Same for ID cards. The last one I got they ran down all the addresses they had and asked me if I'd lived at any other address they didn't know about. I found that _very_ disturbing. My passport only has my place of birth on it. ------------------------------ From: The Wolfe of the Den Subject: Re: Privacy and blood Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 17:39:17 GMT In rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes: >Khan writes: > >> >In California, there is a statewide database of people who should be >> >excluded from donating blood for any reason. It is of course useful these >> >days for donors with AIDS, but the database predates the AIDS epidemic. > >Irony of ironies: William Dannemeyer, (R-Anaheim, CA), arch- >conservative and nationally famous homophobe had the temerity to suggest >in 1985 that a database of all HIV-positive people should be kept in >order to prevent these same from donating blood...... > >Normally I don't agree with much Dannemeyer has to say, but I frequently >find that the propaganda put out by some of the more obnoxious elements >of the homosexual community to be downright dangerous for themselves, if >to no one else. Just last year, I read a so-called 'saf-er sex guide' >published via sci.med.aids that suggested that sex with multiple >partners, fistf-cking, and prostitution, were all acceptable practices >that "can be done with minimal risk of AIDS," and that warnings against >these practices "are based on moralism not medicine." Oh really? Yes, really. Note, it says *minimal* risk, not NO risk. As for being "acceptable", you are in no position to make the judgement of what someone else feels is acceptable. No one is suggesting that *you* HAVE to go out and perform any of these actions. Additionally, I do not recall that the guide you referred to prostitution with any particular admiration. It pointed out that sex with a prostitute is generally less safe than sex with someone of less frequent intercourse, but through propers safeguards and protection, the risk could be minimized. The risk to privacy here is that those who have opinions and lifestyles that are less tolerated than others are perceived as having less of a right to privacy than others. Are we supposed to tolerate less privacy for some minority simply because other minorities feel they are less worthy of protection? I urge the moderator to quash the negative comments and keep the conversation from devolving into something I can see on any other number of newsgroups. -- 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" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 17:57:22 EDT From: Computer Privacy List Moderator Subject: Ta-Ta for now... This will be the last Digest distributed this week, as I will be off tomorrow. Dennis Rears, your regularly scheduled moderator, will be back in the office on Monday, and will take over Digest/Usenet editing, list subscription/deletion matters, and all the rest. So long! tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #048 ******************************