Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:29:11 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#114 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 17 Dec 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 114 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears More on SSNs as used by VA DMV Ownership of Telephone Numbers Re: User-transparent encryption? Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1 Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions Re: Fully automated speeding tickets UPS Digital Clipboards Computers and detective work Re: Radar Detectors Re: Department of Energy gains spy power, paper says 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 [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:47:26 -0500 From: David C Lawrence Subject: More on SSNs as used by VA DMV I just got back from a pretty lousy experience with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles during which I managed to retain a remarkable amount of composure while feeling pretty well pissed off about the whole thing. Most of the experience has little to do with this forum, except the issue of Social Security Number use came back up. After the next five paragraphs of whining, I will ask for input from people who have dealt with the VA DMV on this issue before. The last 60 lines is a transcript from a DMV form. What basically happened was the when I asked not to have my SSN be my driver's license number (DL#) I was told that it must be. The person I was dealing with did not seem to have much of a clue about workings at the DMV in general, but did know enough to immediately offer me the piece of paper which she claimed mandated it. It is relatively short, so I will type it in at the end of this note. No where does it give the lawful _basis_ for their insistance that the SSN be the DL#. I eventually relented just because I've had a lot of hassles about a lot of stupid things just to get to this point. I was willing to take my license with the SSN emblazoned on it, with the thought in the back of my head that I could get it changed when I came armed with more information. It is with somewhat mixed emotions that I report that my SSN is not now on my driver's license. That's because I still don't have my VA license, due to a continuing comedy of errors that has not been particularly funny. The short form: they told me I could get my motorcycle only license here by taking the vision test, the motorcycle written test and then the motorcycle road test --- this all because my NY DL just expired on my birthday Saturday. So I took them all today, the examiner approved me for my VA motorcycle only license, I was in the payment line, they punched it up, told me how much to pay, I wrote the cheque ... and the computer won't take it because I didn't take the auto written test. Now I have to go back for that. (Stupid questions that don't have anything directly to do with driving. "The penalty for a first offense conviction of drunken driving is ..." I don't even drink booze!) I'll get back to the relevant bits. I expect to be going back tomorrow to take the auto written and road tests, providing I can find someone with a car that will go. Presuming that all goes through, and that NJ DMV finally tells the National Driver's Registry (or whatever) that our little disagreement about something that happened in 1988 is _finally_ cleared up, then I am once again to be faced with actually getting that little piece of laminated cardboard and having some sort of number printed on it as my primary form of ID. What I would really like to know is the magic words to make them not use my SSN as my DL#. I am certain I have seen it published here that some Virginians have accomplished this feat even without having lack of an SSN as an excuse (which is what Tyson's Corner DMV is telling me is their exception). In fact, I thought it was a couple of people providing first hand accounts of how they accomplished it. A pointer to archives of this digest would be a good start (feel free to insert one here, Dennis), but it would be even better if I could hear from the other people who have conquered this. [Moderator's Note: Location of the archives is put as part of the banner of the digest. Thanks for reminding me that USENET folks don't get the digest. Here's the banner: 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 [129.139.160.133]. ._dennis ] You know you have a sad life when you have the telephone numbers for three states' DMVs memorised. David Lawrence Here is the text of slip of a paper that they gave me. One side: Commonwealth of Virginia DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES The Requirement for Disclosure of Social Security Number CERTIFICATE OF TITLE/DRIVER'S LICENSE It is mandatory that all persons who have been assigned a social security number and who apply for a Virginia Certificate of Title or Driver's License must furnish their social security number on the application in accordance with Sections 46.1-52 (Titles) and 46.1-368 (Driver's Licenses) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Otherwise the Certificate of Title or Driver's License will be denied. If you have never been issued a social security number, you will not be required to obtain one, but must so indicate on the application. In such instances, DMV will supply a control number as the Driver's License number. The Division of Motor Vehicles uses the social security number as the licensee's Driver's License number for record keeping purposes only. This information is furnished to you in compliance with Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 (Federal Privacy Act of 1974). The other side: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICHLES DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION VEHICLE TITLE AND/OR REGISTRATION AND DRIVER'S LICENSE The information requested on an application for a certificate of title and/or registration or driver's license in accordance with Section 46.1-52 (Titles and Registrations) and Section 46.1-368 (Driver's License), of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, is subject to dissemination to authorized agencies or individuals. Any person who refuses to supply the required information will be denied a certificate of title and/or registration or driver's license. All registration and title records in the office of the Division of Motor Vehicles are public records subject to such regulations as the Commissioner may adopt. Copies of administrative rules and regulations are available from the Division of Motor Vehicles, 2220 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia. This information is furnished to you in compliance with Title 2.1, Chapter 26, Section 2.1-382, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. (Virginia Privacy Protection Act of 1976) MOA-50 ------------------------------ From: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil Subject: Ownership of Telephone Numbers Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 14:58:00 I don't know if this applies to private residence numbers, but recently, MCI has been advertising in California that if you want lower rates on your 800-number charges, you can transfer from Pacific Telephone and TAKE YOUR 800-NUMBER WITH YOU. This kind of implies that the number belongs to you, not to the telco. Rick Kitchen kitchenrn@ssd0.laafb.af.mil ------------------------------ From: Don Watrous Subject: Re: User-transparent encryption? Date: 14 Dec 92 23:43:45 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes: >The only answer is to be on a single-user machine -- not allow any other >logins (or any remote access via RPC) while you're logged in. Once you've >done that, PEM can take care of mail privacy and DES can handle file >privacy. And boot it from your own disk or a Trojan could get you. Don -- {backbone}!cs.rutgers.edu!watrous watrous@cs.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ From: Brad Whitlock Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:56:10 CST Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1 In Dave Gomberg writes: >I am real sorry guys. If the idea is use my DL number, not my SSN, so I >can evade my obligations, I am against it. There is enough evasion of >obligations already. The point is, there is nothing legal you can use the SSN for that DL can't provide. Just how do you use my SSN, hmmm? I've never gotten a good answer to that question before; presumably you can fill me in? And by the way, do you demand to see the original SSA-issue SSN card? No? How do you know the person is giving you their real SSN, and not someone else's? > If not, prepare to cough up everything if you want $$$ from me. Fine. There's probably someone else who *does* want my business. Brad Whitlock bjwhitlock@vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: StarOwl Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:06:52 GMT In article , Charles Scripter writes: >>In dileo@brl.mil (John DiLeo, CSB) writes: >> > Actually, I'm not so sure about DC. However, radar detectors are >> > illegal in Connecticut, and the presence of one in the passenger >> > compartment of a vehicle (including under the seat, unplugged) can >> > (or at least once did) carry a pretty hefty penalty. If one was >> > permanently installed in another state (the variety where the >> > transceiver is behind the grill, and the control unit is in the >> > dash) you could only be ticketed if they believed it was operating. >Isn't use of electronic surveillance devices illegal under federal >law? (from the days of Watergate). Wouldn't that make the use of >police radar illegal, without a warrant?... Not that this is a privacy issue, but I thought that banning radar detectors was technically a violation of federal law. I think there is a federal law on the books, dating back from the '30's, which affirms citizens' rights to receive signals broadcast anywhere in the electromagnetic spectrum. -- Michael Adams | Science without religion is lame; Actuarial Science Program @ UIUC | religion without science is blind. StarOwl@uiuc.edu (NeXTmail OK) | -- Thomas Edison an692@anon.penet.fi (anonymously) | NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv ------------------------------ From: Joe Kennedy Subject: Re: Fully automated speeding tickets Date: 15 Dec 1992 03:36:51 GMT Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA It is my understanding, at least in Campbell, CA., that the photo radar equipment is not sold to the police, but is leased. The manufacturer of the equipment, somewhere in Texas, collects royalties from each ticket collected. Does anyone know if this is true, and if so, how widespread is this ( vile ) practice ? It seems to me that of someone were to get a couple of 12 volt very high intensity lamps, such as aircraft wing lights, and use them to illuminate the liscense plate, the liscense plate image in the photo should be completely washed out. Certainly, there is no way the same film frame could properly record a highly illuminated plate AND a normally illuminated driver's face. jk ------------------------------ From: Ed Ravin Subject: UPS Digital Clipboards Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:10:38 GMT Organization: Not Just Another Pretty Face In article roy@cybrspc.uucp (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >As you might expect, UPS has conveniently forgotten that they demanded >I _sign_ the pad. I print, he accepts it and we go on about our work. >So far, nobody's clipboard has been hijacked and I haven't seen my >purloined siggie attached to any incriminating faxes. Perhaps the risks >were overstated in the beginning. Do what many of us techno-troublemakers are already doing with junk mail lists -- sign an extra middle initial or two, or otherwise alter your moniker so that you can identify "the signature I use on UPS clipboards". I do this for most new groups that I join, just to see how far and wide they will scatter my name. For example, the amount of mail I receive from other groups when I joined the Sierra Club is frightening -- fortunately, the stream of mail withered away when I renewed and scribbled "STOP SHARING MY NAME WITH OTHER MAILERS" on the renewal form. >But UPS hasn't started dumping the clipboards' contents by radio, yet. >Wonder if they're familiar with the terms 'encryption' and 'scanner'? Don't worry, be happy, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it illegal for anyone to "listen" to the stuff :-) :-) -- Ed Ravin | I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology eravin@panix.com | where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature philabs!trintex!elr | returned to our mammal brothers and sisters, +1 914 993 4737 | and all watched over by machines of loving grace ------------------------------ From: Mark Gellis Subject: Computers and detective work Organization: Purdue University Computing Center Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:18:56 GMT I've become interested in the use of computers for detective and police work. (Mostly, if you must know, because I write and I want the informa- tion for background material.) Unfortunately, there do not seem to be many good books on the subject--on the actual nuts-and-bolts, how-they- do-it stuff. Does anyone have any information on this subject, either sources you would recommend, or any interesting stories/folklore/etc. detailing procedures? Thanks in advance. Mark f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu ------------------------------ From: Matthew B Cravit Subject: Re: Radar Detectors Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:16:56 EST In comp.privacy.digest #112, Paul Olson writes: > Yea, it is possible to detect radar detectors. Apparently, some detectors giv e > off a small amount of microwave activity themselves. The VSP have a box to > detect changes in the level of ambient microwaves, and can tell if you're In fact, I was in Radio Shack recently, and they had two radar detectors sitting on the counter and beeping away periodically. I asked the manager what they were detecting, and he replied "each other." An interesting tidbit - I am from Canada, and where I lived, if the police found a radar detector in your car, they could confiscate it, fine you, and potentially charge you with obstruction of justice. And this applied even if the detector was turned off, unplugged and in a glove compartment. Of course, who knows how they could find it in that case, but if it is plugged in, and visible, it is illegal even if it is turned off AND if you are not speeding. I've also heard rumours that the police periodically auction off these confiscated detectors. Hmm... the cops giveth and the cops taketh away... :-> /Matthew cravitma@student.msu.edu ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Re: Department of Energy gains spy power, paper says Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:30:03 GMT "Len E. Elam" writes: >I spotted this in the Monday, December 7, 1992 morning edition of the >{Fort Worth Star-Telegram} on Section A, Page 10: >From Wire Reports > HOUSTON -- The U.S. Department of Energy has won approval of >procedures that allow the agency to spy on citizens, a newspaper >reported yesterday in a copyright story. Interesting. DOE mostly uses Wackenhut Corporation for security, and Wackenhut has a reputation for doing more than just providing guards. (See recent article in "Spy" magazine). Perhaps this is a ploy to get Wackenhut more authority. Watch and see where Barr ends up after Clinton replaces him. Wackenhut's board already has had a former FBI director, a former DIA director, a former Secret Service Director, a former NSA director, a former Defense secretary, a former NORAD commander, and two former CIA deputy directors. Will they complete their collection with a former AG? I recommend the Spy article, in the September 1992 issue, for a lurid account of Wackenhut's involvement with DoE, Iran/Contra, El Salvador, Iraq, Libya, weapons deals, etc. Names, dates, and places are given. Wackenhut even admits some of these involvements. They don't think of themselves as the bad guys, just the guys who do the Government's dirty work. John Nagle ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #114 ******************************