Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 18:17:56 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#120 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 30 Dec 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 120 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Schools and SSN Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions SSN and new baby Radar Detector Prohib Posting Email (was Re: Final Answer to Tavares) Re: UPS Digital Clipboards Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers Zip+4 Problems? 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]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Schools and SSN Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 24 Dec 92 14:54:57 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" >I think the reason for kids needing SSN to enter school and kids having >them by the time is so that the Feds can better track abducted kids. I'll bet anyone a dollar that the school merely writes down the alleged SSN provided for each kid without any verification. A kidnapper (or more likely a parent fleeing an abusive spouse) with the brains of a chipmunk would give a fake SSN. As has often been noted before, one of the reasons that the SSN is a poor choice of ID is that it is so easy to make one up. Practically any nine digit string starting with 0 through 5 is a valid SSN. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Phil Karn Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions Organization: Qualcomm, Inc Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:35:04 GMT These "radar detector detectors" probably operate by looking for spurious microwave local oscillator radiation from the detectors. Any superhet or synchrodyne detector is going to have a local oscillator, and shielding it sufficiently is probably too expensive. Too much leaks back through the mixer to the antenna. An alternative would be to spread the local oscillator and then despread it at the first IF. Hopefully the spurious radiation would then be too far below the noise floor of the detector detector. Phil ------------------------------ Subject: SSN and new baby Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 14:19:31 -0500 From: "David I. Dalva" What experience have people in this group had in keeping the SSN of a newborn private? I have heard that some hospitals insist on submitting the paperwork to the Social Security Administration to obtain the number. Dave ------------------------------ From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) Subject: Radar Detector Prohib Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario. Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:07:02 GMT Date Entered: 12-28-92 13:58 John De Armond writes: in Message-ID: JD> No, not at all. The states base their law on their right to regulate JD> what equipment is used in a vehicle. Virginia got burned early on by JD> confiscating detectors they could not prove was being operated in JD> the vehicle. Thus the use of radar detector detectors. JD> This is the same basis used to rationalize scanner bans and red/blue JD> flashing light bans. Whether this rational would withstand a Supreme Court JD> test is anyone's guess. Interesting discussion, but obviously limited to the US. In Canada the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, simply made them illegal. No question of constitutional rights, or court challenge... just plain made them illegal... Obviously the US needs to have its constitution changed, to make it possible for the Executive Branch to simply follow the same course, for the good of ALL drivers. After all, speed kills. Congress would love it, wouldn't they? Look at all the porkbarreling eliminated this way. US Taxpayers might actually SAVE money, too. Bob --- RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own! RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285 ------------------------------ From: John De Armond Subject: Posting Email (was Re: Final Answer to Tavares) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 09:43:29 GMT Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access. The Mouth of the South. ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes: >[Email posted without my permission is deleted, as such an act is > totally unacceptable to me. I have stated before that I consider > such an act a gross breach of net.ethics.] >{Since Tavares is willing to stoop to the posting of email without > permission or even notification, the followup is set to a group > where he will feel much more at home} This thread originated in talk.politics.guns but it has wider implications so this is cross-posted appropriately. I received this month's "Folio" magazine, a trade publication of the publishing industry. In the "Briefings" column (current events) is a note that is relevant to people posting private email. "Harpers" magazine has just been ordered to pay "controversal writing professor" (Folio's words) Gordon Lish $2000 in a violation of the fair use provision of the Copyright act. A federal judge found that Harpers violated fair use by publishing about half of a letter Lish sends to prospective students. Harpers published the letter to "illustrate Lish's writing style." While the judge threw out Lish's claims of libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false representation, he did order "Harpers" to pay at the rate of $1.67 per word (!) Gee, wish I could get that word rate for articles I write! Assuming this case withstands Harpers stated intent to appeal, it sets the groundwork for a similar suit against those who publish Email wtihout permission. I suspect that a suit against some Usenetter who publishes email with the intent to embarrass or cause intentional harm is only matter of time. (Before anyone asks, No I have no further details. If you're interested in details, look it up on Westlaw or something.) John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility? Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? Marietta, Ga | Send ur snail-mail address to jgd@dixie.com | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com. ------------------------------ From: Leonard Erickson Subject: Re: UPS Digital Clipboards Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon. Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:41:10 GMT allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes: >I usually get a brick, wrap it in brown paper, and glue the envelope I get >from other groups on top of the brick, writing on the envelope 'Delivery >Refused'. Since the sending company must then pay the extra postage on the >brick, I seldom get a followup from a company, although one company was stupid >enough to send me two more notices, so on the third (total) notice from them, >I wrapped up about four bricks in a small box and glued the envelope on the >top of this box. I never got another notice from this company! What you describe above *is* annoying the companies it gets done to. So annoying that they got it made *illegal* as "misuse of return postage" or some such. I don't recall the exact details, but if I were you, I'd be expecting to get a visit from a postal inspector some fine day... -- Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com FIDO: 1:105/51 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org (The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred) ------------------------------ From: "T. Archer" Subject: Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers Organization: University of Tennessee Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:42:05 GMT In article Leonard Erickson writes: >Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!computer-privacy-request >Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:27:23 GMT >From: Leonard Erickson >Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy >Subject: Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers >Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org >Message-ID: >Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon. >Sender: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil >Approved: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil >X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil >X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil >X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 116, Message 6 of 11 >Lines: 27 >KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil writes: > >>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. > >800 numbers are a special case. They are being made "portable" so that you >can change long distance companies without the penalty of having to get all >your business cards, ads, etc reprinted. > >800 numbers are just a translation table lookup anyway. They merely "map" >to a specific "normal number". > >Regular phone numbers are most *definitely* owned by the phone company. >Ask the folks who have had their number changed when the phone company >put in a new exchange here! > Or ask any BBS operator who has moved across town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ From: Dewey Coffman Subject: Zip+4 Problems? Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 16:04:14 CUT I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this "extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself other than "where to send the mail"? -- Dewey Coffman ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey%ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com Consulting @ IBM dewey@ctci.com 11400 Burnet Rd All opinions are mine. Austin, TX 78758-3493, USA (512) 823-6463 =============================================================================== Social Security Earnings Report 1-800-772-1213, "Lead or Leave" 800-99-CHANGE ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #120 ******************************