Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:29:12 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V2#010 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 27 Jan 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 010 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Anti-privacy is Anti-Caller ID) Computers Freedom and Privacy '93, Mar 9-12 Innocent man jailed 9 days by computer match Is the List Still Operating Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Calling Number ID Re: Radar Detector Prohib refused store charge card when i declined to provide ssn Request to Post Office on S Any more News on Akron BBS troubles? 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]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael T. Palmer" Subject: Re: Anti-privacy is Anti-Caller ID) Date: 26 Jan 93 12:49:17 GMT Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes: >>Most of the other people who read this group are using "privacy" to >>refer to their right to keep to themselves any and all information >>which they consider to be nobody else's business. >You have this right regardless of Caller ID. If you wish to remain private, >simply choose not to call me, period! Please, Terry, please. We pay for our phones for other purposes besides calling *you*. We need to use them to call *potential* business contacts to check on services and prices, and we don't feel that we need to surrender our privacy to do so. Stop trying to cast CNID as only applicable to calling individuals. YOU probably do not collect names and addresses and sell them to telemarketers, so you don't represent the problem the rest of us are trying to avoid with CNID. Besides, how would CNID be of less use to you if the rest of us could have our blocking? You won't answer the call regardless, so your privacy is preserved. And businesses won't be able to collect our names and numbers, cross-reference them with our addresses, and sell them to telemarketers to harrass us while we're trying to eat dinner: INVADING OUR PRIVACY. And please don't tell me not to call the businesses. Businesses aren't required to advertise which of them use CNID, so we don't have the information we need to make an informed decision about which ones we should even bother calling... and it's to THEIR BENEFIT that we call them in the first place; they exist to serve us, not the other way around. -- Michael T. Palmer | "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov | other way than one which will conceal it RIPEM key on server | from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:16:06 -0800 From: CFP-93 Conference Subject: Computers Freedom and Privacy '93, Mar 9-12 CFP'93 The Third Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy 9-12 March 1993 San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel, Burlingame, CA The CFP'93 will assemble experts, advocates and interested people from a broad spectrum of disciplines and backgrounds in a balanced public forum to address the impact of computer and telecommunications technologies on freedom and privacy in society. Participants will include people from the fields of computer science, law, business, research, information, library science, health, public policy, government, law enforcement, public advocacy and many others. Some of the topics in the wide-ranging CFP'93 program will include: ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY - looking at how computers and networks are changing democratic institutions and processes. ELECTRONIC VOTING - addressing the security, reliability, practicality and legality of automated vote tallying systems and their increasing use. CENSORSHIP AND FREE SPEECH ON THE NET - discussing the problems of maintaining freedom of electronic speech across communities and cultures. PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST ON THE NET - probing the problems and potential of new forms of artistic expression enabled by computers and networks. DIGITAL TELEPHONY AND CRYPTOGRAPHY - debating the ability of technology to protect the privacy of personal communications versus the needs of law enforcement and government agencies to tap in. HEALTH RECORDS AND CONFIDENTIALITY - examining the threats to the privacy of medical records as health care reform moves towards increasing automation. THE MANY FACES OF PRIVACY - evaluating the benefits and costs of the use of personal information by business and government. THE DIGITAL INDIVIDUAL - exploring the increasing capabilities of technology to track and profile us. GENDER ISSUES IN COMPUTING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS - reviewing the issues surrounding gender and online interaction. THE HAND THAT WIELDS THE GAVEL - a moot court dealing with legal liability, responsibility, security and ethics of computer and network use. THE POWER, POLITICS AND PROMISE OF INTERNETWORKING - covering the development of networking infrastructures, domestically and worldwide. INTERNATIONAL DATA FLOW - analyzing the issues in the flow of information over the global matrix of computer networks and attempts to regulate it. The conference will also offer a number of in-depth tutorials on subjects including: * Information use in the private sector * Constitutional law and civil liberties * Investigating telecom fraud * Practical data inferencing * Privacy in the public and private workplace * Legal issues for sysops * Access to government information * Navigating the Internet INFORMATION For more information on the CFP'93 program and advance registration call, write or email to: CFP'93 INFORMATION 2210 SIXTH STREET BERKELEY, CA 94710 (510) 845-1350 cfp93@well.sf.ca.us A complete electronic version of the conference brochure with more detailed descriptions of the sessions, tutorials, and registration information is also available via anonymous ftp from sail.stanford.edu in the file: /pub/les/cfp-93 or from sunnyside.com in the file: /cfp93/cfp93-brochure or via email from listserv@sunnyside.com by sending email with this text: GET CFP93 CFP93-BROCHURE ------------------------------ From: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: Innocent man jailed 9 days by computer match Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:51:50 GMT Here's theq latest reason why I'm suspicious of database matching. This makes innocent people guilty by default unless they can prove their innocence. In contrast to pre-computer days, it is now much cheaper for the system to cost an innocent person a lot. This information is from clari.news.law.crime.violent, Message-ID: , 15 Jan 93. A woman was abducted and robbed in Michigan in Nov 91. One criminal was arrested and her car impounded. A man called "Larry Jefferson" tried to pick the car up. Police did a nationwide search for people with that name with previous court appearances. (The article said "appearances" not "convictions".) In Florida they found a real Jefferson, who had been imprisoned for contempt for not paying child support. Although he had an alibi and had never even been to Michigan, he was arrested and held for 9 days while Michigan tried to extradite him, based only on this match. Luckily for Jefferson, Florida refused to let Michigan have him w/o more evidence. Finally Michigan agreed that Jefferson was not the man. -- --------------------- Wm. Randolph Franklin, wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077; Fax: -6261 ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:52:43 -0500 (EST) From: Eugene Levine Subject: Is the List Still Operating Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dennis - is the list still up? I haven't heard from you or it in awhile and miss the conversation. --Gene Levine elevine@world.std.com [Moderator's Note: I think the digest might have been dormant for a week. I am clearing out about 30 articles today. BTW, if someone does not recieve anything in a 10 day period please send me email as something might have gone wrong. Even if I don't receive submissions I will at least try to put something out at least once in a 10 day period. ._dennis ] ------------------------------ From: usviking Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID Date: 21 Jan 93 20:10:56 GMT Organization: Society for the Elimination of Forgetfulness and... umm... Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes: > we are already on. We also, of course, in the absence of Caller ID never > give out information to businesses on the phone: > > "Hello, Pete's Pest Control" > "I'm overrun with ants, please come soon." > "Well, what's your name and address." > "I'm not going to tell you, it's my privacy." > "Click...." Bad example. Ordered a pizza by phone lately? Called for a taxi? To check movie times? To order tickets? I pay to keep my number unlisted, thankyouverymuch. I'd rather choose who has access to that information. -- [TANSTAAFL] --- USViking@slepnir.linet.org --- 1:107/236.1 Fight-O-Net --- "Destruction of the empty spaces is my one and only crime." - Black Sabbath JR / POB 179 / Greenlawn NY 11740 USA | Free Cyberia | Visualize Whirled Peas ------------------------------ From: "Michael T. Palmer" Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID Date: 25 Jan 93 13:35:09 GMT Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes: >>Bad example. Ordered a pizza by phone lately? > "Hello, Pete's Pizza and Pasta, Pete speaking." > "I'd like a pizza Pete please." > "Okay, what's your name and phone number?" > "I'm not going to tell you, it's my privacy." > "Click..." >Does this mean you have never gotten an unwanted phone call? >>I'd rather choose who has access to that information. >You do, in fact you have TOTAL CONTROL over who can get your number with >Caller ID. Unlike the many other ways over which you have no control >and have nothing to do with Caller ID. If you don't want me to have >your phone number, then don't call me. Terry, you're missing the entire point. Sure, when you call someone to place an order (whether for killing ants or delivering a pizza), your name and address are *required* for the services to be delivered. However, if you're just calling to find out how much a particular exterminator *charges* for his services, you don't want to be placed on his mailing list from now until kingdom come, and also to have him sell your name and address to who knows whom (kiddie porn magazines?). And if you call to find out the movie times for JFK, you don't want the movie house selling your name to book companies that deluge you with offers for other conspiracy theory books and magazines. THIS IS THE POINT -> When you use your telephone to request information from a business to DETERMINE IF YOU EVEN WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH THEM you should not have to surrender your privacy. Maybe YOU just call the first exterminator in the book and say "Come kill my ants, I don't care what you charge" but REAL PEOPLE do care what they're being charged. So we call around to find the best price for the best service. Why should using the telephone be any different from walking into their store and asking them for their prices? Do you honestly believe that you should have to turn over your name, address, and phone number before they'll even talk to you? So quit with the silly anecdotes about ordering a pizza and then not saying what your address is. I UNDERSTAND that you want to control who calls your home and interrupts you... but CNID alone doesn't serve your purposes well, and causes a great deal of other problems. Like another poster mentioned, let's look for solutions like the box that won't even ring your phone unless the caller types in a code - so no matter where your girlfriend/wife/child is calling from (a home with per-line blocking? with your current setup you wouldn't even answer it because it's blocked!) your phone will RING and you'll ANSWER IT because you KNOW it's someone you want to talk to. -- Michael T. Palmer | "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov | other way than one which will conceal it RIPEM key on server | from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon ------------------------------ From: David Neal Miller Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Calling Number ID Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:37:02 GMT The situation is even worse in Columbus, OH, where Caller ID is soon to go into effect. Here, there is _no_ way of sending one's ID at at number where all-call restrict is in effect, i.e. no reverse code. This effectively raises the stakes for those who, like our family, plan to opt out of the system. -- David Neal Miller Internet: miller.3@osu.edu Bitnet: miller.3@ohstmail ------------------------------ From: Dave Dargo Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib Organization: Oracle Corp., Redwood Shores CA Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:05:32 GMT Craig.Wagner@p2.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Craig Wagner) writes: > ER> [Moderator's Note: You're underlying assumption is that breaking > ER> speed limits is dangerous. This is not necessarily true. >While it's true that it's "not necessarily true," it's _not_ the case that a >driver can _know_ that it's _not_ dangerous, and therefore shouldn't be doing >it. He may see no other cars on the road, and the driving conditions may be >perfect, but he has no way of knowing precisely the road conditions ahead of >him, or whether or not there's a driver waiting to turn onto the road, and >expecting any oncoming traffic for which he may be looking to be no further away >than could be expected based upon the posted speed limit. This assumes that the government's posted speed limit is the correct speed limit to be able to observe such things based on the road conditions. The current max of 65 (still 55 in most places) has nothing to do with road conditions or reaction times but rather with some vague in-defensible (IMHO) federal government policy. You would probably find more people willing to obey speed limits if they were actually set based on local road conditions and necessary reaction times. Many roads with which I am familiar would have limits closer to 100 MPH than the current 55 MPH. Which leads me to the opinion that speed limits are designed to further revenue enhancement policies than allowing the free movement of individuals. IMO, if you want to cut back on traffic accidents and allow free movement you should remove most speed limits and replace them with drastic fines for unsafe lane changes, tailgating, etc. I doubt that you will find many accidents caused solely by excessive speed, but rather by some other contributing factor such as whipping in and out of lanes or following two closely for the speed being driven. Just my $.02 worth. Dave Dargo (ddargo@oracle.com) ------------------------------ From: Eric De Mund Subject: refused store charge card when i declined to provide ssn Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:48:28 GMT [originally posted to misc.consumers, misc.legal. -ead] comp.society.privacy, alt.privacy people, at robinson's of santa barbara, i was offered a store charge card and a 10% discount on my purchase. the register clerk made this offer when i was about to pay with my mc. all he needed to see were my ca driver's license and a major credit card. oh, and halfway through the application, my ssn. i politely refused, and he informed me that the credit bureau/reporting agency that he was about to call (*) would unconditionally deny my application without an ssn. i decided to purchase the items with my mc and skip the 10% discount. after re-reading the ssn-privacy faq's "lenders and borrowers" section, in which it states: Banks and credit card issuers and various others are required by the IRS to report the SSNs of account holders to whom they pay interest or when they charge interest and report it to the IRS. i wondered whether store charge card issuers also fell under this rubric. i don't recall being asked for my ssn as part of the application for my mervyn's card. is such a practice legal (especially in conjunction with a 10% discount)? eric de mund (*) or whomever he was about to call for an immediate answer to the question, "should we offer this guy a card?" ------------------------------ Organization: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Washington Of From: Dave Banisar Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:47:48 EST Subject: Request to Post Office on S Request to Post Office on Selling of Personal Information In May 1992, the US Postal Service testified before the US House of Representatives' Government Operations Subcommittee that National Change of Address (NCOA) information filled out by each postal patron who moves and files that move with the Post Office to have their mail forwarded is sold to direct marketing firms without the person's consent and without informing them of the disclosure. These records are then used to target people who have recently moved and by private detective agencies to trace people, among other uses. There is no way, except by not filling out the NCOA form, to prevent this disclosure. This letter is to request information on why your personal information was disclosed and what uses are being made of it. Patrons who send in this letter are encouraged to also forward it and any replies to their Congressional Representative and Senators. Eligible requestors: Anyone who has filed a change of address notice with the Postal Service within the last five years. Records Officer US Postal Service Washington, DC 20260 PRIVACY ACT REQUEST Dear Sir/Madam: This is a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a). The Act requires the Postal Service, as a government agency, to maintain an accounting of the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of information about individuals. I request a copy of the accounting of all disclosures made of address change and mail forwarding information that I provided to the Postal Service. This information is maintained in USPS System of Records 010.010. On or about (date), I filed a change of adress notice requesting that my mail be forwarded from (old address) to (new address). The name that I used on the change of address form was (name). This request includes the accounting of all disclosures made by the Postal Service, its contractors, and its licensees. I am making this request because I object to the Postal Service's policy of disclosing this information without giving indviduals an option to prevent release of this information. I want to learn how my information has been disclosed and what uses have been made of it. Please let the Postmaster General know that postal patrons want to have a choice in how change of address information is used. If there is a fee in excess of $5 for this infomation, please notify me in advance. Thank you for consideration of this request. Sincerely, CC: Your Congressional Representative US House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 Your Senators US Senate Washington, DC 20515 ------------------------------ From: neilshnn@mse.cse.ogi.edu (Neil Shannon) Subject: Any more News on Akron BBS troubles? Date: 23 Jan 93 03:32:34 GMT Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute, Material Science & Engineering On the December 2nd an article was posted telling about the legal troubles of teh Akron BBS titled "Dangerous precedents in Sysop Prosecution". It indicated that the sysop would be going to trial for Kidde Porn on the 4th of January. Is there any new information? Neil Shannon neilshnn@mse.ogi.edu ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #010 ******************************