Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 18:09:22 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V2#011 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 28 Jan 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 011 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: SSN FTC Charges Credit Reporting Company Radar Detector Prohib Re: Radar Detector Prohib Re: Radar Detector Prohib Re: Radar Detector Prohib OP-ED PIECE ON TELEPH Speed Limits Unlisted Phone Numbers W-2's mailed to wrong people Ohio requires SSN for children to go to school?!!!? 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: Jonathan Gentry 501 543-7185 Date: 15 Jan 93 08:59:48 CST Subject: Re: SSN In Message-ID: , From Rick Tait , the moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: PGP signature validation was deleted by me. ._dennis > ] Why was this done? [Moderator's Note: The Jester "" also asked why. The moderation process changes the message enough so that the PGP signature validation becomes meaningless. ._dennis ] ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Subject: FTC Charges Credit Reporting Company Date: 15 Jan 1993 19:53:33 GMT Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz I posted this to comp.privacy, then realized that comp.society.privacy is where the action is... A little item in today's newspaper says the Federal Trade Commission has charged Trans Union Corp. with using sensitive, federally protected credit information from its consumer database to compile mailing lists it sold to telemarketers and direct mail operations, "for purposes not permitted under the law." Then there was a piece in the next day's news about, as I recall, TRW voluntarily ceasing some similar wrongdoing. -- haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet "Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!" "No it aint! But ya gotta know the territory!" Meredith Willson: "The Music Man" ------------------------------ From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) Subject: Radar Detector Prohib Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario. Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:02:45 GMT Date Entered: 01-20-93 20:54 "T. Archer" says, in part: > I needn't answer that. You are assuming guilt and asking me to prove > otherwise. That's not the way the law works, nor should it. Only in some jurisdictions. Try some of the Latin American countries and see if innocent until proven guilty holds water... it doesn't. You can also try China, Laos, and several of the countries in Africa. Further, Radar detectors are now proving dangerous to Greyhound busses. Seems they have RADAR to help the driver see obstacles in front of him that are not yet visible to the eye, etc. A car with a detector passing the bus will have its detector set off, and then the car's driver tends to slam on the brakes and pull immediately in front of the bus, causing the driver to slam on his brakes, and all of the cars immediately behind the bus to follow suit. In bad weather this can cause a chain reaction crash.... Whether this is due to the radar detector in the car or the radar in the bus is a moot point, as the radar is for the safety of the bus and its passengers, while the detector is for the purpose of avoiding police radar detection of speeding violations - after all, there is NO other reason to have one in a car and operating, is there? If one never exceeds the maximum speed limit or drives under the minimum speed limit, a radar detector is NOT required. If one regularly exceeds the top limit, a detector might be the only way to prevent loss of a driver's license, due to point accumulation. For a professional driver (Truck, cab driver, messenger, whatever) this is a livelihood situation. That is why they have detectors, and if any disbelieves this, ask THEM - they will confirm this statement. It is the same reason they often use CBs to notify other drivers of police they spot when travelling the other direction on the highways and byways of the country. I admit that they also advise re accidents, dangerous road conditions, and other factors on the CB. They CANNOT provide such advise using their radar detector. Therefore, I say BAN THE DETECTOR and make the road safer for the non-speeders. If the threat of losing one's license to drive is more real, there will be less speeding. This will reduce the number of high speed accidents, and the injuries that come from high speed accidents. It will not eliminate them! It will also do nothing re drunk driving, or drugged driving. Those are other issues, and still have impact. However, that they still will exist does not mean that a device whose sole purpose is to permit violation of speeding laws with greater impunity should continue to be sold. A long screed, and one man's opinion only, but any in support of my position are welcome to join in. Opposition is also welcome, if anyone can provide me with some reasoned position for continued use of radar detectors without spouting about the various amendments to the US Constitution (not applicable in the rest of the world) or nonsense about a right to listen to the full radio spectrum, which is also being abrogated by the US govt at the present. Bob --- RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own! RoseMail 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285 ------------------------------ From: Peter Swanson Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:06:44 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor In article oracle!us.oracle.com!dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Dargo) writes: >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. > How do you propose to take into account varying road conditions? The same road that would be safe at 80mph in sunny weather may be unsafe at 65mph in rain, unsafe at 40mph in fog or blizzard, and unsafe at 5mph in freezing rain. You don't honestly expect someone to check road conditions and change the speed limit signs appropriately, do you? In my travels (often on the 700 mile stretch of I94 from Detroit to Chicago to Minneapolis) I have rarely seen anyone slow down for a 65-55mph transition, and I doubt many people would slow for dynamically updated speed limit signs. Most people don't slow down in poor visibility conditions such as darkness or fog, innocuously driving at the speed limit or better as if it were required (certainly around Detroit and Chicago, and I assume many other places as well). On an unlit stretch of road at night, even with bright headlights you can't see far enough ahead to stop for a fixed object in the road (be it a deer, person, brick, or jackknifed semi: I've seen them all, even in the early morning hours). I've also seen or read about dozens of people killed in bad conditions, striking bridge pylons, pedestrians, trees, concrete dividers, and an occaisional large truck stopped in the road, all due primarily to excessive speed. It seems to me that the 55/65mph speed limits are conservative: in ideal conditions (low traffic, straight dry road, high visibility) 100mph is safe for many cars, but conditions are rarely ideal. >[speeding doesn't hurt rhetoric deleted] >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. True, speed *alone* doesn't cause many accidents, but it drastically lowers your safety margins with such things as decreased response time, increased braking distance, decreased contact with the road, decreased visibility (tunnel vision: your peripheral vision diminishes with speed), and fatigue. Also, in car-car collisions it isn't speed that causes injury, it is relative speed between vehicles. Allowing higher traffic speeds allows greater deviations between vehicles: a 55mph car striking a 45mph car won't cause much injury, but an 85mph car striking a 55mph car may well kill the occupants of both cars. Lower speed limits permit smaller variations in traffic speed, and thus fewer fatalities. It is also difficult to see cars approaching from behind at high speed while still looking at the road ahead. Most interstate highways are designed to be safe at speeds of 80mph under good conditions, with features such as divided highways, banked curves, and good drainage. I don't have a problem with people doing 80mph on such a road. When conditions aren't ideal, especially at night or in bad weather, it is necessary to slow down. I think that 65/55mph is a compromise, a little too slow for good conditions and a little too fast for poor conditions. I speed, but I also realize that it isn't just my own life that I risk by doing so. I don't think many speeders understand this, or care. -- | Peter J. Swanson | pjswan@caen.engin.umich.edu | | PhD Pre-Candidate | controls specialist | | Electrical Engineering:Systems | Fortunately, ah keep muh feathuhs | | University of Michigan | numbahd for just such ahn emergency.| ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Kuenning Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:29:54 GMT In article gordon@spot.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R) writes: > As one aside from this thread, the radar detector I had in my car was > stolen. When I informed my insurance company, I was informed that they > are illegal and therefor not covered by my comprehensive policy. I > told them that there is no law in colorado regarding their illegality. > I was then informed that their purpose was to break the law and was not > covered... Let me guess: you're covered by GEICO, right? -- Geoff Kuenning geoff@maui.cs.ucla.edu geoff@ITcorp.com ------------------------------ From: "Michael D. Adams" Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:30:29 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu oracle!us.oracle.com!dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Dargo) writes: >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. This is really beginning to stray from the purpose of this group, but... In some states, the law is written in a way such that exceeding the speed limit is merely apparent evidence of unreasonable or imprudent speed. A driver can demonstrate that he/she is innocent by proving that his/her speed was reasonable and safe with respect to road conditions, traffic, and visibility. (Of course, that's something that may be difficult to do....) These states (to the best of my knowledge) include: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, ID, MA, MI, MN, NH, OH, OR, RI, TX, and Utah. >Just my $.02 worth. and I'm just adding my two zlotys' worth to the pot.... [Moderator's Note: OK. Let's end this thread. It really doesn't belong here. I will allow posts until Tuesday at which time I will summarize. ._dennis ] -- Michael D. Adams |"Since when do you have to agree with people to defend University of Illinois | them from injustice?" -- Lillian Hellman StarOwl@uiuc.edu |"Computer, end program!" -- Lt. Barkley at the end Standard Disclaimers | of ST:TNG, "Ship in a Bottle" ------------------------------ Return-Path: From: mvario@inode.com Subject: OP-ED PIECE ON TELEPH Date: 27 Jan 93 19:36:17 GMT Organization: inode BBS, NYC's Best Usenet Access (212-679-9146) Sy> I consider myself PRO-PRIVACY and a libertarian. I oppose caller Sy> ID because the GOVERNMENT can abuse it to compile lists of Sy> undesirables---political dissidents, "perpetrators" of victimless Sy> crimes, people with unpopular attititudes, etc. Sy> I *might* re-consider if free blocking were offered whenever caller-ID Sy> was in a given region. Then, if you don't like me not identifying Sy> myself, DON'T ANSWER IT WHEN YOU SEE THAT IT'S BLOCKED. I don't think CallerID opens any new avenues for governmental abuse. First off, with the System7 switching software in place the caller information is there, whether CallerID is made available or not. CallerID just makes that information available to the called party. Secondly, at least in my area (NYNEX), local legislation has mandated that we have the option of per-call blocking *or* all calls blocked (upon request) and per-call unblocking. Corporations with 800 numbers have had access to ANI info for years, and the governemt has had acces to our phone calls for even longer (see: INSIDE THE PUZZLE PALACE re the NSA). Call CallerID does is place some of that power in the hands of the users. -Misha .. RSA proved you could patent math, whats next? Fire? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 #! rnews 1 ------------------------------ Acknowledge-To: WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:13 EST From: WHMurray@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Subject: Speed Limits >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. For most roads that is exactly how they are set. The highway engineer collects information on the actual speed travelled and the speed limit is set at the 85 percentile rounded to the nearest 5 MPH. The exception to this rule is when the speed limit is set by law; i.e., when it is set for political reasons. William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security 49 Locust Avenue, Suite 104; New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 1-0-ATT-0-700-WMURRAY; WHMurray at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 21:39 PST From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Unlisted Phone Numbers In the ongoing and unending debate about Caller-ID, the whine keeps coming up over and over: "I have an unlisted number and I intend to keep it that way", or words to that effect. While there are legitimate reasons for having an unlisted number, the avoidance of telemarketing calls is not one of them. A minor case in point: I have four lines that ring on telephones that can be picked up by a human. One of them is listed; the other three are unlisted. I have had this arrangement for many years. Almost nightly, there is someone calling to sell something. On my listed line? Almost never does my listed line ring unless it is a legitimate call. No, virtually 100% of the annoying, random, dinnertime telemarketing calls come in on the private lines. While wrong numbers outweigh the sales pitches, it is the private lines that drive me cookoo. If you have a number that can be dialed, someone will eventually call it and bother you. And here in sunny California, the crank-caller's paradise, we have to pick up the phone to find out that it is a worthless call. Sometimes I think people overrate the value of an unlisted number. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Dewey Coffman Subject: W-2's mailed to wrong people Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:45:05 CUT Feel free to edit this down to size. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. goofs on some W-2s; copies may be neighbors' By Ed Jahn, Copley News Service San Diego, When the government goofed this time, it did it in triplicate. Many local civilian employees of the military are finding that out this week as they get their income-tax forms showing last year's earnings. Instead of the top original and two copies of their W-2 statement, some people are getting the top one with their earnings, but with the copies showing how much two other civilian employees earned last year. The mistake also hits close to home, because the forms were grouped by postal ZIP codes. "I had the statement for a neighbor and he had one for a guy up the street," said Patricia Armijo, a computer programmer with the Naval Computer Telecommunication Station at North Island Naval Air Station. "It doesn't bother me so much that it happened, it's just that they didn't catch it," Armijo said. "Somebody else at work who had the same problem warned me or I would have done what I usually do and waited until the last minute to file my tax form, and had a real problem." The mistake had officials chagrined at the Department of Defense Financial and Accounting Service in Washington, D.C. "Alas, it's true," said Jean Marie Ward, public affairs officer for the service that handles payrolls. "The (Department of Defense) contracts out most of our printing jobs and it appears one of the contractors had a problem in aligning the forms," Ward said. "Pay is about the most intimate issue you can have with someone who works for you," she said. "Things got screwed up. We will make sure it gets fixed." At the Naval Hospital in Balboa Park, the snafu had one employee seething. "The government puts so much emphasis on employees protecting government secrecy and then they do this," he said, asking that he not be quoted by name. "Here they are cranking out 200,000 forms without any quality control, and it's going to be redone at an enormous cost to the government," he said. "And I've got neighbors who know how much I made last year." Ward said that although there are nearly 1 million civilian employees of the military, only a fraction appear to be affected by the error. In San Diego, there are about 28,000 civilians working for the Navy and Marine Corps. And not all of them were affected by the foul-up. "We haven't got a firm fix on the total number or many other details," Ward said. It looks like only tax forms sent from the regional offices in Colorado were improperly aligned, she added. The snafu leaves people without enough proper printouts to submit for federal and state income tax, and still have one to keep for personal records. Although some people said they were mailing the extra tax information on to the two other people involved, Ward said it was best to "just destroy all the materials that don't belong to you. If you don't feel good about that, just wait for further instructions." She said the Internal Revenue Service has been contacted and has advised that photocopies of the original form are acceptable. "So if you positively have to file your tax forms tonight, go ahead and copy the original." In the past, local civilian employees were paid out of the local Navy payroll, according to Ken Mitchell, a public affairs officer for North Island whose forms arrived without error. "Six months ago, the Department of Defense switched over to a new system that uses computer printouts," he said. The perforated sheets were misaligned when fed through a machine that glues them together, something that didn't happen when the Navy used carbon paper, he explained. ####### ------------------------------ From: Paul Scheidler Subject: Ohio requires SSN for children to go to school?!!!? Keywords: Ohio SSN privacy or lack thereof Date: 28 Jan 93 20:15:01 GMT Followup-To: alt.privacy Hello fellow privacy seekers, With all the privacy related problems with almost every organization using your SSN, I decided to delay getting a SSN for my kids until they are have income and need a SSN for tax purposes. Now I am starting the process of getting my oldest registered for kindergarden and I am informed by the school that the state of Ohio requires a SSN for the child to go to school. If you don't have one, they will assign you a temporary number until you get your official SSN. I have not fully investigated the actual law, but I plan on fighting this law. What are my options here? Can they deny my child an education because she is not numbered? Any hints or comments are welcome. Thanks in advance, Paul Scheidler. [Moderator's Note: Ask them what they will do if you refuse to get a SSN for your kids. I think they will back down as there is a requirement for your kids to go to school. There is a small movement of parents who would rather teach their kids at home rather than send them to school. The public school establishment is against this movement and have been fighting it. If refusal to provide SSNs is all it takes to be able not to register kids in school it going to make life easier for those parents who prefer to teach their kids at home. Take a stand and force the issue. ._dennis ] paul.scheidler@sdrc.com ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #011 ******************************