Date: Wed, 19 May 93 16:29:20 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V2#044 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 19 May 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 044 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears posting here results in junk (snail) mail solicitation Re: driver's license for jurors (was: Re: SSN) Re: driver's license for jurors (was: Re: SSN) Re: DMV rcds Re: Something other than PGP Re: privacy vs banks (was: Re: I won one!) Re: Redistribution of E-Mail attained via research Right or Wrong? 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: Mitch Collinsworth Subject: posting here results in junk (snail) mail solicitation Date: 7 May 1993 15:16:23 -0400 Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics It appears my suspicion about the source of the junk mail solicitation from Robert Ellis Smith's "Privacy Journal" was correct. After posting here (and here only) that I believed that I had landed on their junk mail list solely due to the fact that I had posted here a few times in the past, I received via snail mail a few days ago an envelope containing two small pieces of paper. One, with the "Privacy Journal"'s letterhead contains the following: "We have removed your name from our mailing list. Lee Shoreham" The other seems to be a printout of a bounced e-mail message attempted to be sent from Robert Ellis Smith to me. Evidently Mr. Smith is on MCI Mail and is not quite clear on how to send mail to the Internet. " Date: Tue Apr 27, 1993 9:56 am EST From: POSTMASTER TO: * Robert Ellis Smith / MCI ID: 510-1719 Subject: Non-delivery Notification Your message 93930427145639/0005101719NA2EM of Tue Apr 27, 1993 2:56 pm GMT could not be delivered to: TO: Mitch Collinsworth EMS: INTERNET MBX: graphics.cornell.edu as the receiving mail system rejected the delivery for the following reason: (USER) Unknown user name in "graphics.cornell.edu" " If my understanding of how to send e-mail from internet to MCI mail is correct, Mr. Smith should be reachable as "5101719@mcimail.com". If you have an opinion on the appropriateness of adding people to junk mail lists because they posted to Usenet, I suggest you address them to Mr. Smith. Perhaps he would be kind enough to summarize and post! (Mr. Smith, if you don't have posting privileges, I will be happy to forward your summary if you e-mail it to me.) -Mitch Collinsworth mitch@graphics.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Uri Blumenthal Subject: Re: driver's license for jurors (was: Re: SSN) Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 16:45:29 GMT Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM. In article , Jonathan Thornburg writes: |> I was under the impression that few of these "negatives" were |> constitutional grounds for disqualifying prospective jurors. Let's |> see... perhaps we should only allow prison inmates to serve as jurors, |> since that way we could really cut the rate of no-shows? Not funny. Try again. |> Other than |> not being a US citizen, it seems to me that *none* of the other |> "negatives" you mention are relevant -- not being poor, not being less |> educated, not not speaking English, and not being unenthusiastic. |> Indeed, in order for a jury system to be in any sense fair, it *must* |> include a representative fraction of people who *are* poor, less |> educated, don't speak English, etc. Oh, it must? Jurors are supposed to be good citizens with enough brain-power to make a CORRECT (and HONEST) decision, given the evidence presented and surrounded with all the BS from both sides. Note, that there's no way to determine the honesty of a person (especially regarding a particular case - one may be perfectly honest in lots ofthings, but jus this one he has his bias)... So it's reasonable to try to limit potential bias of jurors and hope they're what they say they are. The language of this country just happens to be English. To have a juror who doesn't speak the language, which is used in the trial is stupid. Education is an indication (to a certain extent, granted) of brain capabilities of a person. Yeah, I've seen enough fools with degrees, but there are more fools without it. Thus, the CHANCES, that educated juror is more likely to comprehend the facts and cut through the lawyer newspeak are [relatively] higher, than for an uneducted one. "Poor" - it's very relative. In ancient times it was believed, that a judge must be wealthy - and therefore independent in his decisions (not so easy to be bought or otherwise biased). In todays' society, where rich and poor exporess equal desire and ability to grab,especailly something which doesn't belong to them - it isn't clear who to choose. Still, I'd rather be tried by independent self-supporting (maybe even wealthy? :-) people, than by filled with revenge ghetto inhabitants. -- Regards, Uri. (don't bother to respond) ------------ ------------------------------ From: news@cbnewsh.att.com Date: Wed, 19 May 93 00:32:06 GMT Subject: Re: driver's license for jurors (was: Re: SSN) Organization: Electronic Birdwatching Society In article Charles Mattair writes: My only desire is, should the situation arise, to be judged by a competent jury which takes its job seriously, is relatively unbiased toward either party and is capable of understanding the issues at hand; in other words, how the system is supposed to work. In civil cases, that's a good thing. In criminal cases, there's *supposed* to be a strong bias, presuming the innocence of the accused party and willing to challenge the government's interpretation of the law and the law itself if necessary. -- # Pray for peace; Bill # Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ # No, I'm *from* New Jersey, I only *work* in cyberspace.... # White House Comment Line 1-202-456-1111 fax 1-202-456-2461 ------------------------------ From: Executive Protection Assoc Subject: Re: DMV rcds Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 21:17:17 GMT Any P.I., insurance company, attorney, or business with a "legitimate" interest can apply for the permit from the CA DMV to receive records. The fee is $250 and you must keep records or designate a "service provider" to obtain the records from DMV. It is really quite simple, even if you declare you record "confidential" I could obtain it since I am licensed, all I have to do is tie it into an active case, OR have a written request from a client attorney to justify it. Something to think about folks... thats why I like "Contract Mail Receiving Services", ie: Mail Drops /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// A A A Jim Warren (jwarren@autodesk.com) wrote: : Hi, : Just noticed your post in Computer Privacy Digest V2 #040. : > I know that California makes it illegal to have such records. : Absolutely not so. Any private investigator can get them (but has to keep : records of why they are requesting them, and those records are audited). Also : any organization with a "legitimate business intereste" (I think that's how : the statute is phrased) can get 'em. All for a fee, of course -- this is a : significant profit center, uh, "revenue" center for the State DMV. : --jim -- Chris Hall Director of Marketing Executive Protection Associates, Inc. cntrspy@netcom.com ------------------------------ Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.society.privacy From: Scott Bennett Subject: Re: Something other than PGP Followup-To: comp.society.privacy Organization: Northern Illinois University Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 23:29:06 GMT In article spike@world.std.com (Joe Ilacqua) writes: > > The lettering on the strip is only visible in transmitted >light, that is you have to hold it up to the light to see it. Hard to >duplicate, but not very effective against counterfeiters, since they >didn't take the old bills with out the strip out of circulation. > ...yet. However, once enough of this new "money" is in circulation, the federal government may well recall all the old currency. The typical method used in such recalls is to give only a very short period of time in which the old currency can be exchanged at banks for new currency, after which the old currency is declared to be no longer legal tender. The exchange procedure the banks may be told to observe can include such nice touches as requiring identification of all persons exchanging more currency than some specified threshhold amount, with the identification being recorded ("Yes, sir, we need you to fill out this simple form to 'validate' transactions of over $200.") Or, possibly, identification of all persons would be required, but the forms filled out for amounts less than the threshhold would be discarded at the end of each day. After the exchange period expires, the data would be turned over to the Treasury Dept., which could then dish it out to the FBI, the U.S. Customs "Service", et al. The scenario described above might seem overly paranoid if it weren't for the fact that so many similar currency recalls have been conducted by governments all over the world over many centuries' time. Almost exactly the scenario above has already been done at least once by the U.S. govern- ment. Long ago, all U.S. currency consisted of Gold Certificates and Silver Certificates and maybe a few U.S. Treasury Notes. After the Federal Reserve system was created, it, like the Treasury, was allowed to issue unbacked currency (Federal Reserve Notes.) Later, when the dicta- tor Franklin D. Roosevelt confiscated gold, he also outlawed gold certi- ficates after a very short recall exchange period. Persons exchanging large quantities of Gold Certificates for other currencies provided easy targets for governmental searches and seizures of actual gold holdings. Except for gold coins and Gold Certificates that were exempted for being items in numismatic collections, possession of gold bullion or coins or Gold Certificates became a criminal offense punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. All of this has little directly to bear upon PGP, so followups are directed to comp.society.privacy. (I realize there may be a more appropriate alt.* or talk.* group for this thread, but we don't get a full feed here, so I can only post to the groups we get.) [Moderator's Note: I used to collect coins and currency and was under the impression that any coin or currency the US Goverment makes has, is, and will always be legal tender. In countries like Germany there is a phase out of coin/currency where after a particular time it is no longer legal tender but it has been never illegal to possess it after it loses it legal tender status. ._dennis ] Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG Systems Programming Computer Center Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu bennett@netmgr.cso.niu.edu * * BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags don't wave in * * a vacuum." --Arthur C. Clark * ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: news@cbnewsh.att.com Date: Wed, 19 May 93 00:34:47 GMT Subject: Re: privacy vs banks (was: Re: I won one!) Organization: Electronic Birdwatching Society In article Brian Gordon writes: >If I agree to pay the maximum marginal tax rate, the IRS should be satisfied >that _at least_ the proper amount of tax is being paid, without requiring >my SSN. I know my previous bank had indicated that I did _not_ have to >provide a SSN for my (existing) interest-bearing checking account, but if >I declined they would withhold taxes on my interest. Am I missing something, or is not your IRS "Taxpayer ID" _identical_ with your SSN? To protect itself, the bank would have to take out and send to the IRS the 33% or whatever you agree to -- for which they would _need_ your SSN, right? You can have separate taxpayer ID numbers for businesses. -- # Pray for peace; Bill # Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ # No, I'm *from* New Jersey, I only *work* in cyberspace.... # White House Comment Line 1-202-456-1111 fax 1-202-456-2461 ------------------------------ From: Richard Roda Subject: Re: Redistribution of E-Mail attained via research Right or Wrong? Date: 19 May 1993 03:08:07 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville hauben@cs.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) writes: : In conducting research on the Net, I have often gotten requests : from people who would like me to forward to them the private : e-mail responses I have gotten via e-mail. What do people think : about this? I usually have waited until I have finished the paper [remainder deleted] I will not foward an E-mail message from another person. However, if part of an Email message is a copy of a public file/document (such as a friend sending me a game he found via anonymous ftp), I will resend the part that is public, since the fact that such information is public is not changed by the form that I recieved it in. -- Richard E. Roda, Computer Science at UNCA. The opinions expressed above are mine alone. PGP v2.2 public key available by E-Mail or finger ivy.cs.unca.ed ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #044 ******************************