Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 15:44:12 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V2#053 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 18 Jun 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 053 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Administrivia Re: Computer Privacy Digest V2#051 ssn and life insurance ?? 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: Fri, 18 Jun 93 15:41:06 EDT From: Computer Privacy List Moderator Subject: Administrivia Hi. There will be a small slowdown in publishing the digest until 5 July. I will be out of touch with my email accounts for most of the next two week. I should still be able to send out a couple of digest. dennis -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis G. Rears Moderator: Computer Privacy Digest comp.society.privacy MILNET: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP: ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears Phone(home): 201.927.8757 USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V2#051 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 10:40:41 EDT From: L Jean Camp I found a statement on technology and privacy I thought applied very well here. The quotes that follow deal with maintaining privacy with an eye to the new technologies of photography and listening devices. The arguments put forth resonate in today's debate as well. However, before I post it I would like to respond to: George Talbot wrote: >There is a large amount of truth in the notion that the government in the past >80 years has drifted from the idea of service of the individual to service of >only the large power blocs among the individuals. This statement would be difficult if not impossible to support. I doubt that there is a single woman, man of color or labor advocate in this country who agrees with you. 80 years ago the discussion of contraceptives was criminal under obscenity laws, lynching was widespread and domestic violence was considered humerous. The courts, the National Guard and the states violently repressed organized labor. 80 years ago I was prohibited from attending the school I attend, holding the summer position I hold, and would probably be the victim of violence for walking down the street in the perfectly reasonable clothes I am wearing. ~80 years ago a publisher who printed information about how the entry to WWI would help arms merchants was imprisioned for teason. You represent your point badly when you favorably compare the state of civil liberties 80 years ago. Truly that was a "wild" statement. As the quotes below illustrate, this is a battle that has been fought time and time again, and ignorance of the past will not assist in bringing this eposode to an end. from Justice Murphey's (unfortunately) dissenting opinion on the use of audio surviellence techniques (1942) and Warren and Brandies (1890): selections from Warren and Brandeis The Right to Privacy, Harvard Law Review That the individual should have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature of such protection. Political, social and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society. The common law secures to individuals the right of determining to what extent their thoughts, sentiments and emotions shall be communicated to others. selections from Justice Murphy, dissenting in Goldman vs United States One of the great boons secured to the inhabitants of this country by the Bill of Rights is the right of personal privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Suffice it to say that the spiritual freedom of the individual depends in no small measure of the preservation of that right. Insistence on its retention does not mean that a person has anything to conceal, but means rather that the choice should be his as to what he wishes to reveal, saving only to the Government the right to to seek out crime under a procedure with suitable safeguards for the protection of individual rights. It will be conceded that if the language of the Amendment were given only a literal construction, it might not fit the case now presented for review. The petitioners were not physically searched. Their homes were not entered. ... Their papers were not disturbed. But it has not been the rule or practice of this Court to permit the scope and operation of broad principles ordained by the Constitution to be restricted, by a literal reading of its provisions, to those evils and phenomena that were contemporary with its framing. The conditions of modern life have greatly expanded the range and character of those activities which require protection from intrusive action by Government officials if men and women are to enjoy the full benefit of that privacy which the Fourth Amendment was intended to provide. It is our duty to see that this historic provision receives a construction sufficiently liberal and elastic to make it serve the needs and manners of each succeeding generation. Otherwise, it may become obsolete, incapable of of providing the people of this land adequate protection. To this end we must give mind not merely to the exact words of the Amendment, but also to its historic purpose, its high political character, and its modern social and legal applications. The benefits that accrue from this and other articles of the Bill of Rights are characteristic of democratic rule. They are among the amenities that distinguish a free society from one in which the rights and comforts of the individual are wholly subordinated to the interest of the state. We cherish and uphold them as necessary and salutary checks on the authority of government. They provide a standard of official conduct which the courts must enforce. At a time when the nation is called upon to give freely of life and treasure to defend and preserve the institutions of democracy and freedom, we should not permit any of the essentials of freedom to lose vitality through legal interpretations that are restrictive and inadequate for the period in which we live. ------ I could not have said it so well myself. Jean ------------------------------ From: Maurice O'Donnell Subject: ssn and life insurance ?? Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 13:46:30 GMT netfolk, I have just applied for whole life insurance for my 2 year old (he is 2 today, the application went in a couple of weeks ago). the insurance company is insisting on his ssn (he doesn't have one). The question. Does anyone know if the insurance company is REQUIRED by the feds or by the state (mass) to secure this info? thanks, mo -- Maurice O'Donnell +---------^> | * < internet---> mo@world.std.com +-.-----. \ 7 uucp-------> uunet!world!mo \_\_/ ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #053 ******************************