Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 31 Aug 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 019 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Does the "Stopper" 1-800 number use Caller ID or ANI Mortgage Application Woes Re:human factors of coins Computer Privacy Digest V3#008 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: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 01:20:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Does the "Stopper" 1-800 number use Caller ID or ANI > I believe that I found 1-800-235-1414 posted in this group a > while back and gave it a try to see if the free per call > caller ID blocking that BC Tel is required to provide was > working. > A third call to the number above gave a different message, and > mentioned 1-800-852-9932 as a new number to call "for a caller > ID demonstration". When I called it my number was read to me > again. > Am I justified in pursuing this with BC Tel and the Canadian > Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission as a > failure to comply with the CRTC decision that Canadian phone > companies must provide free Caller ID blocking or is STOPPER > faking Caller ID with ANI? Most people know the return of the calling telephone number under the name of "Caller ID". 800 numbers have never had Caller-ID. They have always (and only) had ANI. And the ANI is what the system is reading to you. ANI *cannot* be blocked by dialing *67. There would probably be another issue involved since the only way they could keep from delivering your number would be to disable ANI on calls; assuming this was even possible, it would trigger faults and other problems associated with ANI failure. And if the ANI is part of the tariff for 1-800 calls, then it would require rewriting the tariff to change it. Now there really is very little the CRTC can do anyway, if the 1-800 number is within the U.S., even assuming that this capability is illegal, since the U.S. company is doing nothing illegal under U.S. law, any more than the TV station in Canada that broadcasts into the U.S. is not violating Canadian law even though it is not licensed to broadcast on that station in the U.S. --- Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ----- The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message: The chicken that clucks the loudest is the one most likely to show up at the steam fitters picnic. ------------------------------ From: Cristy Subject: Mortgage Application Woes Organization: DuPont Central Research & Development Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 16:46:57 GMT My spouse recently applied for a mortgage with Arbor National Mortgage. The loan officer encouraged her to sign my name to all the application documents. It came to my attention when I received a copy of my employment verification with my name forged on it. The written response was "In today's busy world it has become harder and harder for a couple to both be in the same place at the same time, so we occasionally make exceptions in cases like yours and allow one borrower to initiate the mortgage process for the other." The State bank commissioner claimed she had never heard of this happening before. She said she disagreed with the practice but could not do anything about it because it was not a regulatory matter. It was a contract dispute. Does anyone have any suggestions on whom I can contact to ensure the practice of encouraging a spouse to sign the other spouses name to mortgage application documents does not become prevalent? --- For those that may not understand the privacy implications of such a practice, one document gives the mortgage company the right to obtain all credit information on me including a credit report, bank balances, salary history, etc. And as discussed above this information was obtained *without* my knowledge or signature. --- -- cristy@dupont.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 18:54:39 PDT From: Kelly Bert Manning Subject: Re:human factors of coins In a previous article, leapman@austin.ibm.com (Scott Leapman) says: > >> We have the same system here in the San Francisco Bay area at >> most grocery stores. >> >> I've used it once or twice, but prefer writing a check rather >> than using the ATM card. I just think it makes keeping the >> check book balanced a little easier. I get to write little >> notes in the check register that reminds me what the item was >> for. This helps alot when keeping the family budget (my family couldn't >> survive without Quicken). Why don't you use cash register receipts instead of the check book? You can use the net total if you want to, or you can break items down. I've never used one of these machines and don't expect to until they start putting the same sort of security shields around the PIN entry keypads that my bank has around the staff ones in it's branches. These make it impossible for anyone except the person entering the PIN to seem the number that was being entered. I'm always amazed to see people holding one of these keypads up in the middle of the air and punching in their PINs for the whole store to see. Many supermarkets, drugstores, all night gas stations, and even audio video equipment stores are now getting ATMs in them. I try to avoid any ATM which is not installed in a branch of the bank I deal with. I'm really not convinced that someone isn't recording a hell of a lot of data. Wasn't there a case of an ATM installed in a supermarket without an encrpytion chip being used to record card data and PINs a while back? Why other people can't use cash has always puzzled me. I've never even applied for a credit card, despite getting repeated solicitations over the decades. ATMs can now be used to pay most utility bills, and mortgages and other payments can be pre-authorized, so my wife and I rarely write more than 1 or 2 checks a month, sometimes none! Vancouver police recently arrested a gang who were getting into peoples accounts by watching over their shoulders as they entered their PINs and then grabbing the transaction reports slips that most people foolishly throw into the wastepaper containers beside the ATMs. The card number and all the information needed to encode a duplicate card are usually printed on the slip. > >My local supermarket uses the debit card approach. It's a card that you slide >through a machine at the checkout line, then enter your PIN. It electronically >withdraws money from your checking account, and even has the same float time. >You can get up to $50 cash while your at it too (if your account has that much.) > I used to use the ATM for lunch money (cash withdrawals), but now I just get >some cash while doing my weekly grocery shopping. There is no extra fee for >using this, I get extra discounts at the supermarket, and can get cash back. >Best of all, the money isn't instantly gone, it has the same delay as writing a >paper check. I usually bring my checkbook with me anyway, so I don't forget to >record the transaction in my register. Anyway, it's a lot faster and more >convenient for me. I wouldn't mind if this were the norm for all stores. Just >slide your card through a reader rahter than writing a paper check! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 15:50 EDT From: "Joseph.Straubhaar" <20783JOE@msu.edu> Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#008 I teach a large course on the information society and would like to use the much discussed "First Person" video in class. Does anyone have a copy that they would be willing to lend or copy so that I may use it in class? Please respond to 20783Joe@MSU.EDU. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 93 17:32:53 EDT Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Sub-Organization: National Computer Systems Laboratory From: "Dennis D. Steinauer" Stephen Block asks: >> 1) Who is allowed to demand my Social Security number, and for what >> purposes? I'm curious about both governmental and non-governmental >> organizations. The Department of Justice has an excellent (if you're a lawyer) reference: "Freedom of Information Act Guide and Privacy Act Overview", Septermber 1992. Sold by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. It's really quite good. It states the following (p 415): Briefly, the Privacy Act (5 USC 552a note (Disclosure of Social Security Number)) says: "It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual right, benefit, or privilege provide by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number: Sec. 7(a)(1). However, this does NOT apply to "(1) any disclosure which is required by federal statute; or (2) any disclosure of a ssn to any Federal, state, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before 1 Jan 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute.... Also, the Tax Reform Act of 1976 ... expressley exempted state agencies from this restriction for "administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver's license, ... >> 2) Is there any penalty for violation of this law, i.e. for >> withholding benefits, memberships, etc. on sole grounds of refusal >> to give a Social Security number? There are civil remedies (read "sue 'em") and $5,000 criminal penalties for violations of the Privacy Act. You'd better check with your friendly attorn ey as to whether denial of benefits come under this provision. >> 3) Is there a government publication stating this? Yep, the Privacy act itself plus the (much better) item I cited above. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #019 ******************************