Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 16:51:19 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#045 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 23 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 045 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Directory of Scholarly Electronic Conferences, 7th Revision Relea SSNs over Police Radio Re: ANI Re: ANI Privacy When Shopping (Was Re: ANI) Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#040 Privacy Ammendment to Constitution 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: Sun, 19 Sep 93 22:28:45 EST From: Diane Kovacs Subject: Directory of Scholarly Electronic Conferences, 7th Revision Relea The 7th Revision of the _Directory of Scholarly Electronic Conferences_ is now available on the LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU and via anonymous FTP to ksuvxa.kent.edu in the library directory. This announcement is extracted from the ACADLIST README file ***************** This directory contains descriptions of electronic conferences (e-conferences) on topics of interest to scholars. E-conference is the umbrella term that includes Bitnet and Internet discussion lists, Internet interest groups, Usenet newsgroups, distributions for e-journals, e- newsletters, electronic fora, etc. We have used our own judgment in deciding what is of scholarly interest, and will consider any advice or critique about our decisions. ******** The Files Available ******** ACADLIST README (explanatory notes for the Directory) ACADSTAC HQX (binhexed, self-decompressing, HYPERCARD version of the Directory - Keyword searchable) 498 ACADSMAL HQX (the above only smaller for small screen Macs) ACADLIST FILE1 (Anthropology- Education) 85 k ACADLIST FILE2 (Geography-Library and Information Science) 115k ACADLIST FILE3 (Linguistics-Political Science) 64k ACADLIST FILE4 (Psychology-Writing) 68k ACADLIST FILE5 (Biological Sciences) 55k ACADLIST FILE6 (Physical Sciences) 51k ACADLIST FILE7 (Business, Academia, News) 31k ACADLIST FILE8 (Computer Science; Social, Cultural, and Political Aspects of Computing; and Academic Computing Support) 139k ACADLIST CHANGES (Listing of all deleted e-conferences deleted because they no longer function) *********** How to retrieve files from the LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU *********** 1. Send an e-mail message addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU. 2. Leave the subject and other info lines blank. 3. The message must read: GET Filename Filetype f=mail (e.g., ACADLIST FILE1 or ACADSTAC HQX or whatever) 4. If you need assistance receiving, etc. contact your local Computer Services people *********** How to retreive files via anonymous FTP to KSUVXA.KENT.EDU *********** 1. type: ftp KSUVXA.KENT.EDU at your dollar sign prompt (VAX) your shell prompt (Unix) or ready screen (IBM VM). If you are on another kind of system consult with your computer services people to find out the proper procedure. 2. when prompted for 'USERID,' type ANONYMOUS. 3. Your password will be your actual userid on your local machine. 4. Type: cd library 5. Type: get Filename.Filetype (e.g., ACADLIST FILE1 or ACADSTAC HQX or whatever) 6. The files will be transferred directly into the directory you ftp'ed from. ******** The Directory Team: ******** Diane Kovacs-Editor-in-Chief (Bitnet) dkovacs@kentvm (Internet) dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu Laura Bartolo (Bitnet) lbartolo@kentvm (Internet) lbartolo@kentvm.kent.edu Gladys Bell (Bitnet) gbell@kentvm (Internet) gbell@kentvm.kent.edu Paul Fehrmann (Bitnet) pfehrman@kentvm (Internet) pfehrman@kentvm.kent.edu Michael Kovacs (Internet) mkovacs@mcs.kent.edu Leslie Haas (Bitnet) lhaas@kentvm (Internet) lhaas@kentvm.kent.edu Jeannie Langendorfer (Bitnet) jlangend@kentvm (Internet) jlangend@kentvm.kent.edu Amey Park (Bitnet) apark@kentvm (Internet) apark@kentvm.kent.edu Kara Robinson (Bitnet) krobinso@kentvm (Internet) krobinso@kentvm.kent.edu ------------------------------ Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,comp.society.privacy From: Mark Malson Subject: SSNs over Police Radio Followup-To: comp.society.privacy Organization: Xetron Corporation Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 21:30:21 GMT I was listening to a police radio and heard SSNs being read over the air! Ohio requires you to give an SSN (verified by a valid SS CARD) in order to get a Driver's License. So since the DMV has it, they give it to the Police Dept, who figure they can read it over the radio as part of the rest of the Driver's License data. I must have heard 3 or 4 SSNs in the course of a couple hours. Anybody in Ohio had any experience with getting their SSN out of their DMV records? - Mark Malson markm@xetron.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 00:10 PDT From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: ANI Conrad Kimball writes: > All the verbage aside, the idea that you might have to pay for an > anonymous caller seems to bother you a great deal. Tell me, why is > it that you seem to feel it so threatened that an entity that calls > you knows your business (the business, not you personally) while > remaining personally anonymous to you? Speaking of verbage, you know nothing about how I use an 800 number. You know nothing about the nature of my business, how ANI is helpful to me, what I do with the ANI, how it helps me to provide a better product to my customers, or any details whatsoever. Yet, you have gone on at length talking about how it is unnecessary for me to have it, have given completely irrelevant examples of how you suppose it might be used (I do not sell groceries, FYI), and have not addressed one single one of my concerns. How could you? You have no idea of what they might be. You make much about how the person paying for the call has no right to know who is calling. I personally do not have an opinion on that matter because it has nothing to do with my situation. And if you knew anything about my business and its product, it would be immediately obvious why anonymity of the caller is counter-productive. But I guess ignorance of relevant information is not an impediment to your pontification. > Seems to me like you could eliminate your problem by simply not having > an 800 number. Why won't this work for you? Perhaps you've _chosen_ > to structure your business upon an accident of technology (ANI), and > you are simply loath to see such a fundamental (to you, anyway) business > assumption challenged? If so, well, that's just too bad for you. What?? Why should I do without an 800 number? Because you say so? Indeed I have structured this part of my business around the availability of ANI. Why not? It is widely available, perfectly legal, and very useful. Your blatherings do not challenge my business or my business practices in any way. As we speak, my ANI capturing system is working perfectly. I am not threatened at all. You say "too bad for you." Really? Right now the technology, the laws, the regulations, and the courts are on my side. Wanna change it? Good luck. Take your best shot. In the meantime, it seems as though you are the one with the problem. > There are dozens of 800 number providers who > Businesses find their underlying assumptions challenged all the time, > and have to adapt or perish. It is very much going my way. My 800 number works perfectly. Tell me: what is it that I need to adapt to? -- 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: "Scott E. Preece" Subject: Re: ANI Organization: Motorola MCG, Urbana Design Center Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 14:23:17 GMT In article Conrad Kimball writes: | >These are personal questions that I am asking here. I would appreciate | >it that if you decide to answer that you not bring up irrelevancies | >such as "the public" or anyone else. We are just talking between the | >two of us. I am interested in YOUR reasons for having an abhorrance for | >letting a business that YOU elect to contact know anything at all about | >the person doing the contacting. | | I see no need for them to know a thing about me. I walk in, pick up | what I want, and pay cash. What more can they expect? --- Actually, *I* would be quite happy if vendors with 800 numbers would be more blatant about using ANI. I would *prefer* it if when I called, say, L.L.Bean they would say "Good morning, Mr. Preece, did the briefcase you order last month work out for you? And what can we do for you today?" than go through the charade of having me give them, again, all the information they already have in their database. [Disclaimer - some places don't prompt for data after you've identified yourself with a customer number; I'd just as soon they linked the phone number to the customer number and skipped that step, though some negotiation is obviously necessary when, for instance, I call in an order from somewhere else...]. I have no objection to you having your anonymity, if you like, but I would much prefer that merchants optimize their services for my convenience (even if it makes your anonymity less convenient). I think most of us would prefer the convenience over the anonymity. It wouldn't upset me if the only way to call anonymously was to call through an intermediary service (so that the call appeared, to the eventual recipient, to come from that service). --- | >The custom and usage of caller anonymity, a legacy of the limited | >technology of the past, will die hard. As the knee-jerk reactions to | >anything that threatens the status quo subside, we may all eventually | >look back on this era with great amusement. | | When do you think the custom of anonymous grocery buying, a "legacy of | the limited technology" of the present, will die out? Should it? Why? --- Actually, through essentially all of human history (which is to say, until some time in the current century), grocery buying, like virtually all other commercial transactions, was not anonymous, but was performed in little shops run by the owner, who typically knew rather a lot about you, both from watching your buying habits and from gossiping about you with other customers and merchants. It's still that way in a lot of places. --- | | All the verbage aside, the idea that you might have to pay for an | anonymous caller seems to bother you a great deal. Tell me, why is | it that you seem to feel it so threatened that an entity that calls | you knows your business (the business, not you personally) while | remaining personally anonymous to you? --- The 800 number allows him to provide better service, the ANI service allows him both to provide better service and to reduce risk. Why should he give it up so that a (I believe) relatively small number of people can choose to be anonymous? scott -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 08:55:10 EDT From: Ken Jongsma x7702 Reply-To: jongsma@swdev.si.com Subject: Privacy When Shopping (Was Re: ANI) ------------------------------ Conrad Kimball writes... >No, I don't feel threatened. On the other hand, the business typically >has no need to know who I am, and I'm not inclined to tell them, either. > >Who pays for the facilities is irrelevant; when I walk into a store, the >owner certainly is paying for the facilities, but that in no way gives >him (or his staff) a right to know who I am. They _invite_ the public >(me) into their premises by the very act of opening for business and >advertising. As such, it is axiomatic that I know who the business >is, though in all but rare cases I haven't a clue as to the personal >identities of the owner or the staff. Conversely, the business has >no need to know my personal identity; certainly not just for product >inquiries. I suppose a business _could_ legally condition entry to >their premises by asking for ID, but I doubt they'd find that an >effective way to stay in business. >... The mere fact that the >business pays for it gives it no special right to know who calls the >800 number anymore than owning the store gives it the right to know >who walks in the door. > >Yes, I quite routinely transact business in an anonymous fashion >(at least, as much as I can - some transactions such as real estate >simply aren't easily done anonymously). > >I see no need for them to know a thing about me. I walk in, pick up >what I want, and pay cash. What more can they expect? > >Of _course_ businesses like to know more about their customers; that's >the basis for a lot of consumer surveys, and all that. And I turn >them down, too. > >When do you think the custom of anonymous grocery buying, a "legacy of >the limited technology" of the present, will die out? Should it? Why? > >(Perhaps you routinely present ID whenever you walk into a store? >You don't?!? I'm shocked!! After all, they are paying for the >facilities, you know...) Conrad brings up some interesting points. I happen to agree with most of them, but he obviously hasn't been in one of the latest trends in retailing today: The "Warehouse Club." All of them require some sort of "membership card" to enter and to checkout, even when paying cash. The salesdroids dutifully enter your membership number into the POS machine and record your every purchase down to the UPC number. Someone in misc.consumers recently mentioned that they had received a letter from one of these clubs noting the amount of purchases made and solliciting the member to buy a card entitling them to a discount (actually a waiver of surcharge) on future purchases. So, the information is being reviewed and used. A traditional practice in the business to business market and fairly innocuous, but it has been one of the reasons that I don't do much shopping at these places. Ken -- Kenneth R Jongsma jongsma@swdev.si.com Smiths Industries 73115.1041@compuserve.com Grand Rapids, Michigan +1 616 241 7702 ------------------------------ Posted-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 13:50:32 GMT From: Richard Roda Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#040 Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 13:50:32 GMT In article Bryon Propst writes: > >Is the U.S. Government really going to become this irrational in its >phobia that the common citizen may actually obtain true privacy in >their communications? What has happened to our government over the >last 200 years? We once believed that what the private citizen did was >his own business until there was physical evidence that they were >harming another's Constitutional rights. Now, you believe that you >have the right to "take a preventative stance toward crime and >corruption...". Sounds good, but where does that lead us? To invading >ALL areas of our citizens lives that were once deemed private, in the >hope that you may find a potential infraction?!? > It's because our citizens are DEMANDING that the government take away their rights, because they think will be safer from the TERRORISTS(tm), DRUG DEALERS(tm), and CONSPIRICIES(tm). (Kind of reminds me of "Lions and Tigers and Bears -- Oh my!" from the Wizard of Oz). When (if) the public wakes up, perhaps things will change. Unfortunataly, that does not seem likely. >Our forefathers are doing backflips. As one person on the net said, we could probably solve our electrical problems by hooking up a generator to Jefferson's grave; He's probably doing 30,000 RPM by now. [Deleted] -- Richard E. Roda | PGP 2.3 Public key by Email X-disclaimer: These are my opinions, not necessarily any one else's. X-metadisclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers. ------------------------------ From: David Heck Subject: Privacy Ammendment to Constitution Organization: The University of Akron Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 13:52:26 GMT It seems to me, with the dozens of legislative attempts to secure privacy for citizens, instead of dealing with the symptoms, why not go the source of the problem and provide a constitutional guarantee as a Privacy Amendment to the Constitution? It sure as heck would have an uphill battle in both houses, but with citizens clamoring loudly to all congressional representatives on a variety of issues the risks of not responding to critical constituent concerns seem to outweigh individual congressmen's concerns with their party leadership and campaign financing. What about establishing an ad hoc citizens committee to produce a draft copy then initiate national petition drive in all 50 states then force congress to act....any comments? Has anything like this been proposed/attempted in the past? Privacy is not currently guarateed in our constitution, why not guaratee it? David ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #045 ******************************