Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 12:57:36 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#066 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 29 Oct 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 066 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Re: Finding someone Re: Finding someone Re: Clinton Health Care Plan HELP: Info about software Security Systems 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: John Hughes Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT) In article David Jones writes: >In the (US) news recently are two cases involving personal diary >entries being used (or subpoenaed) as evidence. > >I am surprised that this evidence is admissible, or at least that >no one has even tried to argue that it should be private. > >(1) Some Senator accused of some sort of sexual harrassment has had > his personal diary subpoenaed. Why is he not protected by > the right not to give self-incriminating testimony? > In the Senator's (Bob Packwood, R. Oregon) case, it was Packwood who originally introduced the diary as evidence for his defense. The problem is that he only wants parts of it used. Consider: Committee Staffer: 'Miss X says you did A on July 1, 1977." Packwood : 'Look at my diary entry for that day and you'll see I wasn't in town.' Staffer: 'May we see your diary entry for July 2, Senator?' Packwood: 'July 2 is not relevant to the committee's investigation.' ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 17:20:51 -0500 (CDT) Bernie Cosell writes: > In article , David Jones writes: > > } In the (US) news recently are two cases involving personal diary > } entries being used (or subpoenaed) as evidence. > } > } I am surprised that this evidence is admissible, or at least that > } no one has even tried to argue that it should be private. > > You have to make clear on what basis such an item *should* be kept > private. > > > } (1) Some Senator accused of some sort of sexual harrassment has had > } his personal diary subpoenaed. Why is he not protected by > } the right not to give self-incriminating testimony? > > No. This is clearly a misunderstanding of the law on your part. The > fifth amendment only protects *testimony* not presenting *evidence*. > The SC has [quite rightly, I'd say] interpreted that to mean _only_ > that you are allowed to refuse to make *verbal* statements. In essence, > it says that for anything that is locked in your brain, you have the > right to *keep* it so locked. > It was explained to me that there is considerable case law here and a diary is a little different than other records. Generally it is not subpoenable, but if the author utilizes the diary in order to defend themselves, then the other side is entitled to examine the document. The legal proceedings in the case of Sen. Proxmeyer relates to how much of the diary should be entered, not as to whether the diary can be subpoenaed or not. -phil -- J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - (314) 362-3617 [362-2693(FAX)] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Date: 27 Oct 1993 21:15:42 GMT Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA In article David Jones writes: >(1) Some Senator accused of some sort of sexual harrassment has had > his personal diary subpoenaed. Why is he not protected by > the right not to give self-incriminating testimony? It's not testimony, it's physical evidence. The fact that it's the words of the accused doesn't make it testimony. It's more analogous to a tape of a telephone conversation. >(2) Some girl (a minor I think) apparently wrote in her diary that > she regrets killing her younger sister. I think her mother > found the diary and went to the police. Again, isn't a diary > to be considered private? While it's considered *rude* to read someone else's diary, that hardly makes it inadmissable as evidence. It's also rude to go through someone else's personal property, but if the mother found the murder weapon in the girl's room I think she would have the right to tell the police about it. Basically, as soon as you write something down it goes from being personal thoughts to being tangible evidence. The police would need a search warrant to go through the girl's property to find the diary, but a private citizen is under no such constraints. -- Barry Margolin System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ From: Bernie Cosell Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 02:40:17 GMT In article , "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" writes: } What it apparently means is that if you have written records, you can be } required to present them; you are under no requirement to explain what } they mean. So the answer is to encrypt them and give those who want them } the printed listing of the encrypted file and stand on one's 5th Amendment } right not to give out the key. This is what the file looks like on the } computer; this is a verbatim printout of the file, which is garbage. Nice try but I suspect it won't fly. What I think it probably WILL do is land you in jail for contempt of court, although I don't think this has actually be tested yet. You could try arguing that "I forgot the key, sorry", but it is hard to believe that just stonewalling the key will not be construed as obstruction and earn you a contempt citation... /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell cosell@world.std.com Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358 ------------------------------ From: Steven Minor McClure Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Organization: Rice University Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:47:00 GMT In article Bernie Cosell writes: >... >No. This is clearly a misunderstanding of the law on your part. The >fifth amendment only protects *testimony* not presenting *evidence*. >The SC has [quite rightly, I'd say] interpreted that to mean _only_ >that you are allowed to refuse to make *verbal* statements. In essence, >it says that for anything that is locked in your brain, you have the >right to *keep* it so locked. > >On the other hand, *everything* else about you _is_ subject to subpeona >and introduction as evidence. Letters, financial records, diaries, >*anything* [reread the fourth: it specifically says that our "papers and >effects" *ARE* subject to search and seizure under appropriate >circumstances.". so there's just *no* case for not complying with >such a subpoena. > >The moral is simple: if you want to keep it private, keep it inside >your skull. >... This is not entirely true either. For instance, reporters have gone to jail for not revealing a source. In this case, data in the reporter's head is legally compelled to be given. Supposed Packwood had encrypted his diary. Would senate ethics comm. or anyone else (like a court) be able to force him to reveal the password under threat of jail? What if we had used an ordinary lock instead? What if he had just written down a few mnemonics? ("One man's code is another man's mnemonics"---unknown) Let's face it: diaries, computer records, etc. are in many ways just an extension of the human brain. Why *should* a diary be more accesable by the courts than a brain? I guess the implicit reasoning is that the dividing line is where the flesh starts the law stops, but this isn't really the case either, as with genetic testing in paternity cases etc. If we allow probes of brains in cases of revealing sources, and complete DNA scans in the case of paternity or whatever, what's to keep some future US court from deciding to probe someone's brain with some sort or Mind Scanner to reveal the sought information? Would a brain become subpoenable evidence? I'd like to see the issue settled *before* someone invents one of these. (100-200 years I would guess) Steve P.S. The more general question is: what exactly *is* the difference between 'hardware' and 'information'? (or in this case 'evidence' and 'testimony') The line is more blurred every day. ------------------------------ Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal From: David Garrod Subject: Re: Finding someone Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 16:35:31 GMT In article Dark writes: >In article , >Bob Sherman wrote: >> >>This is easier said than done. Yes, the SSA will do as you described, but >>the key here is your "last known address". In reality, The average person >>never contacts the SSA from the time they first get the card, until it is >>time to collect some sort of benifit. That can be anywhere from 45-63 >>years. A last known address that is 40 years or more old does not really >>offer much help.. >> >>There are much faster, and easier ways to locate a person with the >>information you have at hand.. > >These being...? > >Let's assume I'd like to contact a delinquant dad and let him know that >I (Son) will waive all he owes. How might one go about finding dear ole >dad if he doesn't want to be found? > >Whatever the hypo, what's the solution to the non-compliant/willing >search (aside from expensive detectives et al.) > If you have a name and approximate birth-date and know at least one state where the person lived, a relatively cheap way to locate is via a licensing agency. e.g. most states will send you the last known address for a driving license for a $3 fee. In the event the person has moved out of the state, you get the last known address in that state plus a statement of to which state the license was changed to. This also works for other professional licenses. Processing time is typically 3-4 weeks from the central license agengy. i.e. in Indiana I would write Bureau of Motor Driving licenses in Indianapolis. Most states will also give employer`s address for state income tax received from an employee if you know the SS# for the employee. So, if you strike out on the person`s address, you may be able to find his employer`s address. Said addresses are updated in Indiana on a quarterly basis, and I assume that is typical. There are books available at you local bookstore for about $18, which describe about a 100 different ways to track someone down. If you can`t afford $18, go visit your local library! ------------------------------ From: Tom Gillman Subject: Re: Finding someone Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 17:34:41 -0500 (EDT) Organization: Georgia State University Dark writes: >In article , >Bob Sherman wrote: >> >>This is easier said than done. Yes, the SSA will do as you described, but >>the key here is your "last known address". In reality, The average person >>never contacts the SSA from the time they first get the card, until it is >>time to collect some sort of benifit. That can be anywhere from 45-63 >>years. A last known address that is 40 years or more old does not really >>offer much help.. >> >>There are much faster, and easier ways to locate a person with the >>information you have at hand.. >These being...? >Let's assume I'd like to contact a delinquant dad and let him know that >I (Son) will waive all he owes. How might one go about finding dear ole >dad if he doesn't want to be found? >Whatever the hypo, what's the solution to the non-compliant/willing >search (aside from expensive detectives et al.) EASY.... 1) Find Last Known Address. 2) Contact that State's Unemployment Agency. Tell them you're looking for so-and-so, SSN # ###-##-####, this usually costs about $10. If the guy has worked in that state in the last five years, they'll have a record of where, and can give a current address. 3) People always go home....find out where they came from originally, and do the same thing there. It's really not that hard to find people, even those who don't want to be found. -- Tom Gillman, Systems Programmer |"I think you crossed that fine line Wells Computer Center-Ga. State Univ. | between polite lying and outright (404) 651-4503 syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu | sarcasm" -- Dilbert My opinions, not GSU's... | ------------------------------ From: miller@cs.rochester.edu Subject: Re: Clinton Health Care Plan Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Dept Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 18:18:53 -0400 Let's also remember that there is some subtle twisting of language going on here: people who show up at the social services window, and ultimately the health care window ARE NOT the clients. They have become the raw materials. The clients (i.e. those who are actually paying the bills) are the taxpayers. So health care will no longer be what is in the individual's best interest, but the Taxpayer's best interest. Typically, that will be minimizing cost. This has always been true of social services, despite what certain neoliberals would have us beleive; they just enjoy the aristocratic advantage of being able to regulate the amounts of such services (e.g. to purchase votes). Extending the system to cover all Americans is a very bad idea: our very health will be put under the thumb of those currently in power, who may decide to deny us services on the basis of how we vote, speak, or pray. I don't want either the conservatives, authoritarians, liberals or libertariens (as if they wanted to) to control access to my health records, or be in a position to decide what health care I receive. That is veterinary medicine at it's worst. The FDA was already one major wrong step in that direction (by taking away my right to self-perscribe, and even my doctors ability to perscribe). Health insurance in general is a big step in the wrong direction, as it allows the insurance company to decide what health care I need and will get. We just don't need to continue to travel in the wrong direction. Regards, Brad Miller ------------------------------ From: "Francisco INOSTROZA M." Subject: HELP: Info about software Security Systems Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 04:32:05 GMT Organization: Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion - Chile Hi! Im looking on information about software security in PC. May be security by software or/and hardware. If you known any references or if you have any information, please e-mail me. Thanks!! -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Inostroza M. | | Dpto. Ing. Electrica | "Quando il corpus morietur | Universidad de Concepcion | fac ut anime donetur | CHILE | paradisi gloria..." | finostro@renoir.die.udec.cl | | ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #066 ******************************