Date: Tue, 09 Nov 93 11:10:58 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#071 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 09 Nov 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 071 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL FTPs on Privacy Research ? Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls? Re: Finding someone Re: Finding someone Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? Re: isn't one's diary con Invasion of Privacy Banning out of state drivers 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: Douglas Zongker Subject: Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL Date: 7 Nov 1993 19:12:10 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, Michigan State University In article "Paul J. Bell" writes: >|> [stuff deleted] >|> If anyone knows a state that positively does NOT require SSN, I'd like to >|> know... I hacked the 1 January 1993 changeover by renewing my license two >|> years early, so I have until 1996 to find a way around this. > >new york does not require ssn's for drivers licenses. >they ask for it but if you say no, they use some other number. > >cheers, > paul > Kansas began using the SSN two or three years ago, but they will give you another "SSN-like" number if you ask. doug -- douglas zongker; michigan state university; zongker@cps.msu.edu "it doesn't have to make sense. just manipulate it as if it made sense." -- anonymous mth 254h prof ------------------------------ From: Vaclav Matyas Subject: FTPs on Privacy Research ? Organization: School of Computer Scince, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 18:56:43 GMT I have to do a project on current issues in research in Privacy - mostly related to Computer Science, but keeping social or legal point of view and I wonder if there are any good up-to-date sources on that. Any hint highly appreciated. ^ / | ~/-\/-\ | / \ / _/ __ | _ | | | _ X- _/ |_/ \ / [ | | | [ | \ / | | | [ | | \ /[ | |_ V L_L |__ L L_L V | | | L_L L V L_L __| / Vaclav Matyas, Jr. School of Computer Science E-mail : matyas@scs.carleton.ca Carleton University 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ont. K1S 5B6 ___________________________________________________ CANADA Without a courageous step, we will not move forward. ------------------------------ From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" Subject: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls? Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 15:10:10 GMT I didn't see an FAQ posted, so here goes. Does anybody know an effective method of stopping junk phone calls from automatic computer equipment? Here are six things which do NOT work: 1) Writing (three times) to the DMA's Phone Preference service. 2) Having New England Telephone place me on their "exclusion list." This is supposed to stop calls that originate in Massachusetts, and perhaps it does, but if so it just proves that the percentage of calls originating in Massachusetts is small. (A lot of the volume is pitches for time-share condos in Rhode Island and New Hampshire). (Some are from siding and gutter companies that say they will be "in your area" but presumably they're placing the calls from somewhere else). 3) Having the call traced. Does NO good because they won't do anything, NOT EVEN TELL YOU THE SOURCE OF THE CALL, unless you get TWO calls from the same place within thirty days. What's really frustrating is that I have two telephones and phone numbers and it is very common for me to actually GET two calls a few hours apart, but that is apparently not good enough. 4) Calling and writing the FCC. Although I have the impression that Congress passed a law requiring the FCC to protect us against automatically dialled calls, I have been unable to find the right FCC office or what the correct procedure is for getting placed on the list or getting enforcement. Many of these calls do NOT clear the line until the message is finished -- hang up, wait fifteen seconds, pick up again, and they're still at it -- which I think is a violation of FCC regulations. 5) Leaving my name and number and trying to get information or place a stop request when they call me back to let me know which of the four prizes I have definitely won. I've gotten some interesting responses, such as claims that they DON'T KNOW the name of the telemarketing company involved ("Oh, I just work for a temp agency... _Their_ address? Oh, I don't think I can give that out...") 6) Joining "Private Citizen." Hasn't done any HARM that I've noticed (I was afraid it might get me on a "privacy-nut" mailing list), but no GOOD either. Anybody know anything that WORKS? --Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@world.std.com ------------------------------ Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal From: Brian Leibowitz Subject: Re: Finding someone Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 17:41:18 GMT In article Larry Kolodney writes: >In Josh Rubin writes: > >>The LEXIS service has a new library called "Finder" that has census data >>on, I believe, 111 million US households, including all household >>members. I think that a search costs $75. You can search by name, >>date of birth, location, phone number, etc. It's excellent. > > >I kind of doubt that. Census data is supposed to be strictly >confidential, and not used for any other purpose. I believe the >Commerce Department is prohibited by law from releasing it even to >other govt. agencies. > >What Finder might contain is one of the many private data bases which >contain similar types of information, gleaned from warranty cards, >change-of-address orders, magazine subscriptions, and the like. > Not the LOCAL census data. Shortly after the state census I started getting lots of local junk mail. My roommate who did not use our apartment adress for anything started getting junk mail. I called some advertisers and eventually found out that they had bought copies of the census from the city. The city clerk told me that the state and city census information is public record and that many companies bought copies. (this was in Massachusetts) I recently found out that in California, your voter registration is public information (do not give your phone number when you register to vote- you can omit it) The thing that bothered me is that anyone can check if you have voted yet at any time during election day. My precinct had the voter rolls posted (including addresses and phone numbers) on the door with lines through the names of people who had voted already. Every hour, they updated the marks indicating who had voted. The clerk said that lots of people had copies of the list. Also, during the day, many of these people would come by to check their lists against the list of who had voted. (mostly poll takers and campainers wanting to know who to call.) bml ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 08:49:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com> Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Finding someone From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA ----- (In reference to sending someone a letter by mailing it to Social Security where all you have is the person's SSA and no address), Phil Smith , writes: > As quoted from by Dark > : > +--------------- > | 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". > > [deleted] > > Wouldn't the "last known address" be that which was supplied > by whomever paid to SSA your FICA? An employer makes quarterly payments to Social Security but no identification of who those payments are for is made until the information is sent out at tax time. Since employers of under 50 people are not required to do magtape/diskette filing, all SSA gets is paper Form W2 reports once a year. And while it is common place to print the employee's name and address on the W2 for the year, it is not mandatory. Assuming SSA wants to even bother keeping this information, that's another issue altogether. Perhaps the IRS would be a better place to look, considering how hungry they are for informatiom. --- Note: All mail is read/responded every day. If a message is sent to this account, and you expect a reply, if one is not received within 24 hours, resend your message; some systems do not send mail to MCI Mail correctly. Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 14:55:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? From: Paul Robinson ----- In a private message, I was responded: > } What strikes me as odd is why reporters don't do something > } like this: write something on the material which is > } incriminating ("I ran a red light on April 14 at 2:31 pm") and > } encode everything in their notes. Then, invoke the *5th* > } amendment - not the first - to refuse to decode the information. > > I think the answer should be self-evident: because it doesn't > work. It is this type of reasoning that ought to get you to > be a bit suspect about the actual solidness of your thesis. > > } .. (Even if it is only information of running a red light, > } where traffic offenses are not administrative matters (which > } is only the District of Columbia; in all other places traffic > } offenses are criminal acts) the information about a 'crime' > } entitles one not to incriminate oneself.) > > This isn't true, and I suspect can land you in jail. You only have > a privilege not to testify truly _against_yourself_. You cannot > just casually invoke the privilege whenever you don't feel like > talking about something. If _you_ are not on trial [as you would > not be in the case of a reporter being asked to provide evidence in > a third-party's trial], you'll be expected to testify. Try again. Do you remember Ollie North invoking the 5th Amendment in his testimoy to Congress? That was not an evidentiary trial and he was still allowed to invoke the 5th Amendment; Congress had to grant him immunity to require him to speak. If the information which would be given by someone could be used to incriminate them, they have the right to invoke the 5th Amendment. Do you remember the House Unamerican Activities Committee during the 1950s where it asked people the infamous question, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party," and people invoked the 5th Amendment. One has the right to invoke this amendment unless granted immunity if one is subpoenaed to be a witness or is otherwise forced to come forward. > } It would be interesting to see whether one can be compelled to > } state the decoding key of a piece of material which could, > } based on the information which was compelled to be released by > } them, then be used to incriminate the person; no American > } court has ever done such a thing that I know of. > > I don't know either. How did you search for something like > this [I can't even *begin* to figure out how one would do > such a thing]. As I say, it strikes me as unlikely that this > matter has never come up, so I would assume/hope that there is > some concrete info on it. Because it is unlikely that there was ever a non-criminal challenge for production of records where the records were protected by a code; usually the cases involve something like raiding a bookie and getting his code books; but once he _is_ a criminal suspect and being tried, he has full 5th Amendment rights. I don't know how accurate this is, but I'll offer it as an example. In an episode of Dragnet, a police officer was accused of paying off a bookie. The police captured the bookie's record book (log). I believe the bookie invoked the 5th amendment to refuse to tell them how to decode his book (because the records within it could be used to incriminate him.) The two police officers were able to decipher his code enough to figure out that the conditions were exactly what the police officer said: he had paid off a loan from the bookie, not knowing about his criminal record. The code showed a record in his log book which said "RPD LN" when decoded, e.g. Repaid Loan. The point being that it seemed to be clear that code keys represent material that is of a private nature and the person has the right to invoke the 5th Amendment on them. If you wanted to search, try the U.S. Code Annotated, check the volume on the Constitution, and check 5th Amendment; it will show cases and summaries related to various issues. This might help, but it will only show appealed cases. --- Note: All mail is read/responded every day. If a message is sent to this account, and you expect a reply, if one is not received within 24 hours, resend your message; some systems do not send mail to MCI Mail correctly. Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush ------------------------------ From: jayhawk@holonet.net Subject: Re: isn't one's diary con Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access System: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 03:44:04 GMT -=> Quoting Steve@owlnet.rice.edu to Comp.society.privacy <=- St> This is not entirely true either. For instance, reporters have gone St> to jail for not revealing a source. In this case, data in the St> reporter's head is legally compelled to be given. That's not really a good analogy. In these cases, the reporters were not the one's who are accused of wrong doing. Therefore the 5th amendment does not apply. The 5th only protects one against SELF-incrimination. Bryan Kennedy Reed jayhawk@holonet.net bkreed@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu --- ~ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ~ ------------------------------ From: eng@ecf.toronto.edu (ENG BRIAN) Subject: Invasion of Privacy Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 03:43:40 GMT It has come to my attention that the system administrator at the University of Toronto Scarborough campus has been infringing on the right to privacy. I have evidence to support my claims. Electronic mails and private files were accessed periodically by the system administrator withour permission or consent from the student user. I intend to file an complaint to the university ombusperson and organizations outside the university in order to exsert pressure to the faculty to remedy the situation. However, I would like to know what protections are present for users on a computer users linked to the rest of the world through the Internet. What actions can I take to put a stop to this invasion of privacy? I very much appreciate your help and assistance. STOP INVASION OF PRIVACY. Tom Peng please forward your emails to: pengt@generic.uucp (I do not wish my mail to be read on campus) (by the sys-admin) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 09:01:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com> Subject: Banning out of state drivers Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA ----- > P.S. I heard a rumor that California was banning operation of > out-of-state vehicles that had no auto insurance even if they were > driven by genuine tourists. People from Wisconsin, say. Anyone know if > this is true. I don't think so. California tried something like this back during the Great Depression when they attempted to exclude cars from poor states. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this was illegal. I don't think they could, anyway. If you are driving from, say, Wisconsin, chances are unless you want to visit Las Vegas, you're probably going to go through Arizona. And Arizona does the Agricultural checks for California, anyway. (If you drive from Nevada to California, you get stopped for Agricultural Inspection at the California State Line. If you go from Arizona to California you are not re-inspected because you already went through one. The other question is what grounds do they have to request proof of insurance? Since there is no other inspection, there is no grounds to check. And I suspect that an attempt to stop Interstate immigration (a tourist is a temporary immigrant) would be unconstitutional. --- Note: All mail is read/responded every day. If a message is sent to this account, and you expect a reply, if one is not received within 24 hours, resend your message; some systems do not send mail to MCI Mail correctly. Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #071 ******************************