Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 09:51:56 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#080 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 23 Nov 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 080 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: 10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM Re: 10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM stopping junk mail:new idea Electronic communication survey Re: California Driver License and SSN Re: California Driver License and SSN Re: California Driver License and SSN Re: Computer Bulletin Boards should NOT be censored. Privacy rights clearinghouse 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: Winston Edmond Subject: Re: 10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM Organization: Panther Software and Research Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 21:30:07 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net Mark Bell writes: I just bought a set of seven CDROMS which have most of the listed telephone numbers in the US. Six disks cover the nation for both residential and business, and a seventh disk has all the businesses listed again, also broken out by SIC code, etc. so you can scan them by industry. Compuserve has had something similar for years. One is called BIZ*FILE (a list of all businesses listed in any Yellow Pages in the U.S. or Canada) and the other is (I think) PHONE*FILE (the list of names from the White Pages of the U.S. and Canada). You can look up people or businesses by (partial) name and area code or state. The cost is only somewhat more than their standard connect time charge, and the lists are, I assume, updated from time to time. -WBE ------------------------------ From: Donald Burr Subject: Re: 10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM Date: 22 Nov 1993 13:26:03 -0800 Organization: Regional Access Information Network Mark Bell writes: >These disks were $85 for the set, 1993 edition, at my local computer >swapmeet. I'd say this is one genie that's out of the privacy bottle. >But if you're doing a high school reunion it is just the thing. That is debatable. Since phone books are PUBLIC material (I.e. I can walk into Anytown, USA's phone office and say "Gimme your phone book!", or walk up to just about any pay phone (assuming it hasn't been vandalized that much) and look at it). If this CD-ROM carried listings of people for whom they DON'T want their names published, or if some guy, upon looking at the First Edition of the CD-ROM saying "No, I don't want my number in there anymore", but the CD-ROM people still leave his/her number in the next edition, then this is a clear violation of privacy, etc. and the CD-ROM folks would be at fault. Then again, this is still a somewhat shaky ground. One thing that comes to mind is the big stink people made about Lotus Marketplace, the CD-ROM for businesses that listed LOTS of people's addresses and phone numbers. From what I understand (I didn't really pay very much attention to the Marketplace debates, nor did I ever see a copy of Marketplace) it is a listing of people's phone numbers and addresses, gleaned from public sources such as telephone books. This is (IMHO) clearly in violation of people's right to privacy, etc. Whereas the CD-ROM phonebook the original poster mentioned, this was targeted specifically at businesses, ostensibly for them to start sending these folks tons of junk mail, adding them (unknowingly so) to their mailing lists, etc. This is an odd issue, since the instrument (the phonebook CD-ROM) BY ITSELF is neutral (i.e. it's just another representation of publicly- available information), but depending on ITS USAGE, it can be a violation of people's rights, etc. (For example, compare the following two usages: People using it for a class reunion, or telemarketers using it to rip people off.) -- Donald Burr (aka Captain Picard, Picard, Picards, and SuperTribble) EMAIL: picard@rain.org; AMERICA ONLINE: CapnPicard A Trekker, and DAMN proud of it! -+- Want FREE Unix for 386/486? EMAIL ME!! "We're just two lost souls / Swimming in a fish bowl" -- Pink Floyd ------------------------------ From: Steven Minor McClure Subject: stopping junk mail:new idea Organization: Rice University Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 21:51:38 GMT The main problem with junk mail isn't that people don't want it, what people want is a way to get "better" junk mail. I would like to stop getting so much stuff for Columbia record club and start getting more stuff from computer and electronic places, for instance. Some big company (Lotus anyone ?) could compile a *Voluntary* list of what junk mail people would like to get and then sell this to the junk mail providers. No one would be getting anything they don't as least theoretically want. Of course, the company could also send out updates periodically on CDROM or whatever. Better yet, this info could be licensed to the junk mail providers and then taken away should the junk mail providers not live up to the implicit promise not to send folks things they don't want. For instance, if the company gets to many complaints about Columbia record club---cut them off--make them remove all the info from there system and revoke their license to the data. Sufficient care should be taken with the privacy of this listing or consumers would quit sending in their info..or worse, start lying. Care should also be taken to make sure that I don't send in info saying that I'm Senator X and I'd like more junk mail from hard core sex magazines (unless of course I really am Senator X). ------ Anyway, if anyone uses this idea---I want a 10% royalty :-) The real problem with junk mail: The companies sending it think *they* know what we want better than *we* do. Kind of absurd when you think about it. Steve McClure ------------------------------ From: burchianti Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,comp.mail.misc,comp.admin.policy,comp.human-factors Subject: Electronic communication survey Date: 20 Nov 1993 22:46:45 GMT Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services Summary: Organization behavior survey [Moderator's Note: This was also cross-posted to the moderated group comp.risks. I sent the moderator there a separate copy. ._dennis ] I am doing a MBA project at San Diego State Univ. on the electronic communication impact on organizational behavior. If you have interest in this topic can you please respond to my E-mail address to the questionnaire below. I will post my results when the project is completed at the end of the term. Thanks. Mike Burchianti MBA student, SDSU E-mail: burchian@ucssun1.sdsu.edu ******************* * Questionnaire * ******************* 1. What level of computer expertise do you possess? Beginner Intermediate Advanced 1 2 3 4 5 2. In which organization setting do you get most of your electronic communication exposure? 1. Business 2. Government 3. Military 4. School 5. Other 3. Do you have an E-mail usage policy in your work/school environment? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 4. Is electronic communication usage monitored in your work/school environment? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know 5. Electronic communication (E-mail, FAX, voice mail, computer phones, etc.) is impacting your daily life in a positive way in your work/school environment. a) By improving your job/school satisfaction. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 b) By making you more committed to your organization. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6. I feel overwhelmed by the usage of electronic communication. a) In the sophistication of communication technology: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 b) In the quantity of communication: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 7. You are enthusiastic about using electronic communication in your work/school environment. a) Because you like the benefits of electronic communication: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 b) Because electronic communication is inherently interesting: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 8. Electronic communication improves my productivity in my work/school environment. a) In the quality of productivity: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 b) In the quantity of productivity: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 9. Electronic communication has increased the level of communication among your colleagues in your work/school environment. a) In the quality of communication: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 b) In the quantity of communication: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 10.There is a higher level of cooperation among your colleagues due to electronic communication in your work/school environment. a) In the quality of cooperation: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 b) In the quantity of cooperation: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 11.Electronic communication has increased your perception of other members in your work/school environment. a) By being able to reach more members: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 b) By breaking down biases: Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 ------------------------------ From: Richard Roda Subject: Re: California Driver License and SSN Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 02:09:27 GMT In article Nevin Liber writes: >In article , >Bob Sherman wrote: > >>Errrr, excuse me, but there are many ways for you to use the roads your >>taxes pay for without needing a drivers license. You can for example ride >>a bike, use public transportation, take a taxi, ride as a passenger in >>a car while someone else does the driving, run, jog, walk etc.. All of the >>above are better done on a paved roadway than through the woods.. > >Plus there are many ways that we all indirectly use roads. Do you buy >food at a supermarket that is trucked in? If someone breaks into your >house, wouldn't it be nice if the police drive over to save you or your >belongings? Etc., etc. The police are a part of the same state-complex that we all pay taxes to. There is an economic principle that sunk costs are sunk costs, or more importantly, that you look at the incremental difference between two states before assiging a value difference. So, according to the logic of some on this news group, if I don't want to be fingerprinted, I should not use the road. The fact that the police use the road to get to my house is irrevelant because the police also use the road to get to people's houses who use the road with their automobiles. Therefore, it does not represent an incremental change between using the road and not using the road. Furthermore, if the state is using a good accounting system (which I know is not true, but it should be true except for incompentence of the state) all costs of the police system (including costs incurred in the line of duty, such as use of roads), are accounted for by the cost of police protection. Barring the incompentence of government, the fact the someone is not driving (and therefore is not paying for use of the roads) does not affect the cost of police protection. >-- > Nevin ":-)" Liber nevin@cs.arizona.edu (602) 293-2799 > -- -- PGP 2.3 Public key by mail | Richard E. Roda Disclaimer------------------------------------------------------------- | The opinons expressed above are those of a green alien who spoke to | | me in a vision. They do not necessarly represent the views of NCSU | | or any other person, dead or alive, or of any entity on Earth. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: The Flying Finn Subject: Re: California Driver License and SSN Date: 21 Nov 1993 02:36:34 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article , Nevin Liber wrote: >In article , >Bob Sherman wrote: > >>Errrr, excuse me, but there are many ways for you to use the roads your >>taxes pay for without needing a drivers license. You can for example ride >>a bike, use public transportation, take a taxi, ride as a passenger in >>a car while someone else does the driving, run, jog, walk etc.. All of the >>above are better done on a paved roadway than through the woods.. > >Plus there are many ways that we all indirectly use roads. Do you buy >food at a supermarket that is trucked in? If someone breaks into your >house, wouldn't it be nice if the police drive over to save you or your >belongings? Etc., etc. >-- This argument comes up every time somebody tries to argue against the government creating and maintaining a 'cost-free' good, like the highways. If you don't like roads, they say, don't use them. Unfortunately, the roads (and the air pollution and high taxes and urban sprawl and ... ) don't go away just because I don't drive. All that disappears is the marginal cost of owning a car (gas, oil, parking, etc), as well as the benefits. In our culture the 'benefits' of having a car include employability among other things:we are so car-dependent that it is nearly impossible to do without one in most urban areas. Facing this set of options, I am a reluctant car owner. If the system is really so hot at giving me choices, I would like to ask for a choice I have never been given:I would like to have the option of non-ownership of a car(or drastically reduced usage of same), without paying for it with my job. I'm willing to cut down my range, but I don't want to put up with an environment that is designed for automobiles with people as an afterthought. Do I really have that choice anywhere in America today? I think not. =Eric ------------------------------ From: "Keith F. Lynch" Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy,rec.bicycles.soc Subject: Re: California Driver License and SSN Date: 21 Nov 1993 11:22:07 -0500 Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA In article , John Higdon wrote: > And to add insult to injury many roads are now being fitted with > "bicycle lanes" which make the roads more hazardous for the motorist > by narrowing the available space for lanes. Really? My impression was that bicycle lanes exist for the convenience of *motorists*. There is overwhelming evidence that cyclists are safer in the main traffic lanes. The reason why cyclists are often ghettoed into special lanes is so they won't slow down motorists. Speaking as a cyclist, I'd be very pleased if all bike lanes were abolished. > Bicyclists, as a group, pay absolutely nothing for this special > treatment and space on the roads. I should hope not. However, we do pay income taxes and sales taxes like anyone else. Here in Virginia, sales taxes were recently raised explicitly to fund road improvements, including improvements on roads cyclists are forbidden to use. We're also not allowed on interstate highways, which are paid for with federal money. Do I get a tax exemption because I don't use these facilities? No. My taxes also go to pay for wars to ensure access to America's gasoline supply, which I make no direct use of. Yes, I do buy products which are shipped on the roads. And the gasoline taxes and other taxes which the shippers pay is reflected in the price I pay for the goods. > ... the motorist is treated with the utmost contempt. He is mugged, > fingerprinted, taxed, and his privacy is forfeited. I agree. That's one reason I haven't agreed to accept this "privilege" which the state condescends to grant. I have no interest in a mode of transportation which requires a Soviet style internal passport. I routinely travel with no ID of any kind, except when going overseas. I think they should treat innocent drivers better, and guilty drivers worse. Near where I live in Virginia, two teenaged women were run down by a drunk driver a couple days ago. One is in the hospital. The other is in the morgue. The driver was immediately released on personal recognizance, and is still free to drink and drive. Had this crime been committed with a gun rather than a car, he would be facing decades behind bars, and the gun banners would be demanding that all guns be immediately confiscated from everyone. > The only thing more offensive than a self-righteous non-smoker is an > equally self-righteous non-driver. I guess I qualify as both. But don't try to run me off the public road (it belongs to all of us, not just to motorists), and don't make me breathe your smoke, or pay your medical bills, and we'll get along fine. [Moderator's Note: This thread really has bearing on privacy. let's end it. ._dennis ] -- Keith Lynch, kfl@access.digex.com f p=2,3:2 s q=1 x "f f=3:2 q:f*f>p!'q s q=p#f" w:q p,?$x\8+1*8 ------------------------------ From: Bernie Cosell Subject: Re: Computer Bulletin Boards should NOT be censored. Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 02:23:59 GMT In article , Dave Weil writes: } and Bernie Cosell writes: } > ..., I think it is A-OK that they insist that } > you play by their rules, but that once you agree on the rules they } > should only be changeable by mutual consent [that is, treat such } > as matters of contract law]. } > } You were doing fine up until the mutual consent bit. There is absolutely } no reason that the users should have *any* say in the governance of a BBS. You're right, of course. I didn't write what I intended to say. What the sysop shouldn't be allowed to do is change the rules 1) without *telling* the users and 2) without giving the users a chance to react. The case I was considering is if you tell me I can do *private* email on your system, and some time later you decide this is a big nuisance for you and you want me to *stop* using your system for private email. I agree, there is no 'consent' on my part: you *tell* me what the new rules are. But what I think makes sense is that you shouldn't change the rules until *after* you've told me and until *after* you've given me a chance to remove my files. Not talking about 'privacy' [which gets a lot of folks' feathers ruffled], imagine, instead, you tell me "every user of this BBS can use up to 1 meg of disk space". And you change your mind.... that's fine, but I shouldn't find out about the "new rules" by discovering that all of my files were summarily deleted. } One more point. Although I think that a sysop can do whatever she } wants on her own BBS, I reject all external (official or not) censors } unconditionally. Indeed, that's one reason why many of us are pushing to get NSF [and the rest of the gov't] *OUT* of the networking business. The _only_ network services in the US that have ever had any external censors have been the gov't-funded ones; the private nets have always allowed anyone to transport any bits they wanted to. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell cosell@world.std.com Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358 ------------------------------ From: jmanas@iat.holonet.net (Jeffrey Manas) Subject: Privacy rights clearinghouse Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access System: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 17:32:01 GMT The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse maintains a BBS available through the University of San Diego campus computer and via Internet. The BBS contains information on a number of privacy issues, among them: junk mail, telemarketing, credit reports, Social Security numbers, medical privacy, workplace privacy, wiretapping, cordless and cellular phones, and harrassing phone calls. In addition, federal and California privacy-related legislation is tracked and reported on the BBS. Access instructions: Direct: Dial 619-260-4670. At the local prompt enter 'c teetot' (no punctuation). At the login enter 'privacy'. Then follow instructions for new users. Via Internet: Telnet to the BBS at the command line by entering 'telnet teetot.acusd.edu'. Then follow the steps for direct connection as listed above. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse is a nonprofit consumer education service administered by the University of San Diego's Center for Public Interest Law. It is funded by the Telecommunications Education Trust, a program of the California Public Utilities Commission. The PRC offers a toll-free hotline for California consumers (800-773-7748) and a series of free fact sheets in addition to the BBS. The PRC has been in operation since October 1992. Beth Givens is project director. For more information call 619-298-3396, or fax 619-260-4753. E- mail: prc@teetot.acusd.edu. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #080 ******************************