Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 10:53:18 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#081 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 24 Nov 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 081 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears BBS Censorship Re: Privacy of cellular phones [Subject field chosen by MODERATOR] Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls? detectives who help abusive husbands track down their wives Guns Control/Registration/Confiscation Mass. Driver's License and SSN (GOOD news!) Re: 10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM 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, 21 Nov 93 14:39 EST From: WHMurray@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Subject: BBS Censorship >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. I am not yet ready to lump all "external" censorship together. The Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids state censorship. The history suggests that this is because the founders saw the state as coercive and because then recent events around the world suggested that governments were using censorship to perpetuate their own power. More recent history provides sufficient instances of such use to convince most people that this is an intrinsic tendency of government. Even in the face of the Constitution, the tendency of the US government to do so is obvious. There is a similar tendency on the part of the established church. Even other churches demonstrate a tendency to attempt to coopt the state into censoring ideas or artistic expression that they find offensive. Still, all but a few churches eschew violence. If they cannot use the power of the state, they will limit themselves to ostracism to enforce their censorship. However, these two institutions are in a class of their own. Within the class, the state is more to be feared than the church. I am not yet ready to lump all other censorship with these two. For example, more recently, we have seen attempts by colleges and universities to censor "hate speech." While I find it hard to reconcile such censorship with the role of a university, I think that a college ought to be able to censure its own voluntary members for such speech. If this be censorship, it is very different from state or church censorship. William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security 49 Locust Avenue, Suite 104; New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 1-0-ATT-0-700-WMURRAY; WHMurray at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Nov 93 23:24:43 GMT From: Brinton Cooper cc: privacy@vortex.com Subject: Re: Privacy of cellular phones [Subject field chosen by MODERATOR] Organization: The US Army Research Laboratory There have been many remarks in these forums, recently, of this type: "Too bad the cop had to break the (eavesdropping) law. At least he caught a crook. The crook had it coming, so what's the harm?" Here's the harm: You, a law-abiding citizen, are having an innocent cellular phone conversation with your equally law-abiding spouse when an officer of the law illegally eavesdrops on your conversation. The segment of conversation which she hears (perhaps out of context) sounds to her like a discussion of concurrent legal activity so she determines your location, then tracks you down and arrests you. Now you've done nothing wrong. However, YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. So if your job, as mine, depends upon holding a security clearance, every time you are asked subsequently, "Have you ever been ARRESTED for a crime?" you must answer in the affirmative, then go through the whole mess and explain yourself. You may even have to discuss the content of the phone conversation. (Well, you may not HAVE to, but, then, "you don't have to work here, either.") Further, YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED, detained from free exercise of your liberties. You may be held overnight, perhaps in an urban jail in (name your least favorite big city) where you may well be harmed or worse (must I draw you a picture?) by other inmates. All this happens because it's OK for the cop to break the law if it results in arresting a "crook." And who's a "crook," anyway? Are all detainees crooks? Are we guilty before the law until we prove ourselves innocent, or is it the other way around? This is a quiz. You may flunk. _Brint ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 10:54 EST From: John R Levine Subject: Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 Organization: I.E.C.C. >> At long last, federal law now requires telemarketers to remove from >>their call lists, anyone who requests it. Here's the Library of Congress' semi-official summary of this law. If you want the full text, you'll have to go to a library that has copies of the U.S. code. You'll note that it refers primarily to automated junk phone calls. It also outlaws junk fax, requires that computer generated faxes be time-stamped and have the originating phone number, and, at the end, has a non-germane amendment about AM radio. Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ABSTRACT AS INTRODUCED: Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to restrict the use of telephone facsimile machines, automatic telephone dialing systems, and other systems used to transmit artificial or prerecorded voice messages via telephone to make unsolicited calls or advertisements. REVISED DIGEST: (AS OF 11/26/91) Measure passed House, amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit any person within the United States from: (1) using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice (APV) to make a call to any emergency telephone line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency; to the telphone line of any patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment; or to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or radio common carrier service or any other service for which the called party is charged for the call; (2) initiating any call to a residential telephone line using an APV to deliver a message without the consent of the called party, with specified exceptions; (3) using any telephone facsimile machine (FAX), computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a FAX machine; or (4) using an ATDS in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line business are engaged simultaneously. Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe regulations to implement such requirements. Requires the FCC to consider allowing businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an APV to which they have not consented. Authorizes the FCC to exempt from such requirements: (1) calls that are not made for a commercial purpose; and (2) categories of calls made for commercial purposes if such calls will not adversely affect privacy rights or do not include unsolicited advertisements. Authorizes private actions and the recovery of damages with respect to violations of such requirements. Directs the FCC to: (1) initiate a rulemaking proceeding concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object; and (2) prescribe regulations to implement methods and procedures for protecting such privacy rights without the imposition of any additional charge to telephone subscribers. States that such regulations may require the establishment and operation of a single national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving such solicitations, or to receiving certain classes or categories of solicitations, and to make the compiled list available for purchase. Outlines information to be included in such regulations if the FCC determines that such a database is required. Directs the FCC, it if determines that the national database is required, to: (1) consider the different needs of telemarketers conducting business on a national, State, or local level; (2) devleop a fee schedule for recouping the cost of such database that recognizes such difference; and (3) consider whether the needs of telemarketers operating on a local basis could be met through special markings of area white pages directories, and if such directories are needed as an adjunct to database lists prepared by area code and local exchange prefix. Authorizes private actions and the recovery of damages with respect to violations of such privacy rights. Makes it unlawful for any person within the United States to: (1) initiate any communication using a FAX or ATDS that does not comply with technical and procedural standards or to use such devices in a manner that does not comply with such standards; or (2) use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via FAX unless such person clearly marks on the document the date and time it is sent and identifies the entity sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or entity. Requires the FCC to revise the regulations setting technical and procedural standards for FAX machines to require any FAX machine manufactured one year after the enactment of this Act to clearly mark on a document the date and time it is sent and identify the entity sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or entity. Directs the FCC to prescribe technical and procedural standards for systems transmitting APV messages via telephone that require: (1) the messages to clearly state the identity and telephone number or address of the entity initiating the call; and (2) such systems to automatically release the called party's line within five seconds of the time the party has hung up. Provides that if the FCC requires the establishment of a database of telephone numbers of subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, a State or local authority may not require the use of a database or listing system that excludes the part of the national database that relates to such State. Permits States to bring civil actions to enjoin calls to residents in violation of this Act and to recover monetary damages. Grants U.S. district courts exclusive jurisdiction over such actions. Prohibits a State, whenever the FCC has instituted a civil action for violation of this Act, from brining an action against any defendant named in the FCC's complaint. Declares that it shall be the policy of the FCC to ensure the placement of a principal community contour signal 24 hours a day for a licensee of an existing AM daytime-only radio station located in a community of over 100,000 that: (1) lacks a local full-time station licensed to the community; (2) is located within a Class I station primary service area; and (3) notifies the FCC that the licensee seeks to provide full-time service. COSPONSOR COSPONSORED ON WITHDRAWN ON Sen Inouye 07/11/91 Sen Stevens 07/11/91 Sen Bentsen 07/11/91 Sen Simon 09/10/91 ------------------------------ From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls? Reply-To: Monty Solomon Organization: Roscom Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 10:48:47 GMT In article pete ritter writes: > The law is called "The Telephone Consumer Protection Act". It was passed > in 1991. Sorry, I know no more than what I've said. Anyone probably can > obtain a copy of the law from her/his US senator or representative. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 10:54 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 Organization: I.E.C.C. >> At long last, federal law now requires telemarketers to remove from >> their call lists, anyone who requests it. Here's the Library of Congress' semi-official summary of this law. If you want the full text, you'll have to go to a library that has copies of the U.S. code. You'll note that it refers primarily to automated junk phone calls. It also outlaws junk fax, requires that computer generated faxes be time-stamped and have the originating phone number, and, at the end, has a non-germane amendment about AM radio. Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ABSTRACT AS INTRODUCED: Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to restrict the use of telephone facsimile machines, automatic telephone dialing systems, and other systems used to transmit artificial or prerecorded voice messages via telephone to make unsolicited calls or advertisements. REVISED DIGEST: (AS OF 11/26/91) Measure passed House, amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit any person within the United States from: (1) using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice (APV) to make a call to any emergency telephone line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency; to the telphone line of any patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment; or to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or radio common carrier service or any other service for which the called party is charged for the call; (2) initiating any call to a residential telephone line using an APV to deliver a message without the consent of the called party, with specified exceptions; (3) using any telephone facsimile machine (FAX), computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a FAX machine; or (4) using an ATDS in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line business are engaged simultaneously. Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe regulations to implement such requirements. Requires the FCC to consider allowing businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an APV to which they have not consented. Authorizes the FCC to exempt from such requirements: (1) calls that are not made for a commercial purpose; and (2) categories of calls made for commercial purposes if such calls will not adversely affect privacy rights or do not include unsolicited advertisements. Authorizes private actions and the recovery of damages with respect to violations of such requirements. Directs the FCC to: (1) initiate a rulemaking proceeding concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object; and (2) prescribe regulations to implement methods and procedures for protecting such privacy rights without the imposition of any additional charge to telephone subscribers. States that such regulations may require the establishment and operation of a single national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving such solicitations, or to receiving certain classes or categories of solicitations, and to make the compiled list available for purchase. Outlines information to be included in such regulations if the FCC determines that such a database is required. Directs the FCC, it if determines that the national database is required, to: (1) consider the different needs of telemarketers conducting business on a national, State, or local level; (2) devleop a fee schedule for recouping the cost of such database that recognizes such difference; and (3) consider whether the needs of telemarketers operating on a local basis could be met through special markings of area white pages directories, and if such directories are needed as an adjunct to database lists prepared by area code and local exchange prefix. Authorizes private actions and the recovery of damages with respect to violations of such privacy rights. Makes it unlawful for any person within the United States to: (1) initiate any communication using a FAX or ATDS that does not comply with technical and procedural standards or to use such devices in a manner that does not comply with such standards; or (2) use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via FAX unless such person clearly marks on the document the date and time it is sent and identifies the entity sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or entity. Requires the FCC to revise the regulations setting technical and procedural standards for FAX machines to require any FAX machine manufactured one year after the enactment of this Act to clearly mark on a document the date and time it is sent and identify the entity sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or entity. Directs the FCC to prescribe technical and procedural standards for systems transmitting APV messages via telephone that require: (1) the messages to clearly state the identity and telephone number or address of the entity initiating the call; and (2) such systems to automatically release the called party's line within five seconds of the time the party has hung up. Provides that if the FCC requires the establishment of a database of telephone numbers of subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, a State or local authority may not require the use of a database or listing system that excludes the part of the national database that relates to such State. Permits States to bring civil actions to enjoin calls to residents in violation of this Act and to recover monetary damages. Grants U.S. district courts exclusive jurisdiction over such actions. Prohibits a State, whenever the FCC has instituted a civil action for violation of this Act, from brining an action against any defendant named in the FCC's complaint. Declares that it shall be the policy of the FCC to ensure the placement of a principal community contour signal 24 hours a day for a licensee of an existing AM daytime-only radio station located in a community of over 100,000 that: (1) lacks a local full-time station licensed to the community; (2) is located within a Class I station primary service area; and (3) notifies the FCC that the licensee seeks to provide full-time service. COSPONSOR COSPONSORED ON WITHDRAWN ON Sen Inouye 07/11/91 Sen Stevens 07/11/91 Sen Bentsen 07/11/91 Sen Simon 09/10/91 ------------------------------ -- # Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405 # monty%roscom@think.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 22:38:58 PST From: Kelly Bert Manning Subject: detectives who help abusive husbands track down their wives Reply-To: ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca CBC will be airing a documentary on this topic at 20:00 on Nov 23 as a segment of "Fifth Estate". As usual this will be repeated on the "Newsworld" satellite channel, including twice on Sunday, Nov 28. ------------------------------ From: Dave Alexander Subject: Guns Control/Registration/Confiscation Date: 23 Nov 1993 20:30:25 GMT Organization: S.P.I.R.A.L. I have been taking all of this Brady Bill info in with utter amazement at the NRA stand, which is that once an instant background check is available, the waiting period should be phased out. Am I missing something here? An instant background check sounds to me like a national identification plan just *waiting* to be implemented. And I suspect that one addition to the plan will be a "only a certain number of guns per month/year/whatever" provision, which will limit the quantity of your gun purchases. That implicitly means a *record* of your gun purchases, which is gun registration, which is the very thing I am against. I don't care how long I have to wait (reasonably, anyway) to buy a gun, but DAMN IT I don't want anyone with a record of how many guns I have at my house. That alone will make gun confiscation extremely easy if/when they decide to implement it. "Please turn in your guns, they are now illegal" is one thing. Then I can just ignore the bastards. "Please turn in your guns or we will come and get them" is an *entirely* different matter. Where is the NRA's head at with this, anyway? This whole "instant, computerized" nonsense scares me more than any stupid waiting period (which by the way, we have had here in Minnesota for years). -- alex@spiral.org Dave Alexander Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties Minneapolis Chapter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 17:37:46 EST From: Robert L Krawitz Subject: Mass. Driver's License and SSN (GOOD news!) I was pleased to read in the Boston Globe today an editorial praising the Registry of Motor Vehicles for two procedures it has introduced: 1) All license numbers will be assigned as random 9-digit numbers (no mention made of what will happen for renewals, although renewals can already change their license #). Currently, the SSN is the default, but one can request a different number, which is 8 digits prefixed by "S". At least in my experience, the Registry hasn't been a problem -- I wanted mine changed (it was originally my SSN) and the clerk was very pleasant about it, and I got the S number I wanted. But they never made it clear in advance that this could be done -- I found out through the grapevine. 2) The new digitized licenses (I imagine that it's a scanned picture, with the other information) will not be treated as public records, and hence will not be readily available (I don't remember the details of this). The Registry has improved tremendously over the past 5 years or so. The few times I've been relatively recently I have found short lines, helpful clerks, and efficient processing. Now that they're encouraging people to renew registrations by mail, and have license renewal booths in shopping malls, much of the routine traffic has dropped off so that the things that require a trip get high priority. And now it appears that they're taking privacy issues seriously, to boot. Robert Krawitz OS/IO Software Engineer (617)234-2116 Thinking Machines Corp. 245 First St. Cambridge, MA 02142 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net Tall Clubs International -- tci-request@think.com or 1-800-521-2512 ------------------------------ Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy From: Geoff Kuenning Subject: Re: 10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 00:11:39 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net In article Donald Burr writes: > 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). You miss the point. As with many things that have been computerized, a change in quality of service brings about a fundamental change in what the service is. It's not practical for me to visit every little town in the US, looking for my old college roommate. Nor is it economically feasible for me to pay a private detective $400 or so a pop to locate a bunch of people. But for an affordable one-time fee of $85 I can find everybody who was listed a couple of years ago. That's a whole different ball of wax, especially when you consider that this is as conveniently available to crazies as to obnoxious salespeople. > 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. It was much, much more than that. It included economic data, and was conveniently accessible by 9-digit zip code. Just the thing for a burglar trying to find a quiet little neighborhood to hit. -- Geoff Kuenning geoff@maui.cs.ucla.edu geoff@ITcorp.com ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #081 ******************************