Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 14:41:19 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#058 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 26 Apr 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 058 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine NSA remarks at "Lawyers and the Internet" Bankruptcy and SSN's Visa Privacy Re: Helpful Police face Lawsuit Re: Credit check only with Permission Granted Re: HR 1900 Re: Long Distance Companies Re: Lord Have Mercy On Us All :-( Re: Solicitation via the Internet 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@uwm.edu and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp" with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: milles@fi.gs.com (Stevens Miller) Date: 26 Apr 1994 17:08:02 GMT Subject: NSA remarks at "Lawyers and the Internet" Organization: self I'm a computer programmer and attorney who is a member of the Committee on Technology and the Practice of Law, a task force assembled by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Last Friday we held a conference on "Lawyers and the Internet." Approximately 200 lawyers attended. Speaking in favor of the Clipper proposal was Stuart Baker of the NSA. I won't repeat his substantial arguments, but his formal approach (which Mike Godwin tells me is becoming a standard component of the government's pro-Clipper road show) is worth some attention. Parroting his own words at CFP, Baker told us: - The debate over the Clipper proposal is "really just a culture clash among net-heads." - Those opposing the proposal are late-coming counter-culturists, "who couldn't go to Woodstock because they had to do their trig homework." - Opponents envision themselves as would-be "cybernauts in bandoliers and pocket-protectors." I quote these remarks (as best I can from memory; my hands were shaking too much to write clearly at this point) to make it clear that our government's representative has reached a conclusion about the community opposing its plan. He has concluded that the members of that community are so beneath his respect that it is more appropriate to make fun of them than it is to respond to their views. As Godwin pointed out later, the NSA really just doesn't care what anyone says. That, he said, is why Baker repeatedly invokes the spectre of child-molestation as the chief evil Clipper will prevent; by that invocation is much meritorious debate deflected. Baker replied to this by emphasizing the reality of the pedophilia potential of networks, telling us that many users of networks "are teenaged boys with inept social skills." Regardless of the law-enforcement potential of this plan, it is worth noting that an official spokesman for the government endorses it by pointing out that its opponents valued their studies more highly than they did rock and roll. That because the popular image of the bookworm can be juxtaposed against that of Rambo in a funny way, bookworms don't have to be taken seriously. That if you play with computers as a youngster, your community, your parents and your own brain can't save you. That the government must protect you from your own ineptitude, whether you want its help or not. The message was pretty clear: Stuart Baker doesn't care what you say, but he wants the power to listen. --- Stevens R. Miller |"The complete truth is not the (212) 227-1594 | prerogative of the human judge." sharp@echonyc.com | New York, New York | - Supreme Court of Israel ------------------------------ From: austin@netcom.com (Tony Austin) Date: 24 Apr 1994 17:06:16 GMT Subject: Bankruptcy and SSN's Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) I received in the mail today a letter from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that an ad agency I did some work for is summarily bankrupt. A few days later I got another letter stating that the owner, as well as his wife, were bankrupt too. Included in the letter was the name and address of the parties involved as well as their Social Security Numbers. So it looks that when you go bankrupt you bare your soul and SSN number to the world. All of which is public record. -- Tony Austin ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 25 Apr 1994 20:18:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Visa Privacy Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee I am the co-author of a book called "A Foreign Visitor's Survival Guide to America". It has been suggested that I use the Freedom of Information act to obtain a list of people applying for visas to come to the United States to create a mailing list of people to send advertisements to. I would like any opinions on the ethics of doing this. -- Marilyn Levine [moderator: Marilyn Levine is my wife. She has no direct Internet access. Please address mailings to me at the address above or post.] ------------------------------ From: khinedi@bu.edu (Kareem Hinedi) Date: 24 Apr 1994 22:38:43 GMT Subject: Re: Helpful Police face Lawsuit Organization: Boston University Prof. L. P. Levine (levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu) wrote: The San Francisco Examiner recently published a story entitled: [deleted a story about the SFPD releasing private information and in the process assisted someone in committing a felony] I just wanted to mention that about two or three years ago, the SFPD was accused of providing private information to a foreign government intelligence agency (Israel I believe). A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the individuals whose information was "stolen" but I don't know what the outcome of the lawsuit was. -- Kareem A. Hinedi Boston University School of Public Health BU Medical Center Box 741 80 E. Concord Street Boston, MA 02118 ------------------------------ From: rivaud@coyote.rain.org (L. E. de Rivaud) Date: 24 Apr 1994 16:50:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Credit check only with Permission Granted Organization: rain.org I used to work for a BMW dealer who ran credit checks on people all the time without their prior consent. That is common practice in the biz. Tony Austin (austin@netcom.com) wrote: I called TRW in Orange County, California today. I asked how safe my credit information and social security number is. They told me that noone can look at your credit report unless you grant them permission. A fine and a civil lawsuit was mentioned as well. Subsequently I feel a lot safer. Is this a false feeling of security? ------------------------------ From: rfrank@kaiwan.com (Ronald E. Frank) Date: 24 Apr 1994 20:15:52 -0700 Subject: Re: HR 1900 Organization: The Mushroom Factory jonescpp@aol.com wrote: Scenario #1 An airplane crashes. There was no communication with the aircraft or crew prior to the crash. The investigation of the crash will be severely hampered because there is no "Black Box". House Resolution 1900, if passed, will require each crew member to be notified in writing as to electronic monitoring of their performance. This will include the type of monitoring device used, the data to be collected and the hour and day of the week of the monitoring. I can't speak for the other scenarios, but HR 1900 would have no effect in this one. Pilots are required to know Federal Aviation Regulations, and those regulations specify the conditions under which Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders must be installed. The pilot in command is responsible for ensuring compliance with these regulations. Ergo, every pilot is already "notified in writing as to electronic monitoring of their performance". Scratch one off of Mr. Jones' parade of horribles. Ron ------------------------------ From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) Date: 25 Apr 1994 01:54:06 -0800 Subject: Re: Long Distance Companies dom@hermes.dna.mci.com (Eric Kessner) wrote: The long distance companies use the SSN in the same way almost every other business uses it, as a "unique" identifier for a customer. I'm strongly against using SSNs for privacy reasons and have convinced the team I work with not to expect that people will necessarily give it to them when asked, or even worse, might just make one up. So, for at least the projects I'm working on here at MCI, no one will tell you that you must give them your SSN because the "computer needs it" :) In the SF Bay Area, if you want cellular phone service from GTE, they ask for your SSN on the application form. A few years ago I tried to get service from them without including the ssn... turns out if you didn't put it on the form, they threw the form away without processing it! After contactin the PUC, GTE said that they HAD to have the SSN or they COULD NOT DO A CREDIT CHECK (utter BS) so they would give you service, but only with a $1,000 cash deposit. When I told the PUC that this was not true, they said there was nothing they could do since GTE officially told them it was true. Sigh... --- Glenn Tenney tenney@netcom.com Amateur radio: AA6ER (415) 574-3420 Fax: (415) 574-0546 ------------------------------ From: vapspcx@cad.gatech.edu (S. Keith Graham) Date: 25 Apr 1994 23:33:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Lord Have Mercy On Us All :-( Organization: Free Agent Black Unicorn writes: tim werner said: The police are a Good Thing when they are protecting me from fraud, theft, and physical attack. The most efficent police are those under a dictator. They will protect you from fraud, theft and physical attack too. Are they a good thing? The communications network doesn't really bother me, The formation of a group dedicated to empowering law enforcement with high technology does. I suppose that police officers wearing animal skins and walking to crime scenes, are the only ones incapable of violating the rights of citizens?? Kevlar vests save officers lives. Cars let them pursue criminals. Radios let them intercept criminals. Genetic samples let them verify the identity of a criminal much more accurately than many eye witnesses. Video cameras in cars protect both the officer and, in some cases, the general public. Radar spots people sneaking into the country. And some of the technology, like non-lethal "take-down" weapons, will make it more likely for a citizen (guilty or innocent) to make it to court, and have their say. The law enforcement officials should use any technique that does not infringe on the rights of the general public, and is cost effective. Otherwise, they are wasting my tax money, and/or allowing a criminal to go free. However, Clipper (and the FBI Telephony proposal) meets neither criteria. Other technologies qualify; the loss of the wiretap will undoubtably be compensated by some other technology. Denying the police other technologies is like asking them not to wear their kevlar vests, or to ride horses to chase speeders on the interstate. Keith Graham vapspcx@cad.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: nevin@cs.arizona.edu (Nevin Liber) Date: 26 Apr 1994 01:27:12 -0700 Subject: Re: Solicitation via the Internet Organization: University of Arizona CS Department, Tucson AZ Earlier someone wrote: "Thank you for the information but I look quite unfavorably on people who swipe my name/address off of Usenet distribution lists and then use it for other means." By "other means" is a direct solicitation. But what if he grabbed it off something like the MIT usenet addresses database? Is he violating your request? Is MIT? If it is MIT (replace MIT with MIT or similar service provider; I don't wish to pick on them; I just don't know of others), you cannot reasonably expect their automated tools to figure this out. Which means, unfortunately, that the burden is on us to make sure our personal information isn't abused. -- Nevin ":-)" Liber nevin@cs.arizona.edu (602) 293-2799 +++ (520) after 3/95 office: (602) 621-1685 ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #058 ****************************** .