Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 12:52:48 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V5#007 Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 17 Jul 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 007 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Sprint Canada and SIN (SSN) LIBER Files The Great Usenet Piss List SSN's on Local Radio Discount Card Re: Cellular phone risks/privacy Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles 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: slavitch@dev.simware.com (Michael Slavitch) Date: 15 Jul 1994 14:50:05 +0100 Subject: Sprint Canada and SIN (SSN) I received a flyer from Sprint Canada, Inc. advertising their services (yes, equal access has hit Canada, and with it the ubiquitous Candice Bergen.) The flyer of course had an application form. The application included a field for my Social Insurance Number (SIN, which is equivalent to the US SSN). They also gave an 800 number to apply over the phone. I decided to play devil's advocate and called the Wicked Sprint of the North's toll-free number, which is 800-396-8238 (it is not private :^). First I told the telephone representative that I objected to releasing my social insurance number. She told me that my application couldn't be filled out without it. I then asked her why my SIN had to be used. She then said it is used to "easily categorize customers". Yikes. I asked her what that meant, and she didn't know. Next, I asked for her manager. Her manager told me that I didn't have to release my SIN, after all. That it is now optional. Initially the database couldn't accept a transaction without a SIN, but that's been changed, after "customer requests to do so". I grilled her some more and she revealed that they use the SIN to access "consumer information databases", with data sorted a number of ways, including the social insurance number. I asked her where they get the match between SIN and name, which is supposed to be secret. She said that people waive that right when they apply for a car loan, credit card, or mortgage. I asked her if anyone else grilled her the way I did. She said I was the second person to do so. I assume the first person forced the change to their transaction system. Now, does Joe Normal know that this happens? I wonder when I "waived" my right to privacy? Michael Slavitch, Simware. Inc. 2 Gurdwara Road, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 1A2 V: (613) 228-5100 x4102 F: (613) 727-9409. ------------------------------ From: turf@netcom.com (Brian McInturff) Date: 16 Jul 1994 16:09:26 GMT Subject: LIBER Files Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) I have 5 files which may be of interest. They are: LIBER_INTRO: A collection of introductory materials to libertarianism. Essential for beginners and anyone who wants a copy of this outreach material. LIBER_QUOTES: The most popular LIBER file. A collection of quotes from historic and modern sources. Great for message bumpers, debate material, and perusal. Updated continuously. LIBER_PGP: An introduction to the PGP encryption program. Provides technical details and sites where this shareware may be freely obtained. Also includes speculative posts of the effects of encryption on society. Great for providing security for your system and mailings. LIBER_TAX: A copy of the Libernet thread in which it was stated and "proven" that paying US federal income tax is optional for most Americans. LIBER_DRUGS: Q&A on the current Prohibition. Includes debate tactics and a transcript of the 60 Minutes episode on legalized drugs. Chock full of references. The file are relatively small, about 16 to 32 K. Request one or more of these files from me, via mail (do not post to the newsgroup) at turf@netcom.com I cannot send files via Julf's anon remailer, so send requests to me directly. turf ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 16 Jul 1994 08:45:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Great Usenet Piss List Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee In the library at UWM.EDU I have placed a copy of the Great Usenet Just-Say-NO-to-PISS-TESTs Project. In it you will find, according to the author: You will find two lists in this postings. The first is a list of companies that have PISS or other Human Quality test programs as reported by first person experience. The second list is a list of companies that are known to have public policies AGAINST the invasion of privacy and the violation of Constitutional Protection that Human Quality tests constitute. If you would like to obtain a copy of this list at intervals other than the first of the month, there are three different methods of getting it. If you have direct access to Internet, you can get the list via anonymous ftp from the directory ftp://rafferty.com/pub/piss/, or through the World Wide Web. An automatic server can also ship you a copy. Simply send mail to the above addresses and set the Subject: line to "send". Any text in the message body is dropped. [...] **** Statement of Purpose **** This list exists as a one man crusade (supported by a cast of thousands) against the current Government sponsored terrorism sometimes called the Drug War, and the resultant destruction of the Constitution. This crusade is about Constitutional protections, individual privacy and freedom. It is NOT an advocacy of the abuse of any mind-altering substance. It is a strong plea to consider the data contained herein when making purchasing or employment decisions. [... 800 lines of listing excluded ...] I find this list to be interesting and feel the author's purpose is real. Copies can be gleaned from the above addresses. I will be glad to eMail copies to anyone who can reach me but who cannot reach the author's posted address. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu | Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu levine@cs.uwm.edu | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: david@c-cat.PG.MD.US (Dave) Date: 15 Jul 94 21:18:58 EDT Subject: SSN's on Local Radio Discount Card Organization: China Cat BBS (301)604-5976 newcombe@aa.csc.peachnet.edu (Dan Newcombe) writes: A local radio station in Atlanta (99.7 FM) have come out with a "Freeloading" card that gets you discounts at places (movies, music, etc...). On the application, they have the usual name, address, household info, along with a field labled SS#. What the hell do they need that for. Oh well, time for a "My Blue Heaven" :) On the other side, I got a job.. the relevent news is that the company I now work for only required my SSN on my W-2 (w-4?) well, the only one required by law. they were more than happy to respect my privacy. as I am theirs. so... we are on the move... -- David R. Ristau ======================== david@c-cat.pg.md.us uunet!anagld!c-cat!david ------------------------------ From: hedlund@teleport.com (M. Hedlund) Date: 16 Jul 1994 20:08:47 -0700 Subject: Re: Cellular phone risks/privacy Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Phillip Brown's comments on cellular phone monitoring (forwarded to comp.society.privacy) seem to make the assumption that privacy advocates are concerned about possible monitoring of *all* phone users. That is not so much my concern; instead, I'm bothered by the current and future capabilities of cellular phone or PCS monitoring under wiretap laws, particularly as envisioned by the FBI's Digital Telephony Proposal. In addition, Willis H. Ware's point (to which, in part, Brown purports to respond), is that smaller-sized "cells" will overcome the surveillance difficulties Brown describes. Microcell canisters are one of the proposed methods for dealing with the increase in cellular-phone traffic in recent years. These canisters relay mobile-phone signals from a transreceiver location ("microcell site") to a processing network interface ("host site"). Most authors predict that microcell sites will cover individual buildings or even particular office floors in congested business areas. Since it is so easy for Brown to pinpoint a customer's cell site, a severe decrease in cell area (accomplished by microcell canisters) would immediately increase the precision of his information for "tracking" purposes. On a side note, an article on page 32 of the national New York Times, Saturday, July 16, describes community resistance to cellular-phone antenna installation, both for health-related and aesthetic reasons. Unobtrusive microcell canisters, featuring less-powerful transmitters and virtually invisible installations, will probably be a popular answer to such problems. -- M. Hedlund ------------------------------ From: tnyurkiw@lambert.uwaterloo.ca (Tom Yurkiw) Date: 15 Jul 1994 19:14:50 GMT Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Organization: University of Waterloo jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes: Oh, and in case it isn't clear, yes I am advocating destroying cameras that belong to others. Just consider it a bit of direct action against those who (attempt to) invade my privacy. And no, I don't accept the premise that I and other ordinary people must submit to surveillance to facilitate catching an occasional criminal. Sounds like a great use for the hidden utility pole camera. Unsuspecting Armond-type destroys his neighbor's visible camera, then slinks off... WHAM his face is caught in living color on the HIDDEN camera, he is promptly arrested, tried, and convicted of vandalism... hopefully in Singapore! Better yet, the homeowner is watching in real-time and is forced to subdue said Armondite while making a citizen's arrest. Of course, the homeowner isn't trained in the niceties of restraining someone painlessly... ------------------------------ From: flash@csd.uwo.ca (Andrew D. Marshall) Date: 15 Jul 1994 20:35:44 GMT Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Organization: University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada Prof. L. P. Levine wrote: [moderator: This is the first time I have commented on the content of a posting as moderator. The following posting, by John De Armond discusses a technique for disabling TV cameras and then addresses the limits he chooses to place on actions to protect his privacy and anonymity. Finally we should note that the nature of eMail forces us to question if the name "John De Armond" is real or a pseudonym. It might even by be used by an enemy of Mr. De Armond to get him in some sort of trouble. We must carefully separate the message from the messenger and address only the content.] Professor Levine raises an interesting point. I read John De Armond's post -- in fact, I chose to read the thread because my newsreader showed that he was a contributor to it. I have often seen posts in other newsgroups from him (the one that springs to mind first is misc.consumers.house) and, while I don't always agree with what he has to say, I often find his posts entertaining. The post in this thread attributed to De Armond was consistent stylistically, and in the point of view expressed, to what I've seen elsewhere under his name. The more general issue, which I suspect has been hashed out here and elsewhere, is that of writing style being used to identify an article's writer or, to extend Professor Levine's suggestion, even being used to discredit a writer by imitating his or her style. So not only do I have to keep my SIN/SSN private, and guard my bank card PIN and all that stuff, if I truly want to maintain my privacy, I probably shouldn't be posting on the net. -- Andrew D. Marshall Computer Science Department E-mail: flash@csd.uwo.ca Middlesex College Voice: +1 519 661 3342 University of Western Ontario Fax: +1 519 661 3515 London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7 ------------------------------ From: "David A. Honig" Date: 15 Jul 1994 13:39:26 -0700 Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Organization: UC Disneyland, in the Kingdom of Bren tnyurkiw@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca (Tom Yurkiw) writes: To me, the issue of video cameras **hidden on utility poles, is completely different than the question of **visible cameras in public places. A person standing on a side street in the middle of the night has an expectation of privacy, wheras a person in the town square with 8 cameras pointed at him does not. What counts as hidden? How big does the housing have to be? Can something be hidden for myopic people and not hidden for paranoid cognescenti? A camera is the size of a pen these days. Technology is *not* a problem. One can take photos of anything one sees on the street, or through a window, visible with the naken eye; I'm not sure about making money off them, when the subjects are private; but paparazzi certainly have a field day. -- David A. Honig, informivore Prof. D. Denning: fool, fascist or Faust? Only the NSA knows for sure.. Ayatollah:Rushdie::NSA:RSA ------------------------------ From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) Date: 16 Jul 94 06:01:57 GMT Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access. The Mouth of the South. Prof. L. P. Levine writes: Finally we should note that the nature of eMail forces us to question if the name "John De Armond" is real or a pseudonym. It might even by be used by an enemy of Mr. De Armond to get him in some sort of trouble. We must carefully separate the message from the messenger and address only the content. That most assuredly was me posting and no, I'm not worried about "getting in trouble" or whatever. When one asks himself how far he will go to protect his privacy, the proper approach, I think, is to ask "What are the consequences of NOT protecting a particular privacy?" Is one willing to risk a middle of the night raid by the DEA gestapo because one happened to be caught by a transformer-mounted DEA video camera watching a store, as happened here in Atlanta to the customers of a hydrophonics store? Is one willing to have his personal or financial details used against him in a political context? Is one willing to suffer the annoyance of every hukster who gets his phone number? Perhaps some are; I am not. I endeavor not to shop at stores that use security cameras that I can see and I wield my laser pointer vigorously in those which I can't avoid. I use aliases and other false information wherever I legally can, for I know that seeding privacy-invasive databases with false information is more damaging than refusing any information. I live on a cash economy. No paper trails. Am I paranoid? Perhaps. But after hearing via an inadvertently left-open speakerphone, a high ranking state official list me by name as someone he was going to "get" because the gun rights group I'm active in defeated one of his hand-picked candidates, I take no chances. Do I think that "getting me" might involve grazing databases, surveillance tape and so on for innocent but apparently damaging information? Sure I do. A nice byproduct of my multi-year personal privacy campaign is that I now get telephone solicited by scumbags so seldom that it is a notable event. Sometimes I even feel up to playing with them. Beyond all that, there is an even more central question and that is, how many people are willing to do something other than just yap about privacy? How many of you are willing to take direct action to protect your privacy? Are you willing to zap a video camera or use a false ID not to defraud but to disguise your real identity? My personal decision is YES. I will do just about anything as long as the possible legal consequences are mild. No felonies, to be sure, but minor misdemeanors? Sure. If I get caught, with a little luck, I can make a media circus out of it. A win for everyone involved. -- John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA jgd@dixie.com Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country to kill him. ------------------------------ From: bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: 16 Jul 1994 03:44:04 GMT Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Organization: Fantasy Farm, Pearisburg, VA Tom Yurkiw writes: ... A person standing on a side street in the middle of the night has an expectation of privacy, wheras a person in the town square with 8 cameras pointed at him does not. Is this a tenet of estabished law about 'expectations of privacy', or just your opinion? I am amazed at how quickly many advocates of one thing or another leap to paint a solid black or white world, when reality is, of course, zillions of shades of gray [even if one entertains your distinction, it only raises more questions than it answers: what time is "the middle of the night"? [the microsecond exactly half way between sunset and sunrise? do you have less of an expectation if there is a full moon? Is "side street" precisely defined? etc] Overall, I think that folks are rather liberal with deciding that there are "expectations of privacy" in arenas where the law doesn't make any such distinction. [in particular, as far as I know, if you are out in public [that is, not on private property] you have virtually no 'expectation of privacy', no matter whether it is midnight or noon, or the Rose Garden or a back alley]. Emphasizing that "Expectation" here is a *legal* term, not a casual "well, I didn't _expect_ that..." -- Bernie Cosell bernie@fantasyfarm.com Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358 ------------------------------ From: mckeever@cogsci.uwo.ca (Paul McKeever) Date: 17 Jul 1994 17:04:04 GMT Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles Organization: University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Canada Tom Yurkiw makes the distinction between "side streets" and town squares. Why is it acceptable to have no privacy in town squares but to have privacy on side streets. Where, for example, does more crime occur? Where, for another example, are their likely to be fewer cops walking the beat? I fail to see how Mr. Yurkiw justifies one form of surveillance but not the other. Regards, Paul ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #007 ****************************** .