Date: Sat, 08 Oct 94 07:25:25 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V5#045 Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 08 Oct 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 045 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine The DT bill just passed in the Senate Re: How to Verify Your Phone Number Re: Background Check For Job Re: Background Check For Job Corporate E-mail Privacy Guidelines (long) The National Computer Security Organization Some Good News for a Change Anti-Clipper T-shirts for Sale Re: Post Office Boxes SSN on driver's license in MO Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" Date: 08 Oct 1994 00:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The DT bill just passed in the Senate Subject: Wiretap Watch FINAL EDITION (The DT bill has passed) The Wiretap Watch Final Issue October 7, 1994 Distribute Widely Recent Quotes: (It's been a busy week, we've answered over 2,000 emails) "I think we should adjourn now [..] the country is safer when we're not in session." -Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) on C-SPAN "Senator Wallop's office, may I help you?" "Yes, I called to register my support for the Senator's concerned position on the bill." "Ok, got it. Thanks" "Have there been a lot of calls today? Dozens? Fifty?" "Hundreds so far today." -A conversation I had earlier today with Sen. Wallop's office "I called Feinstein again and the offical breakfast food is still a waffle." -Another California caller on Feinstein's FBI Wiretap position ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents A look back at the bill What you should do right now Positions of legislators pro and con Status of the bills Brief explanation of the bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A LOOK BACK AT THE BILL As you may have already discovered the Senate passed the bill tonight on "unanimous consent". Although I will leave the soothsaying to more eloquent folks, there are a number of things that need to be said and people that need to be thanked. 1. A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT WAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH THIS LEGISLATIVE FIGHT During this campaign, we asked people to contact several legislators about the bill. This was a very effective means ofat mobilizing people. When we put out the word that Senator Wallop needed support, hundreds of calls were received the very next day -- their office was stunned. This is the first time many of the sitting legislators learned that constituents were concerned about privacy. We have begun to teach them that this is an important issue. Educating a legislator is an ongoing process that we'll continue to assist with in preparation for the elections. It would be great if legislators begin to consider what effects their actions will have on "the privacy vote." Sincere thanks go out to the literally thousands of people who took the time to call their legislators. The response we received to our alerts was amazing. The mail itself was overwhelming; the letters really kept us going on those late nights. When people wrote to us, saying that they had faxed our press release to a dozen papers and called the same number of legislators, it seemed inconceivable that we should let something as minor as sleep slow us down. Thanks to everyone who contributed by calling and faxing (and sending in corrections). It appears that our technique of providing excellent information with the research done for the reader is a technique people appreciate. We'll continue to refine it in preparation for the next legislative session. 2. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE Much worse versions of the DT bill have been introduced. They were all killed before really getting anywhere. When this version was brought up, the EFF had a difficult decision in front of them: assume the soothsayers were right about it passing this year and try to hack in some privacy provisions, or try and mount a fight against it. Other factors such as organizational direction played a part in this decision I'm sure, but I'm not qualified to talk about that. (I'm about as far from an EFF insider as you can get.) There are several privacy provisions that have been added to the bill. Had the EFF not intervened, they would not be there. PERIOD. I think we owe them a thank you for that. Did they really know what they were doing or was it a lucky guess? Who's to say; we all have 20/20 hindsight. When EFF made this decision, it was months ago. They were like an ace-in-the-hole should the bill pass. 3. THIS IS STILL A PROCESS THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO MONITOR There are several ways in which the powers in the bill could be abused by law enforcement. The bill provides law enforcement with unprecedented assurance that a wiretap will always be available. This will subtly change the way law enforcement does its work. ("When your most ubiqitous tool in a hammer, the world starts to look a lot like nails..") Furthermore the process for creating the wiretap functionality standards truly rests in the hands of the FCC. We have seen from past experience with the CallerID blocking fiasco that the FCC is not the bastion of privacy that we wish it was. In that instance, there was significant public outcry against the proposal, and yet privacy still lost. What's the good news? There are organizations who we can count on to watchdog this process. The EFF wrote most (if not all) of the privacy provisions of the bill. They will be in a great position to monitor the progress of this process and ensure that not just the LETTER of the privacy provisions are followed, but the SPIRIT as well. Furthermore, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is aggressive in their FOIA efforts, which keep our government honest. I sleep better at nights knowing they're keeping an eye out. I would have given my left foot to be in the courtroom this week with EPIC when the FBI's counsel asked for a five year delay on releasing twenty pages of wiretap data, and the judge told the attorney to "..call Director Freeh and tell him I said this matter can be taken care of in an hour and [a] half." Finally, I want to take a moment to thank David Sobel, Marc Rotenberg, & David Banisar of EPIC for all the help they gave us. Not being in DC, its difficult for us to simply "drop by" the office of a swing vote legislator and present our arguments. We're very grateful to them for this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT YOU SHOULD DO RIGHT NOW Nothing for the moment. The Senate passed the Digital Telephony bill (S. 2375) a few minutes before adjournment tonight. The various holds put on it by Republican Senators were removed and the bill passed on "unanimous consent". This means that there was no opposition to it. President Clinton is almost certain to sign it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATUS STATUS SB 2375 It passed on the evening of Oct. 7 on unanimous consent literally minutes before the Congress adjourned. STATUS HR 4922 It passed on the evening of Oct. 5 on a voice vote. Oct 7, 94 The Senate passed S. 2375 on unanimous consent minutes before adjournment. Oct 6, 94 Nothing happened, though a Senate vote was expected. Several Senators have placed holds on the bill. Oct 5, 94 House passes HR 4922 on a voice vote. Oct 4, 94 House is scheduled to vote on HR 4922, along with more than 50 other items on the "suspension calendar". The debate took place tonight; the House vote was put off until Oct 5, '94. Oct 3, 94 Judge Richey instructs the FBI to comply with a FOIA request to make available their wiretap surveys (which they claim justify their bill) by Nov. 1. Sep 29, 94 HR 4922 marked up and reported out of the Hse. Jud. Comm and nearly to the full House Sep 28, 94 SB 2375 amended, marked up, and reported out of the Sen. Jud. Comm. to the full Senate Sep 15, 94 HR 4922 hearing held in the Telecommunications Comm. Aug 18, 94 HR 4922 reported back to committee (write to Rep. Jack Brooks!) Aug 11, 94 Sen. Leahy & Rep. Edwards hold a joint hearing on the bills in Wash. DC at 1pm in Rayburn 2237. Aug 10, 94 HR 4922 referred to Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights Aug 10, 94 SB 2375 referred to Subcomm. on Technology and the Law Aug 9, 94 Rep. Hyde officially cosponsors HR 4922 Aug 9, 94 HR 4922 referred to House Judiciary Committee Aug 9, 94 SB 2375 referred to Senate Judiciary Committee Aug 9, 94 Identical House and Senate bills are announced by their respective sponsors, Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) EFF states the legislation is "not necessary" and predicts it will pass regardless. For more information about the Digital Telephony bills, check the Voters Telecomm Watch gopher site (gopher.panix.com) or contact Steven Cherry, VTW Press Contact at (718) 596-2851 or stc@vtw.org. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL POSITIONS OF LEGISLATORS Because the Senate version passed with "unanimous consent", all of the sitting Senators supported it. This means that if someone is a Senator, they supported it. No fancy ASCII tables required. Three representatives we know of opposed the bill in the House: Dist ST Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax ==== == ======================== ============== ============== 4 CA Doolittle, John T. (R) 1-202-225-2511 1-202-225-5444 1 OR Furse, Elizabeth (D) 1-202-225-0855 na 12 NC Watt, Melvin* (D) 1-202-225-1510 1-202-225-1512 Please call them and thank them for their privacy stances. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE BILLS The FBI's Wiretap bills (also known as the DT - Digital Telephony bills) mandate that *all* communications carriers must provide wiretap-ready equipment so that the FBI can more easily implement their court-ordered wiretaps. The costs of re-engineering all communications equipment will be borne by the government, industry and consumers. It does not cover information service providers. The bill is vague and the standards defining "wiretap ready" do not exist. Furthermore, the FBI has yet to make a case which demonstrates that they have been unable to implement a single wiretap. Although we as a society have accepted law enforcement's need to perform wiretaps, it is not reasonable to mandate this functionality as a part of the design. In itself, that would be an important debate. However without any proof that this is indeed a realistic and present problem, it is unacceptable and premature to pass this legislation today. The Voters Telecomm Watch (VTW) does not believe the FBI has made a compelling case to justify that all Americans give up their privacy. Furthermore, the VTW does not believe the case has been made to justify spending 500 million Federal dollars over the next several years to re-engineer equipment to compromise privacy, interfere with telecommunications privacy, and fulfill an unproven government need. There are some privacy protections built into the bill. Their benefit does not outweigh the damage that building wiretaps into all communication does, however. ------------------------------ From: jswylie@delphi.com Date: 05 Oct 94 21:24:00 -0500 Subject: Re: How to Verify Your Phone Number Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) pp000837@interramp.com wrote: If you dial 1-800-MY-ANI-IS (1-800-692-6447), you should be able to ascertain/verify the number you are calling from. This technique is particularly useful when calling from a pay phone (that accepts incoming calls but is missing a listed number) or when calling from an unlisted phone that you want to crack. If you are calling out through a PBX, it is going to either return the billing number or the number of the trunk line actually used for the call, I'm not sure which. It is not going to be able to return your extension number because as of yet, the PBX has no way to pass that information to the telephone company switch. There may be exceptions to this, but they would be rare. Some day that will change. I'm not sure how this works if you have centrex. In that case, the telephone company would know the number since it's all done in its switch. By the way, for the same reason, services like return call can't return calls to pbx extensions even though they have outside numbers which you can dial in with. -- John S. Wylie - Internet: jswylie@delphi.com [moderator: Similar remarks were made by johnny@.interramp.com (John Featherman), elvey-matthew@CS.YALE.EDU (Matthew Elvey) and crf@access.digex.net (Clarke Ferber) who also reported that it works for him in 301 land.] ------------------------------ From: poivre@netcom.com (Serrano) Date: 07 Oct 1994 03:45:41 GMT Subject: Re: Background Check For Job Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Edward Kazmarek (kazmarek@ix.netcom.com) wrote: lindline@rice.edu (Ann Lindline) writes: Is this legal? If you want to work for certain government agencies, I know you have to ... I'm not sure, but I suspect it's legal. At least, it's pretty common. For security clearance background checks, it is quite common to assess someone's potential security risk by the character of the company they keep. Even more, it's quite common to pursue what are called ... Yes, it is possible to assess someone's risk by seeing the kind of company they keep, like their friends. But it should not be family. I mean, if a relative/family member is a bad apple, you don't want to have anything to do with them, but can't run away because you're bound by blood. And then to have people judge you based upon a family member's behavior/record that you can not control, and can not disassociate yourself from, is wrong! We do not choose our families. Anyway, is there any legal way to cut those familial ties?? I don't think so. This whole business with family is like that old saying about judging a person on the sins of their father. I guess OJ's kids would never be able to get a sensitive government job because of what their father did. Nor for that matter, any kids who happened to be unlucky enough to be born in a bad family. It has closed one door of opportunity. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . poivre@netcom.com : #include : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------------------ From: Bill Parker Date: 07 Oct 1994 09:17:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Background Check For Job Organization: @wizard.com - Las Vegas Access Ann Lindline (lindline@rice.edu) wrote: In fact, one of the roommates received a follow-up call/letter from the company that he must come to the company for an interview before the employee can be approved. All the roommates wonder if this person's Chinese ethnicity (but American citizenship, I think) is the reason for the interview. Hi Ann, as one who has worked for the Gov't in this type of area, I can tell you that it is routine and legal. A routine background check would be in order for any individual who was working with sensitive or classified information. The extent of the review depends on the type of information and the kind of agency/company he or she is working for. Is this legal? If you want to work for certain government agencies, I know you have to submit to, and subject your family and friends to, a lot of poking and prying into backgrounds. Is working for a defense contractor basically the same as working for the government? What rights to refuse would these roommates have? Well, as I pointed out above it is legal. If your roommates do not want to say anything, it is certainly within their rights to do so. I have been asked on a number of occasions to provide background information for friends who work for the gov't or defense contractors. Working for a DC is not the same as working for the Gov't, but in a lot of cases where security concerns are a issue, it is. For example, if I want to work in a casino in Las Vegas, I need to have a Sheriff's work card (which requires a cursory background check, local and perhaps thru NCIC). The types of questions which are usually asked in such interviews are: Does xxx have a problem with drinking (excessive or on the job) Does xxx have a problem with gambling ("") Does xxx have any financial problems that you are aware of? Does xxx a person of good character or standing in the community. Does xxx have a sense of humor (needed in cases where a person will be carrying a firearm). Does xxx have family living in countries which support communist or terrorist practices, etc. In cases where a person applies for a job dealing with cryptographic intelligence, a polygraph test may be administered as well. Depending on the level of Security Clearance needed, the questions get more extensive. ------------------------------ From: "(NCSA) Bob Bales" <74774.1326@compuserve.com> Date: 06 Oct 94 20:22:35 EDT Subject: Corporate E-mail Privacy Guidelines (long) GO NCSA on CompuServe will get this document, among others. The next message discusses this service. ----------------------------- FORMULATING A PRIVACY POLICY FOR CORPORATE ELECTRONIC MESSAGING Email is transforming the way people work together. In a matter of half a decade, email has emerged as one of the most important collaborative tools of our age. But if the vast majority of networked organizations now possess sophisticated electronic messaging infrastructures, barely a handful have developed policies and guidelines that ensure both managers and users use this tool intelligently and with integrity. The Electronic Messaging Association has been at the forefronts of efforts to promote better use of email systems, particularly with regard to privacy concerns. Here, the EMA's Executive Director, Bill Morone, offers advice on where to start. If your company does not have an electronic messaging privacy policy, it should. There are certain key questions and policy options that need to be considered when developing your organization 's privacy policy for electronic mail and messaging systems. The appropriate policy will differ for each company depending on the needs of the organization, the reasonable expectations of employees, the rights of outsiders, and a balancing of various complex interests. The only policy that can be vigorously endorsed by EMA for virtually all circumstances is this: "A company should have a policy with regard to protection of its employees' privacy, and should tell employees what that policy is." Most employers should establish privacy solutions that deal with all media of communication used by employees, rather than singling out electronic mail as if it posed some unique threat to employee privacy. The following six questions should be considered by employers in the course of formulating a policy: 1. Who has a stake in establishing a responsible policy regarding access to and disclosure of company electronic mail? How will the policy affect the: * Employer? * Employee? * Third Parties? * Law Enforcement Authorities? * Electronic Communications Service Providers? 2. What baseline legal rights and duties constrain any policy? * Legal duties not to invade employee privacy * Federal and State Law duties regarding use, interception, access during storage, and disclosure of electronic communications without authority 3. What operational features of electronic communications systems should affect any policy on access, use and disclosure? For example: * Electronic mail is typically stored pending receipt. * Electronic mail may easily be forwarded. * Electronic files are more easily transferred than paper files. * Company files can be transferred off the network by electronic mail. 4. What analogies can be used to help formulate a consistent set of policies? You may want to analyze your policy choices by considering your reactions to the following roughly analogous situations. For example: * Inspecting an employee 's drawer. * Intercepting or monitoring employee telephone calls. * Regularly reviewing files kept in filing cabinets by employees. 5. What criteria should be used to evaluate a proposed policy? For example: * Does the policy maintain a productive workplace? * Does the policy provide for adequate security? 6. Has your policy been disclosed in advance to all concerned? Three additional areas should be considered when establishing procedures that will be used to put together your organization's privacy policy: 1. Who from your organization should participate in the development of the policy? For example: * Senior Management * Human Resources * Legal Counsel * Employee Users * Security * Union Representatives * MIS Director * Chief Information Officer 2. What corporate assets should be considered in formulating overall workplace privacy policies? * Paper File Cabinets * Employee Offices/Desks * LANs * Hard Disks * Floppy Disks * Voice Mail * Electronic Mail * Telephones * Call Accounting Records * Audio Recording Equipment * Paper Mail * Closed Circuit Television 3. What information will you want to gather in advance or during the course of formulating your policy. Examples include: * Number of electronic mail users. * Connection of electronic mail system through gateways to other systems. * Contract(s) with electronic mail service providers. MOST IMPORTANT: * Develop A Privacy Policy. * Develop Procedures For Implementing The Policy. * Clearly Tell Your Employees What It Is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FORMULATING A PRIVACY POLICY FOR CORPORATE ELECTRONIC MESSAGING was adapted from a publication of the Electronic Messaging Association -- "Access to and Use and Disclosure of Electronic Mail on Company Computer Systems: A Tool Kit for Formulating Your Company's Policy" -- prepared by David R. Johnson of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and John Podesta of Podesta Associates, Inc. for the Electronic Messaging Association (EMA). EMA publishes a variety of books and papers on electronic messaging issues. Two EMA publications relating to privacy issues are: * EMA'S PRIVACY TOOLKIT -- Access to and Use and Disclosure of Electronic Mail on Company Computer Systems: A Tool Kit for Formulating Your Company's Policy Prepared by privacy experts David R. Johnson and John Podesta, this tool kit serves as a means of helping you decide what policies your company should adopt. The Tool Kit features a series of alternative policy formulations which have been arranged by topic to help you tailor your policy with regard to particular issues. Price: $20, EMA Members - $45, Non-Members. * PROTECTING ELECTRONIC MESSAGING -- A Guide to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 This comprehensive document interprets key aspects of ECPA, which, in essence, updated federal wiretap law in light of new technologies to protect against unauthorized interception of electronic communications. The Guide discusses ECPA's role in protecting electronic messaging and mail both in transmission and in storage, its interception by law enforcement officials, and the role of public service providers and government with regard to electronic communications privacy. Price: $55, EMA Members - $195, Non-Members. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGING ASSOCIATION: For further information, including a catalog of publications and membership information, contact EMA at any of the following addresses: Internet: info@ema.org X.400: S=info; O=ema; A=mci; C=us Telephone: 703/524-5550 Facsimile: 703/524-5558 Address: 1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 850 Arlington, VA 22209 - U.S.A. ABOUT THE NCSA Thank you for your interest in the National Computer Security Association (NCSA). NCSA is the leading membership organization providing educational materials, training, testing and consulting services to improve information security, reliability and ethics. We are a membership organization and currently support over 1600 members. Among other things we publish a newsletter, conduct public and in-house training and sponsor an annual security conference. NCSA is also sponsoring a Medical System Security Symposium in Washington, DC, November 16-17, 1994. More information about this symposium can be EMailed upon request. Our next annual conference will also be held in Washington, DC, and is scheduled for April 10-11, 1995. In addition, NCSA runs an InfoSecurity forum on CompuServe (GO NCSA). This forum addresses the full range of info security topics, including PC/LAN security, encryption, UNIX/InterNet security, viruses, disaster recovery, audit and much more. Our moderators are among the leading experts on matters pertaining to information security. The Forum supports over 7,000 members and has one of the most active message bases on CompuServe. NCSA also publishes a 32 page infosecurity resource catalog which contains nearly all of the books written about the subject of information security. It also includes security-related periodicals, self-audit kits and tools and training materials such as videos, PC based tutorials and security posters. The catalog is free and can be requested via EMail at 75300.2557@compuserve.com. An electronic version in the form of a HyperText database is available for download from our forum on CompuServe (LIB 1/NCSA.ZIP). If you do not have access to CompuServe, a hardcopy can be mailed to you if you'll provide your snail-mail address. NCSA can be reached at: National Computer Security Association 10 S. Courthouse Ave. Carlisle, PA 17013 717-258-1816 - Voice 717-243-8642 - Fax 75300.2557@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: "(NCSA) Bob Bales" <74774.1326@compuserve.com> Date: 07 Oct 94 10:47:46 EDT Subject: The National Computer Security Organization Thank you for your interest in the National Computer Security Association (NCSA). NCSA is the leading membership organization providing educational materials, training, testing and consulting services to improve information security, reliability and ethics. We are a membership organization and currently support over 1600 members. Among other things we publish a newsletter, conduct public and in-house training and sponsor an annual security conference. NCSA is also sponsoring a Medical System Security Symposium in Washington, DC, November 16-17, 1994. More information about this symposium can be EMailed upon request. Our next annual conference will also be held in Washington, DC, and is scheduled for April 10-11, 1995. In addition, NCSA runs an InfoSecurity forum on CompuServe (GO NCSA). This forum addresses the full range of info security topics, including PC/LAN security, encryption, UNIX/InterNet security, viruses, disaster recovery, audit and much more. Our moderators are among the leading experts on matters pertaining to information security. The Forum supports over 5,000 members and has one of the most active message bases on CompuServe. We are not presently "on the InterNet", although we do receive mail and relevant UseNet information. NCSA also publishes a 32 page infosecurity resource catalog which contains nearly all of the books written about the subject of information security. It also includes security-related periodicals, self-audit kits and tools and training materials such as videos, PC based tutorials and security posters. The catalog is free and can be requested via EMail at 74774.1326@compuserve.com. An electronic version in the form of a HyperText database is available for download from our forum on CompuServe (LIB 1/NCSA.ZIP). If you do not have access to CompuServe, a hardcopy can be mailed to you if you'll provide your snail-mail address. NCSA can be reached at: National Computer Security Association 10 S. Courthouse Ave. Carlisle, PA 17013 717-258-1816 - Voice 717-243-8642 - Fax 74774.1326@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub) Date: 07 Oct 1994 17:56:23 -0500 Subject: Some Good News for a Change Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO I have a Visa card from Chase Manhattan Bank. They recently sent me a notice informing me that they "never rent or sell [their] list of cardmembers to any person or organization." I guess I blew my cover, but I thought other people might want to know. :-) -- Seth Golub | "..And in all of Babylonia there was seth@cs.wustl.edu | wailing and gnashing of teeth, till the seth@hilco.com | prophets bade the multitudes get a grip | on themselves and shape up." - W. Allen ------------------------------ From: normh@crl.com (Norman J Harman) Date: 07 Oct 1994 01:08:46 -0700 Subject: Anti-Clipper T-shirts for Sale Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest] Anti-Clipper shirts are ready!!! Sizes available (S, M, L, XL) The price for one shirt mailed in the U.S. is $8.50 (International persons please E-mail me for postage cost normh@crl.com) Make checks/money orders payable to Smiley Publishing Company Send to: Smiley Publishing Company PO Box 420943 San Francisco, CA 94142-0943 Many of you who responed to my posts expressed the desire to have higher quality shirts. I talked to Zerolith and they where happy to provide 100% pre-shrunk cotton shirts that are not much more expensive than the 50/50 ones. The original price I quoted was for a one sided shirt. But there were many good ideas and I think this design will attract more people and thus discussion. These two factors combined caused the price increase + $.60 Hopefully you still think it is a good deal. I would like to restate that this is the cost for the shirts and postage. I am not making a profit nor will I make any money to donate to a charity, although I am using one to silk-screen the shirts(see below). The shirts are white 100% pre-shrunk cotton The front has a "Big Brother Inside" Logo, and a chip with the word "clipper". The back has the following top-ten list (possibly with changed order or slight wording/spelling/grammer corrections); "Top 10 reasons to Say No to Clipper" #1 "Can't trust Clinton not to read McDonalds recipes for Big Mac secret sauce." #2 "We all know its just so the FBI can get free phone sex." #3 "The spies at NSA will get eyestrain reading all of Santa's mail." #4 "Because a policeman's job is only easy in a Police State." #5 "The Clipper chip will cause it to be slightly less convenient to plan protests, revolutions, conspiraces, and bake sales." #6 "The 4th Amendment was a pretty good idea. Read it." #7 "If the Feds listened to my conversations they would be too bored and sleepy to defend our country." #8 "Responsibility and Government don't mix. See #10" #9 "It will get the stupid crooks out of the way for the government sponsored ones." #10 "If they learn how unhappy we are with the government they might start shutting down BBS's, killing off divergent religious groups, illegalizing art, conducting radioactive tests with us, censoring books, and keeping files on us. Thanks to the following for their ideas. David Merriman Robert Herndon Doug Moore Rob Deairsto Jeff Holland Donald Alan Thanks to everyone else who made suggestions. Sorry they could not all be used A worthy cause is better if it benefits another good cause so the shirts will be silk-screened by Zerolith, part of a non-profit organization that employs, shelters, and assists homeless youth. If you would like to talk with Zerolith or donate money directly here is how to contact them. Zerolith 3075 21st Street San Francisco, CA 94110-2626 415.641.1014 voice 415.641.1474 fax -- o o Norman J. Harman Jr. Smiley Publishing normh@crl.com \__/ San Francisco, CA ------------------------------ From: gmcgath@condes.mv.com (Gary McGath) Date: 07 Oct 1994 08:23:30 -0400 Subject: Re: Post Office Boxes Organization: Conceptual Design Mike Crawford wrote: In California, businesses are required to provide a street address. I am not sure who collects this information - whether it is the resale license, the business license, or the franchise tax board, but the purpose is to discourage fraudulent businesses which have a PO box and no other way to track down or arrest them. I believe the state will provide this information to anyone. There is an exception for people who run businesses out of their homes. hmmm... I think maybe the actual law says that the street address has to be on any literature the business distributes. I'm hazy about this, but check it out. When I applied for a P.O. box recently, the application said the information can be disclosed to anyone for a business which deals "with the public." Businesses which don't deal with the public, but only with a limited clientele, aren't subject to disclosure by this rule; at least I interpreted the rule this way with regard to my own computer consulting business. -- Gary McGath gmcgath@condes.mv.com ------------------------------ From: seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub) Date: 07 Oct 1994 18:08:12 -0500 Subject: SSN on driver's license in MO Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO I recently got a Missouri driver's license. Normally, in Missouri, your Social Security Number is used as your license number. I had heard that it was possible to avoid this, so when I went down to get my license I was prepared to deal with ignorant drones as long as was necessary to get a different number. When I entered the DMV I saw a large sign in a prominent location with large, clear type (and with some parts highlighted) that said I could check a box on a form if I objected to using my SSN as my license number. I checked the box, and I got a different number. No hassle. Of course, I'll have to deal with store clerks' odd looks when they see a license number that starts with a letter, but I guess that will be a good time to enlighten them about SSNs. -- Seth Golub | "..And in all of Babylonia there was seth@cs.wustl.edu | wailing and gnashing of teeth, till the seth@hilco.com | prophets bade the multitudes get a grip | on themselves and shape up." - W. Allen ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:45:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc. Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy or vice versa. 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. If you read this from the comp.society.privacy newsgroup and wish to contribute a message, you should simply post your contribution. As a moderated newsgroup, attempts to post to the group are normally turned into eMail to the submission address below. On the other hand, if you read the digest eMailed to you, you generally need only use the Reply feature of your mailer to contribute. If you do so, it is best to modify the "Subject:" line of your mailing. Contributions generally are acknowledged within 24 hours of submission. An article is printed if it is relevant to the charter of the digest. If selected, it is printed within two or three days. The moderator reserves the right to delete extraneous quoted material. He may change the subject line of an article in order to make it easier for the reader to follow a discussion. He will not, however, alter or edit or append to the text except for purely technical reasons. A library of back issues is available on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp" with password identifying yourid@yoursite. The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy". People with gopher capability can most easily access the library at gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu. Older archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #045 ****************************** .