Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 15:54:09 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V5#046 Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 10 Oct 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 046 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: SSN on driver's license in MO Re: SSN on driver's license in MO Re: SSN on driver's license in MO FBI Wiretap Bill, Copy Available FBI Wiretap Bill, What Does it Say? AOL Sells its Subscriber List Re: Eastwood Problem (last word) Freedom of Information in WI Freedom of Information in NJ Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: leander@xmission.com Date: 08 Oct 94 09:42:49 PDT Subject: Re: SSN on driver's license in MO Organization: XMission Public Access Internet (801 539 0900) seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub) reported: 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. Here in Utah the law changed a couple of years ago. In '92 a woman took the state to court about the practice of putting SS#'s on drivers licences (the licence already has its own number). So in Utah, if you don't want your SS# put on the licence, you just let them know. It is a giggle when store clerks look for the SS# to write on your check and find it isn't there . -- Leander ------------------------------ From: sean@sdg.dra.com (Sean Donelan) Date: 08 Oct 94 12:50:17 CDT Subject: Re: SSN on driver's license in MO Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub) writes: 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. Yes, it is indeed possible to get "the government" to see the light. Remember its your government. If the government is doing something you don't like, work to get it changed. Sometimes the system works. In 1990-91 Missouri started using the SSN as its driver's license number. When the original law passed there were only two exceptions. 1) If you didn't have a SSN, verified by a letter from the Social Security Administration. 2) A religious objection, verified by a county-level or higher judge. No other exceptions. No SSN. No driver's license. This was important because Missouri Department of Revenue (which issues driver's licenses in Missouri) regulations say a person's SSN is considered confidential *EXCEPT* when used as the drivers license number. Missouri driver license records, like most Missouri public records, may be sold, given, or shown to anyone. Anyone can buy individual driver's records for $1.50, or in bulk for about $0.01/each. A number of people complained to the Missouri DOR clerks (not very useful) and their state representatives (somewhat more useful). The following year the state legislature modified the law adding a third exception. The third exception is if a person "certifies" to the director of DOR his or her objection to using his or her SSN as the driver's license number. No explaination is required, just a certified objection. Although DOR could have made it a pain, they didn't. "Certification" consists of checking a box on the form "I object ..." and signing your name. No great hassle. You still have to provide your SSN for DOR's records (still somewhat objectionable, I left the SSN spot blank for a number of years until DOR refused to renew my license without it), but since the SSN isn't your driver's license number, the SSN is considered confidential according to DOR regulations. The final gotcha is previous license numbers. I haven't been able to find out DOR's policy for those people (such as myself) whose drivers license expired the year the law required them to use their SSN as the license number and had their license number changed after the law was modified. Normally DOR lists the previous license numbers on the driver's record. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Domain: sean@dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100 ------------------------------ From: dpaulson@cpdsc.com (Dean Paulson) Date: 10 Oct 1994 15:38:23 GMT Subject: Re: SSN on driver's license in MO Organization: CP DSC Communications, Plano TX seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub) writes: I recently got a Missouri driver's license. Normally, in Missouri, your Social Security Number is used as your license number. I once had a dl which used my SSN as the dl number. That was 10 years ago when I lived in North Dakota (glad I moved away). I don't know if they stilldo yhis up there... -- Dean Paulson dpaulson@cpdsc.com ------------------------------ From: Stanton McCandlish Date: 08 Oct 1994 15:36:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FBI Wiretap Bill, Copy Available Do you have an online copy of the bill as passed? ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Digital_Telephony/digtel94.bill, just updated yest. -- Stanton McCandlish
mech@eff.org

Electronic Frontier Fndtn.

Online Activist ------------------------------ From: glr@rci.ripco.com (Glen Roberts) Date: 09 Oct 94 11:20 CDT Subject: FBI Wiretap Bill, What Does it Say? Did I read the wiretap act correctly, in that it outlaws listening to cordless phones on a scanner? (it seems to amend the ECPA to include cordless phones as cellular phones). ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 10 Oct 1994 11:06:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: AOL Sells its Subscriber List Taken from RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Monday 10 October 1994 Volume 16 : Issue 45 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator Date: 05 Oct 1994 10:03:16 -0700 From: "David L. Gehrt - RIACS" Subject: AOL Sells its Subscriber List On the front page of the buiness section of the San Jose Mercury today (5 Oct 1994) is an article describing one of the most egregious privacy violations I have heard of. America Online, described in the article as the fastest growing on-line service providers, has or appears to be ready to peddle subscriber information. The kind of information by AOL collected upon sign up is (IMHO) excessive. My wife signed up and I nearly told her to find another service provider and if she had known about the possibility that the info would be sold I am sure that she would have not signed up. According to the article the information which might be included in the sale of AOL subscriber info includes: "...name, gender, address, income, family, type of computer equipment, and payments to the company." My hope is that other subscribers will rise up in anger and convince AOL that this invasion of their privacy will cost them more $$$ in lost subscribers than they can hope to gain via the sale of the info. -- David L. Gehrt ------------------------------ From: ed.chilton@ablelink.org Date: 08 Oct 1994 20:54:39 Subject: Re: Eastwood Problem (last word) ----------------------------------------- [Moderator: This was sent to me last week, but somehow I managed to lose it.] ------------------------------------------- The problem as stated is not an issue of "computer ethics." It is a matter of Eastwood condominium administration. The administrators, who would include the security sysop, would be hired to execute the will and activities and policies determined by the Eastwood Owner's Association. IMO the particular technology used is irrelevant. Data about the comings and goings of persons to monitored facilities or places are recorded, stored, and deleted all the time - and not only now but HAVE BEEN for thousands of years, using the latest means available to do so. (Spying is called the second oldest profession.) Today, banks and other places videotape the persons who enter their premises and if I don't like it, too bad. An observed coming or going can be recorded by tying a knot in string and the distance between knots can represent time. We may ask such rarely posed questions as: How long should a data string be kept? Who should be allowed to see the string before the knots are untied and the string is used again? Under what conditions should the data (information?) be made available? Are these questions a matter of "string ethics"? Further, just because something CAN be recorded does not mean that it MUST be recorded. That is a matter of policy. Successful and legitimate use of a device to enter secure premises can be ignored, and UNsuccessful, and therefore POSSIBLE illegitimate use, CAN be recorded. Recording the former could be regarded to be an invasion of privacy and recording the latter could be regarded as constituting security of the area. It is a judgment call not an absolute. The issue of privacy is relevant to power. Owners of a condominium building can set policy. Tenants of a condominium cannot and must look to legislation and other means to protect their well being. In that dispute technology is neutral. The issue is who controls it. If out of 250 condo owners 50 are really interested in the issues of their condo complex and 200 don't give a damn; and if the 50 who care are paranoids or snoops titillated by having information about other residents - then the policy concerning how technology will be put to use will lean towards the Orwellian Right. Power is the essential issue in Social Contract and politics. A democracy is ostensibly a "condominium owner" model where those who live in the unit (nation) determine policy and actions. The government is supposed to be the hired sysop. But it is the basic nature of Government to protect itself by fighting for landlord status over the residents. Privacy is the main battleground. Government always seeks to know as much as it can about the citizenry by invading their privacy and at the same to prevent the citizenry from knowing about its inner workings or protect its own privacy. The latter is called "national security" and "executive privilege" ha ha. Let's say that, due to resident apathy in the first go-round, 50 paranoid condo owners called the shots and set the policy. Now another 50 condo residents are really pissed and they are quite determined to organize and to gain control of the condo admini- stration. This group of 50 "libertarians" meet and keep records of their meetings in one condo called the Watergate Suite. -- From the "Up" I'm Ed Chilton. ------------------------------ From: "anonymous" Date: 08 Oct 94 13:29:17 CDT Subject: Freedom of Information in WI FILE NO. 94-639 REFERRED BY COUNTY BOARD CHAIRMAN JULY 12, 1994 TO LEGISLATIVE Offered by By Supervisor Dan Diliberti A RESOLUTION urging the Legislature and Governor to amend the Wisconsin Open Records Law to include 1) permissive language to grant counties and/or other public agencies the authority to set appropriate fees and charges for access to and reproduction of electronically produced records and data which take into account the initial costs of developing and building such data and 2) that any person acquiring a copy of an electronically produced record shall have no claim to proprietary ownership of said record and shall be prohibited from selling or otherwise retransmitting said acquired record. WHEREAS, Milwaukee County, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, the Wisconsin Energy Corp., the Wisconsin Gas Co. and Wisconsin Bell (Ameritech), are jointly funding development of an electronic data base known as the Milwaukee County Automated mapping and Land Information System Program (MCAMLIS); and WHEREAS, the focus of this project is the joint development of an electronic data base attendant to planimetric and cadastral,' or property boundary-base maps; and WHEREAS, the cost of developing the geographic data base for this project including certain enhancements is approximately $5.2 million; and WHEREAS, each of the three private utilities has committed $520,000 in support of the common electronic base mapping program; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that each of the private utilities will also commit to sharing in the operating costs of an ongoing geographic data file storage, retrieval, update and maintenance program associated with MCAMLIS; and WHEREAS, although the nature of the technology of constructing electronic data files is such that while the capital costs of creating the files are extremely high, the costs of redily duplicating the files is relatively nominal; and WHEREAS, Sections 19.21 through 19.39 of the Wisconsin Statutes relating to the Wisconsin Open Records Law provide that anyone has the right to request a copy of data classified as public records; and WHEREAS, all the data developed un the MCAMLIS as well as other companion county and regional work programs will, by law, be public records upon completion; and WHEREAS, the law provides that a public agency may only charge a party requesting a public record the actual reasonable cost of reproduction, thereby providing ready access to anyone to acquire at a nominal fee digital data bases produced at a very high cost; and WHEREAS, the Wisconsin open Records Law does not distinguish between the commercial and noncommercial use of a public record; and WHEREAS, the private utility members of the MCAMLIS partnership are concerned that competing enterprises might gain a significant advantage in waiting for the data base to be completed and then simply obtaining copies of that data base at a nominal copying cost; and WHEREAS, public agencies should also be concerned about the potential commercial exploitation of publicly funded data bases and should also be concerned about maintaining the integrity of the data; and WHEREAS, some mechanism should be in place to ensure that the public agency responsible for the data base has direct knowledge of all users of the data base and the purposes for which the data is being used; and WHEREAS, while the Wisconsin Open Records Law rightfully promotes ready citizen access to public records, it does not encourage public-private partnerships in building electronic data bases, nor does it prevent private gain through the commercial exploitation of public records created at the costs of taxpayers and utility rate payers; and WHEREAS, all of these concerns point to the need to amend the Wisconsin Open Records Law to allow counties and/or other agencies to set appropriate fees for access to and reproduction of electronically developed records and data which take into consideration the costs of developing and building such data; and WHEREAS, in addition, the law should be ammended to state that those acquiring a copy of an electronically produced record shall have no proprietary claim to said record and in addition shall be prohibited from selling or otherwise retransmitting said acquired record; now, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors does hereby urge the Legislature and Governor to amend the Wisconsin Open Records Law to include permissive language to grant to counties and/or other public agencies the authority to set appropriate fees and charges for access to and reproduction of electronically produced records and data which take into account the initial costs of developing and building such data; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Wisconsin Open Records Law be further amended to provide that any person acquiring a copy of an electronically produced record shall have no claim to proprietary ownership of said record and shall be prohibited from selling or otherwise retransmitting said acquired record; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Division of Intergovernmental Relations is hereby authorized and directed to have the appropriate amended language drafted, seek sponsors for said legislation and lobby for its passage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Wisconsin Counties Association and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. FISCAL NOTE: Adoption of this resolution will not require an expenditure of funds. docl4O2/lg 050394 ------------------------------ From: email list server Date: 08 Oct 1994 21:34:56 -0700 Subject: Freedom of Information in NJ On September 26 the New Jersey State Senate's Government Committee voted 5-0 in favor of a bill to make information on laws, legislation and legislative activity available to the public without charge via the Internet. The bill is scheduled for full consideration by the State Senate in the very near future. You can show your support for S1068 by writing or faxing your State Senator. A copy of your letter should also be sent to: Senator Donald DiFrancesco Senator Joseph Bubba (Senate President) (bill sponsor) 1816 Front Street 1117 Rt. 46 East Suite 202 Scotch Plains, New Jersey 07076 Clifton, New Jersey 07013 FAX: 908-322-9347 FAX: 201-473-2174 Future ACTION ALERTS for New Jersey's Internet bill will be issued. If you want to remain informed and placed on the S1068 Mailing List or need the address of your State Senator email to: swayze@pilot.njin.net Your support is appreciated. <<>> SENATE, No. 1068 STATE OF NEW JERSEY INTRODUCED MAY 16, 1994 By Senator BUBBA An ACT providing for public access to legislative information in electronic form, and supplementing P.L.1979, c.8. (C.52:11-54 et seq.). BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey: 1. a. The Office of Legislative Services shall make available to the public in electronic form the following information: (1) the most current available compilation of the official text of the statutes of New Jersey; (2) the texts of all bills introduced during the two-year session of the Legislature, including amended versions, as well as sponsor statements, committee statements, fiscal notes, and veto messages; (3) bill-indexing data on all bills pending in the Legislature, including indexing by subject and sponsor and, where appropriate, by citation of the section of law to be amended by a bill; (4) bill-tracking data on all bills pending in the Legislature, including the history of actions and current status; (5) a current calendar of legislative events, including the schedule of legislative committee meetings, and a list of bills scheduled for legislative action; (6) a current directory of the members of the Legislature, including complete committee membership information; (7) the texts of all chapter laws beginning with laws enacted during 1994; and (8) such other information as the Legislative Services Commission shall direct. b. The information specified in subsection a. shall be made available to the public through the largest nonproprietary cooperative public computer network. c. No fee or usage charge shall be imposed by the Office of Legislative Services as a condition of accessing the information specified in subsection a. of this section through the network described in subsection b. of this section. d. The Office of Legislative Services may offer a fee-based electronic legislative information service which may include, in addition to the information specified in subsection a., the following information and capabilities: (1) the ability for users to automatically maintain updated private databases and receive notification of scheduled action on specific bills or subject matter; (2) the ability for users to retrieve information by various means of searching full text; and (3) archives of bill texts and related information from prior sessions of the Legislature. e. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as prohibiting a private individual or entity from using the information specified in subsection a. to provide, either commercially or on a voluntary basis, services similar to those provided by the Office of Legislative Services pursuant to subsection d. 2. This act shall take effect on the second Tuesday in January 1996. STATEMENT This bill would require the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) to make available to the public, in electronic form, the following information: the texts of statutes (in both a compiled format and by chapter law beginning with laws enacted during 1994); the texts of pending bills along with sponsor statements, committee statements, fiscal notes and veto messages; bill indexing and tracking information; a calendar of legislative events; a directory of members of the Legislature, including a listing of committee memberships; and such other information as the Legislative Services Commission shall direct. Information would be provided through the largest nonproprietary cooperative public computer network (Internet). No fee or usage charge would be imposed by OLS for the privilege of accessing this information. The bill would also permit OLS to offer, via Internet, a fee-based legislative information service which, in addition to providing the foregoing information, would enable users to: automatically update private databases; receive notification of scheduled action on specific bills or subject matter; retrieve information by various means of searching full text; and access archives of bill texts and related information from prior sessions of the Legislature. At present, four states (California, Hawaii, Minnesota and Utah) offer "full-text" legislative information through Internet without usage fees. OLS currently offers an electronic information system which is available to users for a monthly fee. The bill would make this information available to a broader range of users with no fee imposed by OLS. By enhancing public access to the texts of statutes the bill would increase compliance with existing law. In addition, facilitating access by members of the public to information on pending legislation would increase awareness of, and participation in, the legislative process. _______________________ Requires Office of Legislative Services to make information on laws, legislation and legislative activity available to the public in electronic form. -- Michael Swayze |"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of swayze@pilot.njin.net |the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the |beginning of wisdom." --Bertrand Russell ------------------------------ 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 #046 ****************************** .