Date: Thu, 06 Apr 95 07:46:38 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V6#034 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 06 Apr 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 034 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Abolishing the IRS Re: Abolishing the IRS Re: Can a LAN Supervisor Watch Me? Re: Is Reading E-Mail Legal? Re: Proving your Citizenship Re: Proving your Citizenship Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy PTC 1995 Research Prizes SS# Question Invading Someone Else's Privacy Copyright of Databases Computer Crime in Networks Re: Can My Neighbor Peruse my Medical Records? Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gmcgath@condes.MV.COM (Gary McGath) Date: 01 Apr 1995 16:58:11 GMT Subject: Re: Abolishing the IRS Organization: Conceptual Design mikeb@ssd.fsi.com (Mike Bates x581) wrote: Snooping is still snooping, even if the target is a merchant. The IRS will want to know that all sales tax owed is paid and that means certifying the total sales for a merchant and differentiating between taxable and non-taxable items. (And count on Congress to produce as many exemptions for a national sales tax as they do for the income tax. It's a great way to aid friends and punish enemies.) The record-keeping burden wouldn't be any less; it would simply be lifted from those of us who don't sell services or merchandise. While I agree that the best change would be to do away with direct federal taxation (and to shrink the size of the government so that the amount it needed to collect would be much smaller), I think that's effectively impossible in the short run, and that replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would significantly reduce the federal assaults on our privacy. Currently, any income-generating transaction comes under the scrutiny of the IRS, and this results in governmental requirements that all of these activities be reported. Replacing it with a sales tax would remove many transactions from the federal eye, and thus would be less intrusive. Still, nothing can be changed without changing popular attitudes toward the government so that its power can be kept in check. Otherwise, the government will eventually declare that working for a living is "sale of services" and thus taxable, and we'll be back where we started from or worse. -- Gary McGath gmcgath@condes.mv.com PGP Fingerprint: 3E B3 62 C8 F8 9E E9 3A 67 E7 71 99 71 BD FA 29 ------------------------------ From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> Date: 01 Apr 95 21:27 EST Subject: Re: Abolishing the IRS Leonard A DiMenna sez: With Reguards to letting the state goverments collect taxes for the IRS, there are some state goverments that can't balance their own budjets. How can you give them the responsiblity to collect money that's not theirs? I believe that by giving the states more to do, its one more thing that can go wrong. It ends up costing the state tax payers more money. States like New York _already_ collect taxes for city governments, what's so different about them also collecting it for the IRS? In New York, sales tax and witholding is forwarded by businesses to the state along with a form indicating what city the tax is collected for. For sales tax, the form lists the city, tax rate, and amount collected. I presume the state then forwards it back to the respective cities. Since New York is collecting the money in trust, it would be fraud to unjustly take money for other purposes. Besides, the cities would go _ape_ if that happpened. It may cost the tax payers money, but I think it would cost less overall to consolidate the IRS functions into the existing state governments. So it costs the states more, big deal. They can be compensated by keeping a percentage of the revenue they collect. Imagine how much money goes to duplicate adminstrative functions between the IRS and state offices, now imagine the IRS-part gone. -- Chris czguris@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: Marc Thibault Date: 01 Apr 95 16:37:01 EST Subject: Re: Can a LAN Supervisor Watch Me? Organization: Tanda and Associates kadokev@rci.ripco.com (Kevin Kadow) writes: As long as you have the network drivers loaded, there is the possibility that someone, somewhere can obtain information from your system. You could set the machine up so that you can boot without I don't think so. Netware drivers aren't general-purpose shells. They specifically are not file servers. PC network drivers generally have the least amount of code necessary to redirect I/O to a server on the LAN. They certainly don't have interpreters for incoming packets asking to peek at memory or disks. Getting LAN communications working at all is difficult; Getting unintended communications through a specialised interpreter written to minimise code space would be astounding. You are confusing Netware with Unix. Cheers, Marc --- This is not a secure channel; assume nothing. Marc Thibault | Information Systems Architect PGP fingerprint = 6C 54 49 77 DB A7 AE DA 73 EA 30 EE F7 07 90 DA ------------------------------ From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) Date: 02 Apr 1995 09:27:25 -0400 Subject: Re: Is Reading E-Mail Legal? Organization: Saltieri, Poore, Nash, deBrutus & Short, Attorneys at Law w2jc@ritz.mordor.com sez: The current Communications "Decency" law which just passed the Senate and was sponsored by Sen. Exon would REQUIRE service providers to monitor EVERY email and article to guarantee that none of them violated Big Bro's sense of "decency"... False. 1) It hasn't "passed the Senate" yet. The bill was simply reported out of the Commerce Committee as part of the telcom reform bill. 2) The revised version of S.314 adds several defenses for providers, including a lack of editorial control over content. Nothing in the present version would require universal monitoring. S.314 is bad business and flagrantly unconstitutional in places (e.g., the revision to 47 USC 223(a)(1)(A)). In discussing it, though, let's get our facts straight. ------------------------------ From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Date: 03 Apr 1995 15:00:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Proving your Citizenship pnk@dlep1.itg.ti.com (Pete Karculias) wrote: Of course people born abroad who have at least one US citizen parent are US citizens. But you have to _prove_ the facts. The easiest way is to file a report of a birth abroad with the nearest US consulate. This provides the necessary documentation to satisfy the buearucrats. I think you're missing his point. He was not born "abroad", but in Puerto Rico, which is part of the United States. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: "Vinod Narayanan" Date: 03 Apr 95 17:10:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Proving your Citizenship Bill Ranck writes: If I remember correctly, service in the US military is one way to obtain citizenship. Not sure of the details, but I'm fairly certain that it makes a person eligible, and possibly it is automatically granted. The usual requirement is that you be a legal permanent US resident (ie. a "green card" holder) for five years before you can apply for US citizenship. However, if you work for the US Military, I believe this term is shortened to 3 years. The residency requirement is also shortened if you are married to a US citizen (what is the similarity? :-) I am not sure if you can become eligible to be a legal permanent US resident through just having served in the US Military. -- vinod@watson.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: palmer@chmsr (Michael T. Palmer) Date: 04 Apr 1995 17:39:50 GMT Subject: Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology /DD.ID=OVMAIL1.WZR014/G=DANIEL/S=STICKA/@EDS.DIAMONDNET.sprint.com wrote: A lot of time has been spent in this digest discussing the Exon/Gorton ammendment and the Communications Decency Act. I agree that this is an important issue of freedom of speech, censorship, etc., but what does it have to do with privacy? The letter from the ACLU seemed a bit outside the charter of this discussion group. Privacy of personal communications. What could possibly be MORE relevant? Also note the possible implications for banning encryption: "But we have to be able to *read* it to know if it's *dirty*!" Privacy: 1789-1995. RIP. -- Michael T. Palmer (palmer@chmsr.isye.gatech.edu) RIPEM Public Key available Center for Human-Machine Systems Research, Dept of Industrial & Systems Eng Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0205 ------------------------------ From: tombell@america.com (Tom Bell) Date: 06 Apr 1995 04:09:17 GMT Subject: Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy Organization: Southern Bell /DD.ID=OVMAIL1.WZR014/G=DANIEL/S=S TICKA/@EDS.DIAMONDNET.sprint.com writes: A lot of time has been spent in this digest discussing the Exon/Gorton ammendment and the Communications Decency Act. I agree that this is an important issue of freedom of speech, censorship, etc., but what does it have to do with privacy? The letter from the ACLU seemed a bit outside the charter of this discussion group. Right now, SysOps can read mail on their systems if they wish. The Exon/Gorton amendment to the Communications Act would REQUIRE SysOps to read all messages (private & public). Discussions of such an abuse of power by the legislature is germaine to the topic of the digest, i.e., privacy. -- Tom Bell user of OS/2 and GeoWorks! ------------------------------ From: jwarren@well.sf.ca.us (Jim Warren) Date: 05 Apr 1995 23:16:53 +0800 Subject: Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" Santayana, _The Life of Reason_ In 1926, seven years before the National Socialists achieved absolute power, a bill similar to Exon amendment was passed in the German Reichstag. I quote the following passage from page 266 of _Purity in Print_ (Scribner's: 1968) by Paul S. Boyer: The purity crusade now found a focus in the "Act for the Protection of Youth Against Trashy and Smutty Literature," a national censorship bill proposed to the Reichstag late in 1926. This _Schmutz und Schund_ (Smut and Trash) bill, as it was dubbed, aroused fears in German literary and intellectual circles, but the Minister of the Interior soothed the apprehensive with assurances that it "threatens in no way the freedom of literature, [the] arts, or [the] sciences," having been designed solely for the "protection of the younger generations." It was aimed only at works which "undermine culture" and purvey "moral dirt," he added, and had been devised "not by reactionaries, but by men holding liberal views..." On December 18, 1926, after a bitter debate, the _Schmutz und Schund_ bill passed the Reichstag by a large majority. The Catholic Center and the Nationalist parties were strong in it support, the Socialists divided. In accordance with the provisions of the new law, the Interior Minister appointed boards of censorship for each of the Federal states. These eight-member panels, including representatives from publishers', authors', and booksellers' groups as well as from youth, welfare, and educational organizations, were empowered to prohibit the advertising, display, or sale to minors of any book deemed morally objectionable. Presented for your information by, David Dubin@notes.pw.com This has not really been one man's opinion, but yours still may vary with mileage. [via pys@well.com] ------------------------------ From: pbwhite@latrobe.edu.au (Peter B White) Date: 02 Apr 1995 16:56:20 +1000 Subject: PTC 1995 Research Prizes PLEASE DISTRIBUTE 1995 PACIFIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL RESEARCH PRIZES The Pacific Telecommunications Council, a non-profit, international membership organization promoting the development and beneficial use of telecommunications in the Pacific Hemisphere, announces the availability of the 1995 PTC Research Prizes. The competition is designed to promote fresh inquiry into telecommunications-related topics, as enumerated below, and is open to all individuals who are either actively working on a degree or have obtained undergraduate or graduate level degrees (BA, BS, MA, MS, PhD, etc.) within the last five years. In receiving applications or judging submissions, PTC will take no interest in the race, national origin, creed, ethnicity, sex or age of the participant. We shall be guided only by the quality of the scholarship demonstrated. Three prizes, which include a monetary award in the amount of US$2,000 for each prize*, will be awarded to the authors of the best research and/or policy paper in the following subject areas: 1. International Telecommunications-Policy and Regulation 2. International Telecommunications-Economics and Finance 3. Impact of International Telecommunications Policies on the Development of Societies and Cultures. Papers submitted must be original works of publishable length and should ideally focus on the communications needs and concerns of the Pacific region, defined as Asia (including East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia), Oceania, and the Americas. Such papers must have not have been published elsewhere or submitted elsewhere for publication or presentation. Submissions should be typed, double-spaced and in English. Copyright of the winning papers will be transferred to PTC and may be published in any of several forms with due credit to the author(s). Non-winning papers will not be returned unless accompanied by an addressed envelope and return postage (or international reply coupons). Winning entrants will be invited to present their papers at a special session of the 18th Pacific Telecommunications Conference, Honolulu, in January 1996. Travel assistance will be made available, if needed, for this purpose. The deadline for submissions is 30 June 1995. The selection committee reserves the right to not award any or all prizes. For further information and application forms, please contact (by post or fax) Richard Nickelson, Editor, PTR, Pacific Telecommunications Council, 2454 South Beretania Street, Suite 302, Honolulu, Hawaii 96826-1596 USA Telephone +1 808 941 3789; Facsimile +1 808 944 4874; richard@alex.ptc.org. *U.S. participants are reminded that such prizes are considered by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as part of their gross taxable income. ------------------------------ From: John Kwiatkowski <0007152212@mcimail.com> Date: 02 Apr 95 00:28 EST Subject: SS# Question Can anyone tell me the available ways to obtain the social security number of someone who is only 17 and probably not yet in most computer databases? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: anonymous Date: 04 Apr 1995 01:35:57 -0400 Subject: Invading Someone Else's Privacy [Moderator - please remove this section between brackets if you decide to include this post. If you know of the answer to this question, and/or it is not appropriate, feel free to not send it out! If you do send it out, please remove my name, as the person I am interested in could quite possibly read this too!] I have been reading this group for quite a while, and I have seen many threats to our privacy brought into the open and discussed. I don't remember each one, but now I wish I had. I want to investigate someone, and see if there are any skeletons in their closet. I am thinking about things such as financial history, educational history, past criminal charges, and civil court actions. Also, they do live in the U.S., and I don't want them to find out they are being investigated. What net resources are there that have information on how to find this information out about someone? Any other pointers? ------------------------------ From: Eric Noble Date: 03 Apr 1995 15:15:19 GMT Subject: Copyright of Databases Organization: CERFnet I have a student here at Hastings College of the Law (visiting this semester from the University of Leiden, Netherlands) who has asked me to post the following questions concerning copyright protection of databases. If you can respond, please write to Victor Schmedding (schmeddi@uchastings.edu). TIA Eric Noble UC Hastings Comp Svcs Coord http://www.uchastings.edu/ "The database the questions are about, is a database of facts which are not copyrightable. U.S. Copyright will only protect this database as a compilation. A compilation will receive copyright protection if it is original in its selection or arrangement. The European Directive on protection of databases has the same requirements. "Originality in selection: "A database has the capacity of holding an almost exhaustive amount of data. Therefore a database author will try to include as much data as possible. But for the database to be a good quality database, its author will have to make a selection based on what quality data is and what is not. If this is the case then almost every database will have met the selection requirement for copyright. I think this is the case, don't you? "Originality in arrangement: "Does this requirement refer to the manner the data is stored in a database or does it refer to the way the data is presented to the user? If the former is the case, the database software arranges and rearranges the data. Thus the database author will have no control over the arrangement. The latter option seems more appealing for it lets the author have more control over the arrangement. If this is the case, how does the 'CCC Information Services v. MacLean Hunter' decision (decided in December 1994) fit in? And which standpoint on arrangement would seem to be the better? "The note I am writing also covers antitrust implications of database protection. I am having trouble finding good leads in this area. Can you help me? "Antitrust considerations: "Looking at copyright protection and contractual protection of databases. Are there any antitrust complications? I have come up with illegal tying agreements and copyright misuse. Are there any others I have overlooked? ------------------------------ From: Kerstin Muehle Date: 03 Apr 1995 19:13:40 GMT Subject: Computer Crime in Networks Organization: University of Passau, Germany I am starting to write a thesis about computer crime in networks, e.g. "hacking", exchange of secret information etc. How can I find books or articles on that subject? How can I get information about the subject at all? Thank you for responding to: muehle01@fsuni.rz.uni-passau.de ------------------------------ From: tombell@america.com (Tom Bell) Date: 06 Apr 1995 04:17:14 GMT Subject: Re: Can My Neighbor Peruse my Medical Records? Organization: Southern Bell levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu said: "conducted a survey of Fortune 500 companies and found that half of them had used medical records to make hiring decisions, often without informing the potential employee." Don Wilson remarked: How does the company acquire the medical records if the potential employee has not given permission for the release of the medical records? Well, Don, it is because the company hires the doctors and yearly gives the employees "FREE" medical exams. That makes the records the property of the company. My union has argued against any employee using a 'company doctor.' However, some employees can't resist a "good" thing. -- Tom Bell user of OS/2 and GeoWorks! ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 29 Dec 1994 10:50:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94] 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. This digest is a forum with information contributed via Internet eMail. Those who understand the technology also understand the ease of forgery in this very free medium. Statements, therefore, should be taken with a grain of salt and it should be clear that the actual contributor might not be the person whose email address is posted at the top. Any user who openly wishes to post anonymously should inform the moderator at the beginning of the posting. He will comply. 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 to CPD should be submitted, with appropriate, substantive SUBJECT: line, otherwise they may be ignored. They must be relevant, sound, in good taste, objective, cogent, coherent, concise, and nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome, but not personal attacks. Do not include entire previous messages in responses to them. Include your name & legitimate Internet FROM: address, especially from .UUCP and .BITNET folks. Anonymized mail is not accepted. All contributions considered as personal comments; usual disclaimers apply. All reuses of CPD material should respect stated copyright notices, and should cite the sources explicitly; as a courtesy; publications using CPD material should obtain permission from the contributors. Contributions generally are acknowledged within 24 hours of submission. If selected, they are 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 V6 #034 ****************************** .