Date: Sun, 09 Apr 95 22:28:44 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V6#035 Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 09 Apr 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 035 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Abolishing the IRS Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995 Re: Need Information on Microchip Implants Re: Need Information on Microchip Implants Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy Re: Use of Mailboxes Re: Can You Buy Boxes to Fool CallerID/ANID? Who Reads This Group? Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Dennis G. Rears" Date: 07 Apr 95 11:08:51 EDT Subject: Re: Abolishing the IRS Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> writes: 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. There are some states like Florida, Texas, and Alaska that do not even collect income taxes. You also have situations where people live in one state but are residents of another state. How would you handle people who do not live in the country? If it goes to the states, how would you handle people who work in more than one states? Are you going to force company A in State A to provide a W2/W4 information to State B? -- dennis ------------------------------ From: Robert Gellman Date: 07 Apr 1995 15:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995 A privacy bill was approved by the House of Representatives on April 4, 1995. The bill is the Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995 (H.R. 1271). The Committee report is House Report 104- 94. The floor debate can be found in the Congressional Record of April 4, 1995, at pages H 4125 to H 4141. The Act was part of the Republican Contract With America. The legislation requires the written consent of a parent before a minor can be asked to respond to any survey or questionnaire from a person funded in whole or in part by the federal government if the survey or questionnaire is intended to elicit information about -- 1) parental political affiliations or beliefs 2) mental or psychological problems 3) sexual behavior or attitudes 4) illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior 5) appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor has a familial relationship 6) relationships that are legally recognized as privileged, including those with lawyers, physicians, and the clergy 7) religious affiliations or beliefs There must be written consent before this information can be solicited, and there must be advance public availability of the questionnaire or survey. There is an exclusion for tests intended to measure academic performance. There are also four exceptions covering-- 1) the seeking of information for the purpose of a criminal investigation or adjudication 2) any inquiry made pursuant to a good faith concern for the health, safety, or welfare of an individual minor 3) administration of the immigration, internal revenue, or customs laws of the United States 4) the seeking of information required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance These rules would apply equally to surveys and questionnaires that are anonymous and to those that are identifiable. I offer a few observations about the bill. First, it appears that this is part of the agenda of the new right. Buried in the Committee report is this sentence which may explain the principal purpose of the bill: In some cases, survey questions have been phrased in a manner that suggests neutrality or even tacit approval of behavior or attitudes which may be contrary to the values held by parents. Second, none of the key terms in the bill is defined. "Sexual behavior" could arguably range from mating activities of earthworms to fashion trends for seventh graders. Also, a survey could arguably include a question asked by one teacher to one student. It is also not clear what constitutes "antisocial" behavior. Drinking? Rock concerts? Baseball strikes? Poorly drafted legislation? Third, the exclusion for tests of academic performance is based on the intent of the test. Thus, prohibited questions might be permissible in a test whose principal intent is the measurement of academic performance. This may be true even if the test is non-identifiable. On the other side, a sharp student might argue that a biology test violates the rules without parental consent and advance availability by questioning the intent. This is not necessarily a winning argument, but it might buy a postponement of an exam while the lawyers argue about things. Finally, the exceptions are worthy of note. You may not ask a minor about sexual experiences without written parental permission unless your purpose is to put the student or the parent in jail or to collect taxes. This turns privacy legislation on its head by denying anonymous and recourseless use of information but permitting use of the information to harm the provider. Thus, it is okay to ask children if their parents have committed a crime if it is part of a criminal investigation but not as part of a research project. This legislation now goes to the Senate. Posted by Robert Gellman, Washington, DC rgellman@cais.com ------------------------------ From: josephro@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Joseph Robinson) Date: 08 Apr 1995 08:25:05 GMT Subject: Re: Need Information on Microchip Implants Organization: University of Alberta Obie 602 (obie602@aol.com) wrote: I do not really know who to ask about this, but I have heard rumors about the use of microchip transmitters in animals to track their where abouts. I am told that there a product called KIDSCAN that has been developed to be placed into children to prevent kiddnapping and so on. Have you heard anything about this and can you suggest where I might go for more information? Well, it's not a rumor. I just got a cat from the local SPCA and it is now their policy that all animals leaving get "chipped". I can't see how chipping kids could prevent their being kidnapped, but it would help ID them anyways... The only help I can offer is get in contact with the animal ID company, they could probably help you... PETNET (reg. tm of Anitech ID Systems Inc.) Registration Dept. 620 Alden Rd, Suite 101 Markham, Ontario L3R 9R7 [905] 477-6950 [800] 463-6738 [905] 477-6956 (fax) ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 08 Apr 1995 10:35:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Need Information on Microchip Implants Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA obie602@aol.com (Obie 602) writes I do not really know who to ask about this, but I have heard rumors about the use of microchip transmitters in animals to track their where abouts. I am told that there a product called KIDSCAN that has been developed to be placed into children to prevent kiddnapping and so on. Have you heard anything about this and can you suggest where I might go for more information? Try the Bible, in the Book of Revelations. I am an agnostic myself, but I find the provision very interesting. Here's ny free association of what I believe the provision says: And The Beast [Satan] shall require all: rich, poor, free or bond, to obtain a mark upon their forehead, or upon their hand, save that one does so, they may not buy or sell anything. [Can't work, can't buy food] Let he who has an ear, hear: for the mark is the number of a name, of a man, and his number is 666. ------------------------------ From: kawyle@ansel.intersource.com (Karen A. Wyle) Date: 09 Apr 1995 00:08:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy Organization: InterSource, Bloomington, IN /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. I haven't seen the posts preceding Mr. Stickas's, but an amendment which would criminalize "indecent" e-mail seems to me to have quite a bit to do with privacy. For one of many possible examples: newlywed on business trip sends his bride a passionate letter about their wedding night via e-mail; said newlywed spends the first two years of his married life in the federal pen. I think his privacy would have been invaded, no? (This is -- I hope -- an unlikely example, but it would be within the law as Gorton-Exon would revise it. I am sure one could come up with many more likely invasions of privacy under this proposed law.) ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 08 Apr 1995 06:54:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Use of Mailboxes Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA Mario Hendricks , writes wicklund@Intellistor.COM (Tom Wicklu nd) writes: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> writes: I thought it was _illegal_ to put anything in someone's mailbox! If it is considered to be the "primary" mailbox. Sure it's illegal. I've done it myself, a few times. Probably everyone reading this message has at least once. It's one of those "victimless crimes" that unless someone complains about you inserting stuff in their box, or a mailman sees you, nothing ever happens and nobody gets prosecuted over it. In fact, one time I did that intentionally because the mailman messed up. I live at an address like "220 State Street" and there is another person, with a different name, who lives at "220 E State Street". (Address changed intentionally) So on occasion, he's gotten my mail and I've gotten his. So I had to go that way once, and I just dropped it in his mailbox. I think it's when we get a new carrier or a temporary one they mess up for a while, since it seems to happen every 5 or 6 months, on one or two pieces. One time I made the mistake and opened his phone bill, because it had my address and I didn't notice. Then I saw the name was wrong. Even though I'd never met him, I called him. Three guesses as to where I got his phone number from, and I also called C&P Telephone to let them know it's not his fault his phone bill might be late, and maybe to put some heat on the USPS. Private delivery companies can't put magazines in private mailboxes because it's against the law and the post office will sue them into the stone age. If they get caught. I posted the post to which Christopher Zguris responed, and I think I can add a little to the explanation. Our campus wide post office is a Contract Postal station. The university pays the U.S. Postal service to have the privlage of opperating a post office. Other way around. They are acting as an agent of the Postal (inadequate) Service, same as a grocery store in some small town that does this for the USPS. The Post Office pays them, not the other way around. USPS is getting them to do work for it, so it pays for it. It would have to be some really wierd arrangement for the postal service to charge them for the privelege of not having mail delivered to the individual campus addresses. Finally, the post office must abide by all postal regulations (eg, they cannot accept personal checks, they cannot just trash first class mail with a bad address, they must forward mail, etc.). Funny, but the building in Alexandria, VA where I sent an Express Mail package, that has a metal wall plaque indicating President Ford and Postmaster Bolger dedicated the place when it opened, (e.g. a government operated post office) accepts checks, Visa, Discover, Master Card and Most ATM cards. Can't see why a private place would not. ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 08 Apr 1995 07:19:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Can You Buy Boxes to Fool CallerID/ANID? Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning), writes A recent article in Macleans magazine stated that some Canadians with the new pizza sized Direct Broadcast Satellite receivers are using devices to make their pay per view calls look like they are coming from a US area code. [...] The article also said that some callers call an 800 service to bypass this problem. That doesn't seem to make much sense, since the call would show up in the billing details, unless it is some sort of call forwarding operation. I'd expect that to be a 900 pay per call service, not an 800 service. No, there are at least three of these "800 bypass services" that do this. AT&T operates one at 1-800-CALL-ATT. MCI operates one at 1-800-950-1022. Sprint operates one at 1-800-877-8000. For those of you who recognize these numbers, they appear on the back of your calling card for these companies. This is the number to call to place a call billed to your calling card. They may or may not give the ANI they get from the call via the 800 number to the called party if they pass Caller-ID information. There are two phone lines in my office. I dialed into the number that had Caller-ID on it when I was testing it, and it showed the local number. When I dialed it via the 1-800-CALL-ATT number, and used my calling card, it showed "O" for Out of Area. When I called the 1-800 number I have which terminates on that line, the call also showed up as out of area. I answered it to create a billing record. When my bill came in, it did list the ANI of that number for the 13c local call of one minute. (Intrastate rates, much more expensive.) Also, there are, in most telephone areas, an equivalent exchange which is a toll-free call: 950-XXXX. Most carriers use it to match their own carrier code, e.g. MCI uses 950-1022, Sprint uses 950-1033. I know AT&T runs a data network with modems, not a voice number, and you can access their Easylink E-Mail system from either their 1-800 number or from 950-1028 if I remember correctly. The 950 number also allows access to other data services the way several companies use Compuserve's numbers to allow you to access their systems. (I've never understood why someone would pay Compuserve $7.50 an hour to provide a data connection service at night when they could get an 800 number termination for large calling volumes on bulk rates for probably less. Maybe compuserve also supplies them with the computers as part of a package, or they don't receive enough calls to justify an 800 number.) Yes, there are 900 services, that allow you to keep from showing your number at all: 1-900-STOPPER is one. Until and unless the long distance carriers pass ANI or Caller-ID information from calls to 1-800 or 950 numbers they use for incoming calls, the information can't be passed on. ------------------------------ From: Robert Gellman Date: 04 Apr 1995 21:48:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Who Reads This Group? I have a question about CPD, which I have been reading now for a few weeks. I am curious about the circulation. How many people receive it and how has the circulation changed over time? If you are willing, you might post the answer in the next issue. [moderator: sure. There are just over 1000 people who get it mailed direct, like you do now, and an unknown number of people who read it from the newsgroup.] [A handle on the latter can be gleaned from the fact that about 5/6 of the submissions come from people who are not on the direct list. This lets me brag that there are about 6000 total readers.] [I took over the newsgroup from Dennis Rears, a system person at the US Army's Picatinny Arsenal in December 1993. He originated it about 5 years ago, and was responsible for its direction and early growth.] [Just by chance he has a posting in this issue. Hi Dennis.] [So as you can see, I just send this to a few thousand of my best friends.] ------------------------------ 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 #035 ****************************** .