Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 08:55:27 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V7#054 Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 28 Dec 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 054 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: BC Commissioner Upholds Severing of Voter Addresses Re: Nastiness From "Netnet" Re: French Authorisation puts People into a Secret File Re: Must I PAY For My Own Drug Test? Re: Risks of Checking Accounts Racial Classification AT&T sends bill of $13,662.52 Compuserve Censoring USENET Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning) Date: 23 Dec 1995 00:16:06 GMT Subject: Re: BC Commissioner Upholds Severing of Voter Addresses Organization: The National Capital FreeNet (afaulkne@bclands.crl.gov.bc.ca) writes: 8. Order I find that the provisions of the Municipal Act apply to in dispute. I also find, under section 22(1) of the Act, that it This gets a bit complex and cofusing because there are 2 acts involved. My impression is that where the text refers to "the Act" without a name the Commissioner is referring the the basic FOI/POP which created his office and provides his mandate. It should be clear to any reader of the FOI/POP act that politicians are not provided any sort of exclusion from the blanket prohibition on extracting names and addresses or phone numbers for soliciting or prospect list creation. Canada has a much less efficient electoral process than countries such as the US which have a single piece of legislation for all levels of government and a single electoral process. This decision deals with Municipal Lists of Electors, which would not include the City of Vancouver(Vancouver has a special charter). I have a very wide cynical streak and wouldn't put it past provincial MLAs to give themselves an exemption while telling municipal politicians to keep their hands off voter address data. There isn't any formal party affiliation at the local political level, although they often form unoffical coallitions or slates that have non-binding ties to provincial party organizations. This may have interesting ramifications for the up coming provincial election. The voters list is provided to political parties for their use. Usually that involves merging the name, address, occupation fields with telephone data bought from BCTel. This becomes a very powerful campaign tool, especially when coupled with occupation directed campaigning (e.g. teachers, doctors) and ethnic sub-listing based on last name. I wonder if this usage will still be allowed? This type of usage isn't limited to political campaigns and illustrates exactly why this type of information shouldn't be released without the consent of the voters involved. A "Data Extractor" taken to civil court last year told the judge that if he was denied direct access to voter data he would just get it by other routes, and gave a couple of examples: - contract with a candidate/party to merge voter list data with Dominion Directory data(available on CD-ROM) and keep a copy of the voter list - file as a candidate himself if that failed Do you have any data on what level of coverage Dominion Directory has for BC? BC Tel won't say. A small trial of my own showed that 40% of active numbers in a residential area exchange were not listed in a Polk directory. I did pick a high property value area, so this may be unrepresentative. An interesting twist to this is that Squamish is relatively close to the Whistler ski resort, so the list of electors might have included a larger that usual % of wealthy people for whom keeping their address a private matter is literally a routine security precaution. Property owners can vote even though the property is just a ski chalet or vacation cottage, not their principal residence. The commissioner's decision refers to personal security as well as privacy. -- notice: by sending advertising/solicitations to this account you will be indicating your consent to paying me $70/hour for a minimum of 2 hours for my time spent dealing with it ------------------------------ From: gmcgath@mv.MV.COM (Gary McGath) Date: 23 Dec 1995 17:27:34 GMT Subject: Re: Nastiness From "Netnet" Organization: Conceptual Design Nightwolf wrote: Has anyone else reading any of these newsgroups received the same pair of advertisements? If so, then what have you done, or what are you planning to do? Would it be out of line for me to suggest that each person who has received a copy of this advertisement might call the eight hundred number given in the advertisement, and advise whomever answers that you are calling to protest the sending of junk E-Mail? If this is not the best solution, then what is a better idea? Does anyone have any suggestions? Please do let me know! I want to make a point of nipping this damned garbage in the bud!!! I did receive one mailing from these people and complained to them, but didn't hear anything from them after that. Calling their 800 number to complain strikes me as an excellent idea; but people should be advised to actually state their complaint in a way that can't be construed as a "harassing phone call," however much the spammers deserve one. -- Gary McGath gmcgath@mv.mv.com http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath ------------------------------ From: lpele@worldnet.fr (Laurent PELE) Date: 23 Dec 1995 23:01:56 GMT Subject: Re: French Authorisation puts People into a Secret File Organization: New Cypherpunks JeanBernard_Condat@eMail.FranceNet.fr says... New official authorisation to put all people in a secret file... November 16th, 1995: In middle of the strike period in France, the Ministry of the Army publish a text dated November 9th giving the authorisation to the Army to put all available data in local files for future uses. The available data mind political, philosophical, religion... opinions of a person called "terrorist" or "victim of a terrorist." :-|] It is right that it is quite incredible that the CNIL accepted that text, there where no guaranty to protect people in the file : their rights to access it, to rectify it and people in the file don't even know that their political opinions are in the file. This text is contrary to the first part of Art 31 of Law "Informatique et Libert" 6 January 1978 : "Il est interdit de mettre ou conserver en mmoire informatise, sauf accord exprs de l'interess, des donnes nominatives qui, directement ou indirectement, font apparaitre les origines raciales ou les opinions politiques, philosophiques ou religieuses ou les appartenances syndicales des personnes. [...] Pour des motif d'intret public, il peut aussi etre fait exception l'interdiction ci-desus sur proposition ou avis conforme de la commision par dcret en Conseil d'Etat" In other means, the CNIL accepted that the law didn't apply to the army and don't control it. Note that this law doesn't define what is a terrorist. Note also that it is France that invented terrorism : France have done the first plane deviation. France authorities use also terrorism actions (for example bomb in Rainbow Warrior ship in Auckland in New Zealand, 10 years ago, a journalist were killed) -- Laurent PELE | Tel: +(33) (1) 42 29 93 58 13 rue Lantiez | Fax: +(33) (1) 42 29 99 32 F- 75017 PARIS | lpele@worldnet.fr http://www.worldnet.net/~lpele/ -- Open an account in E-cash and visit my own picture shop on http://www.worldnet.net/~lpele/images.html, that's cheap! ------------------------------ From: bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: 26 Dec 1995 03:19:10 GMT Subject: Re: Must I PAY For My Own Drug Test? Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers "Prof. L. P. Levine" wrote: I cannot believe that it could _possibly_ be legal to require applicants to PAY for processing employer-mandated drug tests! I'm more than a bit baffled. On what possible basis could you argue that it even _might_ be illegal? Companys can, by and large, require whatever they please from employees, right? Are there some laws I don't know about relating to employers prerogatives to charge fees and other such for employment applicants? And how does this relate to 'privacy'? [since it appears that you've already conceded the only real privacy issue related to this matter, as your gripe is not that they _want_ a drug test, but only who is to _pay_ for it]. -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- ------------------------------ From: Diann <71600.621@CompuServe.COM> Date: 27 Dec 1995 03:42:13 GMT Subject: Re: Risks of Checking Accounts Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Interesting and scary about getting that woman's checking data. However, I've noticed that many places which want account numbers get all bent out of shape if they don't get it. I almost screwed up my car insurance payment by forgetting to write the insurance account number on the memo line; this dispite the fact the silly thing was listed on the sheet of paper from the insurance company that I sent back with my check. So, one is damned if one does and damned if one doesn't. any suggestions??? ------------------------------ From: gmcgath@mv.MV.COM (Gary McGath) Date: 27 Dec 1995 13:06:06 GMT Subject: Racial Classification Organization: Conceptual Design An issue which I haven't seen discussed much on this forum is how to deal with requests to categorize oneself racially. Twice in the past two years I've been faced with such requests. The first time was in applying for a mortgage (one of the most privacy-destroying situations that many of us encounter). When I saw the question, I refused to answer it. The loan officer told me that in that case he'd fill in his best guess, and then would sign it to indicate that he was supplying the answer. He tried to "forget" to sign it, but I insisted on it. I feel that I should have acted more forcefully, writing on the form that I didn't consent to having my race taken into account in a loan application. A little more recently, I received a questionnaire from a company in Georgia for which I'd done some consulting services. This one didn't directly ask for my race, but rather asked if I was a "minority-owned business." This time, I sent back an angry refusal to answer the questionnaire at all. My suspicion is that in both of these cases, the requests were pressured, if not directly mandated, by Federal law. I'm wondering if people reading this have come up with effective techniques to refuse to be racially categorized, and what kind of reactions they've encountered in the process. -- Gary McGath gmcgath@mv.mv.com http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath ------------------------------ From: JeanBernard_Condat@email.Francenet.fr (JeanBernard Condat) Date: 21 Dec 1995 17:14:16 GMT Subject: AT&T sends bill of $13,662.52 Organization: FranceNet For the holidays, AT&T don't hesitate to put a little humor all over the world and for the people that don't have chance to leave in the USA. The French computer spy Jean-Bernard Condat have receive a bill for the month of January 1983 with an uncredible amount of $13,662.52. For years Jean-Bernard Condat has undoubtedly been France's best-known computer hacker. Appearing on television talk shows, launching provocative operations and attending computer seminars, he founded the Chaos Computer Club France (CCCF) in 1989 as Frances answer to the renowned Chaos Computer Club in Hamburg (Germany). French journalist Jean Guisnel revealed last month in a book entitled 'Guerres dans le Cyberespace' (Cyberspace War, Internet and Secret Services) published by the Editions La Decouverte (ISBN 2-7071-2502-4) that Condat has been controlled from the outset by the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST). A student in Lyons where he followed music and information technology courses, Condat was taken in hand by the local branch of the DST in 1983. The DST organized his participation in hacker meetings abroad. Guisnel said that from 1989 onwards Jean-Luc Delacour , Condat's handler at the DST, decided that his proteg was ready for bigger and better things. He asked Condat to start up CCCF, then worked to promote his public image in order that the largest number of hackers would gravitate towards him. The DST printed hundreds of T-shirts and thousands of post cards for him. When Thomson and Pechiney found that hackers were trying to breack into their systems Condat enabled the French counter-espionage service to trace the intruders. When he was taking part in a television program in September 1991 in which he was to demonstrate how to hack into a system his handler dictated what he should say in his earphones. Questioned by Intelligence Newsletter, Condat admitted he had worked for the DST over a 52 month period and written up 1,032 reports during that time. He claims, however, that he broke with the DST in 1991 and that he intends to shortly publish an account of what he calls his 'turpitude'. The book called 'BND2' cannot be publish in France at this time for security reasons. Condat worked for several years in SVP company before leaving it a few months ago to take over a key fonction: he is now security officier for one of the first French bank in Paris. But never understand why AT&T ask it an uncredible bill of $13,662.52! Don't hesitate to contact it at: condat@atelier.fr. ------------------------------ From: an280463@anon.penet.fi (Thurston J. Whistlestop) Date: 28 Dec 1995 02:19:07 GMT Subject: Compuserve Censoring USENET Organization: CompuServe Incorporated I use Compuserve to access the net. Recently (Around December 26) their USENET server had most of the alt* heirachy removed. I wrote to them to ask why. My letter and response (Unedited except for my pseduonym) are attached. What gives? (Letter to CIS) Sir/Madam, I use CIS to access the internet via CID/PPP (Also use CIM sometimes too). One of the common things I use is USENET via a program called WinVN. Today I connected as usual from my locale in Melbourne, Australia and found that large section of the alt* heirachy was no longer available from your server, there were also other parts not accessible and in general it appeared as though any group that could possibly have anything to do with adult discussions had vanished. I also used the "GO USENET" portion of CIS to confirm the absense of these groups and also to eliminate any problems with my client software. Could you please expain why these groups are no longer available on your NNTP server? If there has been a change in Compuserve policy I would appreciate an explanation as to what the driving force(s) behind this change is. Thank you (Reply) To: Thurston J. Whistlestop Fr: Susan Kurtz Customer Service Representative Re: Usenet Newsgroups Thank you for writing Feedback! I am responding to your inquiry regarding the cancellation of certain newsgroups. The access to the newsgroups was blocked by order of the German Government. The block is pending legal review from CompuServe in response to the German order. Since our service is international by design, we can not block areas for just one country. I apologize for any frustration or inconvenience this may cause you. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact us at Feedback. We are here to assist you! Susan Kurtz ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 22 Nov 1995 14:25:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95] 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 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. Web browsers will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu. ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- 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 | Web: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu ---------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V7 #054 ****************************** .