Date: Fri, 01 May 92 16:21:06 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <comp-privacy-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#008
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 01 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 008
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Privacy & US West Minnesota Gateway[CONTINUED]
Privacy and US West "Community Link" Gateway[CONTINUED]
Federal Govt. Use of the SS
Re: Call for new moderator?
Re: Cordless phones
Re: Cordless Phones
Re: Cordless phones
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the
effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy
(Moderated). Submissions should be sent to
comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to
comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.200].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 10:13:20 -0700
From: sumax!cs.washington.edu!ole!rwing!peterm (Peter Marshall)
Subject: Privacy & US West Minnesota Gateway[CONTINUED]
Mr. Neumeister and the RUD-OAG...recommended that baseline privacy
safeguards be put into place before...the service was authorized....
The Commission will...require that CLM Associates include in its
marketing materials and in its informational materials...a description
of what it considers to be permissible users of the data gathered on
individuals through Community Link. The Commission will also
memorialize, as a formal requirement, CLM Associates' pledge that it
will not compile individual consumer profiles of Community Link
subscribers, for marketing or other purposes....
_______________________________________________________________________________
[from a 3/19/92 letter on privacy issues to Community Link ISPs from a
US West Community Link Product Manager]:
"A positive [checkoff procedure]would probably result in a signfiicant
reduction in the number of end users on the list, negatively impacting
the value of any marketing efforts utilizing the customers[sic]name
and address."
"Should ISPs be restricted in their use of...[information from users]?
If...restricted, the information could not be used in the same manner
as information obtained from customers that conduct business in
person, by mail, by phone, etc."
"Insuring that the customer see the privacy statement first thing,
every time the user logs on[,]could give the impression that Community
Link ISPs may not be conducting business properly...."
I would encourage you to express your issues and concerns to the
panel...so that they can be included in the report...."
______________________________________________________________________________
[from a 3/26/92 reply to the US West letter from Minitel Development
Corp.'s Market Development Manager]:
...MDC is conducting a test of BILL&PAY Minitel and developing the
concurrent mrket roll-out strategy of this on-line information
service....
We seek to provide ease-of-use for the end user, while maintaining our
right to as much information about this individual as possible....
Most people who want information--or don't care either way--are
typically not a pro-active personality type. These people generally
don't mind being included on any lists made available....most people
understand that, once they have given out personal information, it may
be used in a variety of ways....
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 09:20:44 PDT
From: sumax!uunet!lorbit!rocque (peter marshall)
Subject: Privacy and US West "Community Link" Gateway[CONTINUED]
[preceding posts covered Minnesota background information, comments by
Community Link ISPs, and Advisory Panel report's recommendations]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Minnesota PUC's 12/4/91 Order establishing Advisory Panel, etc.:
..Subscriber access to the gateway will be free. Any US West subscriber
with a computer and a telephone modem can gain access by obtaining an
password. Normally, however, subscribers will be charged for...minutes
of use by the information service providers....
This filing involves a new service, a new telecommunications provider, and
entity offering a service whose regulatory status is unclear.
The filing therefore raises a number of serious and novel issues....
Nationally, the regulatory status of videotex gateway services is still
evolving. The...(FCC)currently views such services as "enhanced services,"
i.e., services which are not core monopoly services and are not subject to
federal regulation. Under this view, shareholders would bear the full risk
and reap the full benefit of US West's participation in this partnership.
US West, however, has made an FCC filing arguing that a...gateway it
provides in another jurisdiction is more properly classified as a basic
service. Under this view, ratepayers would face the...risks and incur the...
benefits....
Community Link clearly has the potential for consolidating in one data bank
information that used to be in several...(e.g., those belonging to banks,
stockbrokers, travel agencies), as well as information that was not
previously in any data bank(grocery purchases, bus schedule inquiries,
placement of and responses to classified advertising. This raises
significant privacy and security issues....
[CONTINUED]
--
Peter Marshall(rocque@lorbit.uucp)
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.
------------------------------
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 21:22:28 EDT
Subject: Federal Govt. Use of the SS
Federal Govt. Use of the SSN
Following up on "Institutional use of the SSN"
Even though the Privacy Act prohibits the use of the Social Security
Number, it also has a wide loophole known as the "routine use"
exception. In this exception, the agency which wishes to use the SSN
must publish a notice in the Federal Register citing reasons for it. I
did a recent LEXIS search which pulled up over 1300 routine use
exceptions filed. This loophole has swollowed the law.
Dave Banisar
CPSR Washington Office/US Privacy Council
------------------------------
From: Nancy Ann Duxbury <duxbury@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Call for new moderator?
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 01:52:43 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
In article <comp-privacy1.5.2@pica.army.mil> scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stuart M Castergine) writes:
>If the moderator for this group has employment conflicts that conflict
>with his duties as moderator, perhaps we need another moderator.
>
>On this group in particular, I feel uncomfortable thinking that our
>posts are going through some sort of government censor before being
>approved.
>
>I hate to criticise while not being willing to walk in his shoes, but
>I don't have the ability to be a moderator for this group. This is
>only a student account and, in any case, I have no idea how moderating
>a newsgroup works.
>
>My own system, waltham.columbus.oh.us, has only a uucp feed, and
>*very* limited news capabilities.
I tend to agree that a new moderator or perhaps no moderator would
be a solution that could satisfy all parties. People who believe in
principles of privacy should also have strong beliefs in freedom of
expression, as both are fundamental elements of a working democracy. A
new moderator would certainly allow for an opening of debate on many
related issues, and leave no room for reprecussions against those
who's postings could jeopardize their employment. Are there any other
opinions on this?
- Bill Currie
duxbury@sfu.ca
[Moderator's Note: You make the assumption that any debate has been
stifled. As I said in a previous post I will not censor anything that
belongs in this forum. Dennis ]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cordless phones
Date: 30 Apr 92 23:07:30 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us>
>>If people don't want me to hear their conversation, they ought not to
>>be shooting photons at me!
>
> I don't think that I agree with you. I have a cordless phone.
>The major use I have it for is so that I can sit outside of my
>apartment and still use the phone on a nice day. The regular phone
>wire will not reach, and consequently I would have sit inside to use
>the phone. You seem to be of the opinion that if my conversation is
>transmitted over copper wire, then I have a right to privacy, but if
>it's transmitted over the air, then I don't.
>
> The phone companies (if it's a long distance call) sometimes
>transmit phone calls using microwave towers.
Actually, there are a lot of cases where local calls are transmitted by
microwave as well. But in this issue there has to be some tradeoffs, both
in expectation of privacy and in a distinction between what is rude and
what should be illegal.
There's a broad range of radio transmitters with a broad range of privacy
expectations. At one end are baby monitors that transmit somewhere in a
radio broadcast band, so that you can pick them up with any broadcast
receiver. At the other end are telco microwave transmissions which are
typically sending a multiplexed digitally encoded data stream in a tightly
focussed beam.
For the baby monitor case it is ludicrous to have any expectation that the
transmissions will remain private, while in the telco microwave case it is
quite reasonable to expect that they will. The distinction is how hard it
is for someone to listen in either deliberately or accidentally. Cordless
phones fall pretty close to the baby monitor -- there are only a handful
of frequencies used by cordless phones (about 10) and the possibility of
someone else nearby picking up his phone and accidentally overhearing what
you say is not in the least far fetched. One the other hand, as far as I
know the only equipment normally able to receive and decode telco
microwave transmissions is telco microwave equipment, and it has to be
more or less in line with the transmission's line of sight.
Sure, it's tacky and rude to listen to someone else's conversation, but
that's a far cry from saying it should be illegal. It's rude to listen to
a private conversation on the subway as well, but at rush hour it's
usually unavoidable. Passing laws that decree that certain kinds of
transmissions, most notably cellular phones, are private when millions of
people already have the equipment to listen to them (old UHF TV sets) is
just pissing into the wind.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 08:27:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
From: Scott Coleman <khan@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: tmkk@uiuc.edu
I've been watching the discussion on cordless phones with some interest.
I have a cordless phone, but I do not use it. It sits at the bottom of
my electronic junk box in my closet. I refuse to use it because it is so
incredibly easy for anyone with a $50 scanner to pick up cordless phone
conversations from as far away as 2 miles. Perhaps when cordless phones
which employ encryption between the base and handset come down in price,
then I'll buy one and use it, but not until. For the same reason, I
don't use a cellular phone.
As for rights and expectations of privacy: in an ideal world, cordless
calls would be just as private as wired calls. Everyone would be
saintly, and would never stoop to listening in. In the real world, you
have to ACTIVELY protect what's left of your privacy. Just as you must
guard your SSN, you have to protect the privacy of your communications.
Nobody is going to do it for you. Yes, it morally wrong to listen in.
Yes, it's illegal to listen in (in the cease of cellular). Yes, you have
the RIGHT to privacy in this situation. But it IS going to happen - such
laws are virtually impossible to enforce. An expectation of privacy on a
cordless or cellular call is simply not realistic in the real world.
Someone mentioned microwave transmission of phone calls. I'm not
particularly worried about that. My understanding is that such transmissions
are pretty much line-of-sight and narrow beam. If you don't live right
beneath the path of such signals, you haven't a ghost of a chance of picking
them up. And even if you can, aren't those signals multiplexed in some
fashion to make better use of the available bandwidth? Someone correct
me if this impression is incorrect.
--- ---
Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu
Wayne and Garth must be Forth programmers - they use the NOT operator postfix.
------------------------------
From: Carl Ellison <cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com>
Subject: Re: Cordless phones
Date: 1 May 92 14:09:29 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.7.2@pica.army.mil> ugtalbot@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU (George Talbot) writes:
>Craig DeForest writes:
>>But, if you want privacy, you *don't* shout so that everyone within ten
>>miles can hear it. If you want privacy, you don't broadcast your
>>conversation.
[ copper wire vs. radio; microwave towers; parabolic mikes picking up
conversations in the open air ]
>[...] do I lose my right to privacy when I call long distance? I should
>think not. I am of the opinion that it is impolite and possibly even
>immoral to listen in upon another's private conversation without being
>invited.
There are differences between "impolite", "immoral", "illegal" and
"impossible".
Even copper wire carrying voice radiates photons.
When I want privacy from such impolite people, I use encryption -- not laws
or appeals to morality. I would recommend that others do the same.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #008
******************************