Date: Fri, 01 May 92 16:34:29 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#009
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 01 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 009
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Cordless phones
RE: Should political speech be censored online?
Privacy in your Car
Public key software for Macintosh
Re: Free TRW Credit Report
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Rose <mrose@kali.stsci.edu>
Subject: Re: Cordless phones
Reply-To: mrose@stsci.edu
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 16:12:25 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
On 29 Apr 92 23:51:19 GMT, ugtalbot@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU (George Talbot) said:
>Craig DeForest writes:
>>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.
...
>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.
Regardless of his opinion, the law treats cordless phones very
differently than regular one. Bizarre as it may be, cellular phones
are treated more like non-cordless phones.
>I am of the opinion that it is impolite and possibly even
>immoral to listen in upon another's private conversation without being
>invited.
So? Saying it's rude does not stop anyone from doing it. I always
assume that my cordless phone conversations are being listened in on
by everyone in a 3 mile radius. I also presume that everything on
work computers is being read by everyone in the building. That it is
rude for people to read my files or listen in on my conversations is
irrelevant - there are people who do it, and if I want privacy it is
ultimately up to me to provide it.
And speaking of doing something about it, I saw something somewhere
on the net, perhaps here, about a new motorola cordless phone that
scrambled from handset to base. Does anyone have information on
that - like where can I buy one and how does it scramble things?
Any scrambling that would render that speech unintelligible to a Radio
Shack scanner would be ok, real encryption like a STU would be even
better. If they are available, has anyone listened to the scrambled
speech? There was a WW-II (?) voice scrambling system which did such
a poor job that an eavesdropper with minimal training could understand
the conversation perfectly.
--
Mike Rose, mrose@stsci.edu, 410-338-4949
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 08:29:34 -0600
From: Richard Thomsen <rgt@beta.lanl.gov>
Subject: RE: Should political speech be censored online?
Brinton Cooper <abc@brl.mil> writes:
>Glenn Tenney proposes to become a member of the U.S. Congress. Perhaps
>he should find out how the typical, hardworking U.S. taxpayer feels
>about using machinery and communications funded by the U.S. taxpayer to
>advertise his candidacy for the Congress.
Ted Lemon <lupine!mellon@uunet.uu.net> writes:
> As a typical, hardworking taxpayer, I would appreciate it greatly if
>all candidates for political office used the electronic media to
>advertise their campaigns, and made themselves available to answer
>questions posed by other users of that medium.
I think you are missing the point here. Some of us work at government
installations, and there are VERY STRONG rules against using government
equipment for personal reasons. I have heard of someone who was fined
and whose computer access was cut off for a month because he made vacation
plans using email from a government computer.
We have been warned that we can lose our jobs if we even copy personal
information on the copy machines. These are regulations that specify
how government equipment is to be used (and not to be used).
I suspect that the "typical, hardworking taxpayer" would not appreciate
government equipment that is being paid for by tax dollars being used for
personal gain, including advertising (enter cynical mode - unless it
directly benefited the aforesaid taxpayer directly). And the "typical
hardworking taxpayer" does not have access to the internet. In fact, I
suspect that the "typical taxpayer" would consider the Internet a complete
waste of money anyway, as they do not directly benefit (even assuming that
they could understand what it is).
Even if Glenn Tenney is running for Congress, most of the people paying
for the equipment do not belong to his district, and would not appreciate
funding his candidacy, in any respect whatever.
Of course, our imperial Congress is exempt from its own rules. So THEIR
use of government equipment for personal gain is acceptable. But for us
lowly peons.....
There are other rules, including the Hatch act, that forbid a government
employee from political advertising and campaining USING GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT
AND/OR AT GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS. What he/she does on his/her own time
is not at issue - just at government facilities with government property.
So do not confuse this with censorship of someone's first amendment rights.
Richard Thomsen
rgt@lanl.gov
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 9:35:38 EDT
From: Brinton Cooper <abc@brl.mil>
Subject: Privacy in your Car
Risks-digest (risks@csl.sri.com) is currently carrying a thread which
began with the report of a cellular phone customer whose car phone rang
when he was out of his home area. The call was from the cellular vendor
serving his then-local area "welcoming" him to their services. This has
prompted the thread which includes discussions of the intent of cellular
companies to track geographically *all* their customers as part of the
move to have your phone number ring you anywhere you happen to be.
I decided not to copy all the traffic to this forum, but I recommend it
to all who are interested in privacy and technology.
_Brint
------------------------------
From: raph@fnalnh.fnal.gov
Subject: Public key software for Macintosh
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 16:06:41 GMT
Apparently-To: uunet.uu.net!comp-society-privacy
Does anyone know of any software for the Macintosh that does public key
encoding?
For those who don't know what public key encoding is: it is to keep messages
private, even when they are intercepted. The difference is that it is not
necessary to give the recipient of the coded message the secret key to
decoding the message, as is true with the usual methods of encoding. Instead,
the person to whom the message is intended publishes a "key" that can be kept
in a public place. To send a coded message to that person, your software
takes her public key, and your message, and encodes the text. Only she will
be able to decode the text, because she uses a "private key" known only to her
that produced the public key. She can easily decode any message sent to her
that was encoded with her public key; but it takes days with a supercomputer
to crack the code without knowing her private key.
Cordially, Jim Hawtree <raph@fnal.fnal.gov>
------------------------------
From: Khan <tmkk@uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Free TRW Credit Report
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 16:28:46 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
In article <comp-privacy1.6.5@pica.army.mil> MCULNAN@guvax.georgetown.edu writes:
Regarding getting a free credit report from TRW:
>Include all of the following in your letter: full name including
>middle initial and generation such as Jr, Sr, III etc., current
>address and ZIP code, all previous addresses and ZIPs for past five
>years, Social Security number, year of birth, spouse's first name.
>Also include a photocopy of a billing statement, utility bill,
>driver's license or other document that links your name with the
>address where the report should be mailed.
Does this strike anyone as a bit excessive? It's obvious that TRW does
not need ALL of this information in order to pull up your credit
records. The most they need is what is asked for on credit card apps,
loan apps, and job apps: Your name, your current address, possibly one
prior address if you have moved recently, and maybe your SSN. By giving
them all that other stuff, you're only helping them to compile more
personal information about you. Suppose they didn't have your spouse's
name in your file - they do now, if you send in the letter giving them
everything in that list.
I know when I send in for my free credit report, they won't get anywhere
near that much info from me.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #009
******************************