Date: Mon, 04 May 92 10:44:56 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#010
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 04 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 010
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Law of Monitoring Airwave Transmissions in US
Re: Cordless Phones
Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Re: Cordless phones
Personal Info. Privacy and companies
Re: Modem Tax
Re: Should political speech be censored online?
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: Adrienne Voorhis <voorhis@aecom.yu.edu>
Subject: Law of Monitoring Airwave Transmissions in US
Date: Sat, 2 May 92 12:29:56 EDT
What is the law concerning monitoring of transmissions over the airwaves?
A lawyer friend told me that in the United States it is legal to monitor any
transmissions over the airwaves. he distinguished monitoring satillite tv
transmissions (which he said was legal) from stealing cable tv (illegal) only
because with cable tv you are physically hooked up to the cable company's
cable, and are therefore *trespassing* when you take cable transmissions for
channels that you did not pay for.
I have my doubts as to whether his theory is true, particularly for all wave-
lenghs. Wouldn't that mean that monitoring police radar detection devices
would be legal? I understand that in Connecticut, for example, even
possession (not just use) of radar detectors is illegal. And how about police
band radios? Can the government make it illegal to either possess or use them
if the user does not have a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
More to the point of personal privacy, what exactly is the law concerning
monitoring of, say, cellular telephone transmissions. And does anyone know
the regulatory or statutory provisions. I imagine it relates to the FCC.
Finally, I keep hearing that the law allows for monitoring of telephone
transmissions over the airwaves, but that the monitorer legally cannot
disclose what he has *legally* heard. How can such a rule possibly
survive First Amendment analysis? I mean, particularly when you obtained the
information lawfully, how can the government then gag you from talking
about what you have heard?
Bob Voorhis c/o voorhis@aecom.yu.edu
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
*These opinions are just mine.*
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 17:48:27 EDT
From: Brinton Cooper <abc@brl.mil>
cc: comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
Reply-To: cooper@dewey.udel.edu
Continuing the discussion on cordless phones Scott Coleman asserts.
>"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..."
What I have is a lot of trouble with the ability to receive cordless
phone conversations from two miles with a cheap scanner. In an urban
environment, a two mile range may yield dozens of cordless phone
conversations. Separation would be impossible. Even in a suburban or
rural setting, a two mile range would be extraordinary with a cheap
scanner.
For heavens' sakes, my cordless phone link begins to peter out when I
climb to the second story of my house.
_Brint
------------------------------
From: Colin Plumb <colin@eecg.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 01:50:10 -0400
Um... You attribute the following to Brad Templeton; I
(colin@eecg.toronto.edu) am the actual author. Perhaps
you could include a correction in the next digest?
(Cc: to Brad for his information.)
In article <comp-privacy1.5.6@pica.army.mil> you write:
>X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
>X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 005, Message 6 of 9
>
>[This is more to the moderator than the list, but the moderator may
>post it if he likes.]
[...]
>H'm. this is tricky. On the one hand, this is obviously interesting
>to readers of comp.society.privacy, and I'd like to hear what Mr.
>Tenney has to say. The Hatch act legalese, well, I don't care. The
>advertising prohibition, that's tricky. The real objection people have
>is to *uninformative* advertising. Content-free prose like press
>releases. (I find I can typically extract about three lines of
>information out of a one-page press release.) Subtler things like
>companies posting descriptions of their new products, participating in
>debates over the virtues of their products, or even providing informal
>support over the net (e.g. comp.sys.amiga.* is frequented by Commodore
>employees), is generally tolerated as useful.
[...]
Admittedly, we argue similar points.
--
-Colin
------------------------------
From: Dan Boyd <consp04@bingsuna.cc.binghamton.edu>
Subject: Re: Cordless phones
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 23:07:03 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.7.2@pica.army.mil>
ugtalbot@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU (George Talbot) writes:
> 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.
The Supreme Court said in a recent decision that this is precisely the
case. If you use a cordless phone then there is no expectation of
privacy.
Would you expect privacy for your phone conversations if you went out
and bought a CB and patched the phone into it? No, you wouldn't;
you'd know that anyone who wanted to could listen in with their CB.
The Court says the only difference with a cordless phone is that Sony
hooked up the CB and the phone and sold it to you.
True, cordless phones don't transmit over the CB bands -- but there is
no law against listening to the bands they do use. To say otherwise
would require making laws against listening to the cordless-phone
bands simply because some of the traffic going over the air originated
on a phone. No go.
Since it's you who decided to transmit it over the air, then it's you
who's given up the expectation of privacy.
You're the one who bought the cordless phone.
> The phone companies (if it's a long distance call) sometimes
> transmit phone calls using microwave towers. If this is the case,
> do I lose my right to privacy when I call long distance? I should
> think not.
THIS IS DIFFERENT -- snooping on the microwaves is eavesdropping on a
COMMON CARRIER. You have an expectation of privacy when you're using
a common carrier. You, the user of the service, have no control over
whether the phone company uses microwaves, copper wires, or
fiberoptics -- so you have the same expectation of privacy no matter
which it is.
> 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 is everybody reasonable. It's also unreasonable to expect that
everybody on the sidewalk must cover their ears so you can talk about
private matters on your doorstep -- which is what prohibiting
intercepting cordless-phone conversations would amount to.
Do you want the police to go around searching people's houses for
illegal radios?
> Do you stand in a crowd with a parabolic dish so you can listen in
> on others who are bombarding you with sound waves? Do you do the
> same when others are in a closed room having a private discussion?
No doubt it's bad to snoop on your neighbors. That doesn't make a
cordless phone part of a common carrier. The phone company's
responsibility, and your expectation of privacy, ended when you (or
Sony) hooked the phone up to a radio that transmits in the clear.
> When you suggest that listening in on my phone conversations (or
> breaking into my computer account) is moral and that I must be
> ignorant for using a cordless phone you show a profound disrespect
> for the privacy of others and a definite lack of concern for the
> feelings of others.
This is conflating two separate and unrelated issues. When you say
'listening in on my phone conversations' in this paragraph, you seem
to be talking about someone climbing up on the telephone pole and
snapping on to the wires. Of course this isn't moral.
It's also not what you started talking about. You started off angry
because someone can listen to your cordless phone.
Suppose I buy two cordless phones and modify one of the handsets so it
transmits on the other's recieve band, and vice versa. Now I've got a
pair of walkie-talkies. Do I have an expectation of privacy that the
government should enforce? Obviously not.
You are suggesting that if I then plug one of the walkie-talkies into
my phone then all of a sudden I have an expectation of privacy.
Wrong.
Daniel F. Boyd -- consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
====
It's not a system called 'X-Windows', it's a window system named 'X',
after the owl on "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood".
--
Daniel F. Boyd -- consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
====
It's not a system called 'X-Windows', it's a window system named 'X',
after the owl on "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood".
------------------------------
From: Eric Sword <newhaven@leland.stanford.edu>
Subject: Personal Info. Privacy and companies
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 02:23:06 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
Good day all!
The use of what we consider _personal_ information as a commodity is a topic
in two of my classes this quarter. Topics such as the sale of mundane mailing
lists to computer records of what groceries you by on your charge/bank cards
have come up, and many of my classmates have had a lot to say aboutwhat they
believe is an invasion of their privacy via technological means (I am
undecided.)
For both my personal interest, and as assistence for a presentation I am giving
next week, I would be interested in hearing from people (specifically,
companies that deal in large scale information transfer for profit) of the
benefits to having so much information about an individual be public knowledge.
For example, having your medical history encoded on your drivers license
to assist paramedics in case you are in a car wreck.
Or
Credit Card companies using their membership lists for soliciting other
"services". (I'm having a big problem with mine. It would be so bad if I
couldn't tell when their script went from normal type to bold, and then to
underline. :)
Any direct examples of benefits, general thoughts, or even ads are welcomed, as
well as advice on good resources for further info. would be greatly
appreciated.
adTHANKSvance
Sword
"Practicality may be boring, but rarely is it unnecessary."
-myself
------------------------------
From: Joe Smith <romana!jms@tymix.tymnet.com>
Subject: Re: Modem Tax
Date: 2 May 92 00:39:21 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.4.1@pica.army.mil> O1EVERT%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.uakron.edu (Tom Evert) writes:
>X-Computer Privacy Digest: Volume 1, Issue 004, Message 1 of 3
To the comp.society.privacy moderator:
SHAME ON YOU! Spreading misinformation around like that is inexcuseable.
In the above mentioned Digest, you published a letter and a document, and
did not include the date of the letter. This particular letter was first
circulated around 1987, and is nothing but an out-dated hysterical reaction
to a suggestion that the FCC turned down.
To all readers: If you see this letter on any BBS, delete it immediately.
It has the facts wrong, and worst of all, it has no date. As a result,
it gets posted to the net about once a year by uninformed idiots that
think it describes the current situation. It has been the cause of several
waves of unfounded rumors.
To help you recognize this out-dated call for a letter writing campaign,
the first lines of each paragraph is included here:
>Two years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of protest)
>Now, they are at it again. A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working
>The money is to be collected and given to the telephone company in an effort
>Here's what you should do (NOW!):
> 1- Pass this information on. Capture the information which contains
> 2- Print out three copies of the letter which follows (or write your
>Here's the suggested text of the letter to send:
> Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal
> In short, a modem call is the same as a voice call and therefore
>It is important that you act now. The bureaucrats already have it in their
As to the document, which has the date 23-July-1991, I have no comment,
other than do say that was last year's debate, not this year.
> [FR Doc. 91-17340 Filed 7-23-91; 8:45 am]
Joe Smith
BT North America (TYMNET)
1-May-1991, 5:36pm
--
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: jms@tardis.tymnet.com DIALCOM: J.SMITH
BTNA Tech Services TYMNET| CA license plate: "POPJ P," PDP-10, 36 bits forever
PO Box 49019, MS-C51 | Married to the LB, Quantum Leap's #1 net.fan
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | humorous disclaimer: "My Amiga 3000 speaks for me."
------------------------------
From: John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online?
Date: Sat, 02 May 92 18:20:06 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@ames.arc.nasa.gov
lupine!mellon@uunet.uu.net (Ted Lemon) writes:
>>Therefore, if the moderator's supervisor finds that a posting under
>>moderator's control is in violation of the Hatch Act, the moderator can
>>be given some time off from work *without pay.*
>If it is true that the moderator of this newsgroup is being influenced
>in this way, then that person should step down in favour of somebody
>who won't be subject to such restrictions.
This may be the solution. It may be inappropriate for federal
employees to moderate newsgroups with political content.
A similar issue has arisen with regard to federal employees acting
as editors of scientific journals. Questions have been raised both about
that being a proper expenditure of federal funds and of government
intrusion into controlling content of the press. There seems to be a
trend toward federal employees not performing such tasks. Perhaps this
should also apply to USENET.
John Nagle
[Moderator's Note: This is a technical forum not a polical forum. ]
------------------------------
From: Les Earnest <les@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Free TRW Credit Report
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 21:47:12 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
Mary Culnan writes:
>Everyone knows by know how important it is to check your credit report
>before applying for a loan or a job. The law also requires that the
>report list who has seen your credit report during the past year.
>
>According to USA Today, beginning April 30, you can get a free copy of
>your TRW credit report once a year by writing to: [TRW address]
>
>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.
In other words, assist TRW in completing the invasion of your privacy
by filling in any information that they have missed, such as your
Social Security Number, even though it is none of their business.
If you really are curious about what they have on you, I suggest that
you give them your name and address. If they can't find your records
based on that information, consider yourself lucky!
--
Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 21:45:29 PDT
From: Michael McClary <michael@xanadu.com>
Subject: Re: Free TRW Credit Report
In article <comp-privacy1.6.5@pica.army.mil> MCULNAN@guvax.georgetown.edu writes:
>According to USA Today, beginning April 30, you can get a free copy of
>your TRW credit report once a year by writing to: [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.
Sounds like a good deal for TRW, too. In return for sending you a free
copy no more often than once per year, they get a confirmation on the
connection between your SS number, name, spouse's name, and your current
and past addresses, along with an irate letter from you if they've let
some bad (for you) data creep into your file (or at least into the part
they send you).
Note, by the way, that many banks and credit-card providers make the
last month-or-so of your account history available over the phone to
anyone who can touch-tone in the account number and your zipcode or
SS number.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #010
******************************