Date: Tue, 05 May 92 12:58:47 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#012
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 05 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 012
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Cordless Phones
Re: Cordless phones
Re: Cordless Phones
Re: Followup on institutional use of SSN
CITY & STATE Article
Re: Modem Tax (N
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, 4 May 92 17:31:27 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <ole!rwing!peterm@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
How do those involved in the discussion of privacy and "cordless
phones" see their points and concerns as playing re: questions of
privacy and PCNs?
Peter Marshall
--
------------------------------
From: "david.g.lewis" <deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Cordless phones
Date: Mon, 4 May 1992 19:06:07 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.10.4@pica.army.mil> consp04@bingsuna.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) writes:
>In article <comp-privacy1.7.2@pica.army.mil>
>ugtalbot@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU (George Talbot) writes:
>> [...] 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.
But what if I'm talking on a corded phone to someone who is using a cordless
phone? I still have an expectation of privacy -- I know that cordless
phones broadcast in the clear, so I *didn't* buy one -- but I have no
control over the person I'm talking to. If someone monitors my
conversation, do I have a cause of action against them? Or did I give up my
expectation of privacy by the act of calling someone -- or receiving a call
from someone -- who is using a cordless phone? Do I then have a cause of
action against the person who, without my knowledge or permission, forced me
to lose my expectation of privacy? Will we see another law that will make
it mandatory to notify the other party that a call is on a cordless phone,
like the 15-second beep for recording notification?
And isn't this getting rather unmanageable?
>Since it's you who decided to transmit it over the air, then it's you
>who's given up the expectation of privacy.
If the party I'm talking to is using a cordless phone, *they* decided, not
me.
------------------------------
From: Khan <tmkk@uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 14:44:45 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
In article <comp-privacy1.10.2@pica.army.mil> abc@brl.mil (Brinton Cooper) writes:
>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.
Sounds like you're still using the rubber duckie antenna that came with
it. For just a few dollars more, you can get a REAL antenna (a wire
cut for the appropriate length to pick up the 46 - 49MHz band), hook it up
to your cheap scanner, and pick up cordless phone calls for MORE than 2
miles.
>For heavens' sakes, my cordless phone link begins to peter out when I
>climb to the second story of my house.
Your cordless phone uses a telescoping antenna about a foot long.
Compare this with a decent dipole of the proper length (10 feet or
something like that) and you see immediately why your range is so
limited. Stick a decent antenna on yourt cordless phone and watch the
range increase dramatically. But be certain to remove it right away,
since I think legthening your cordless phone antenna is illegal.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 11:25:15 PDT
From: hibbert@xanadu.com
Subject: Re: Followup on institutional use of SSN
I'll add society.privacy to the list of groups for the SSN FAQ. If
people complain to me or the moderator, I'll stop.
Chris--
hibbert@xanadu.com AMIX: CHibbert
uunet!xanadu!hibbert MCIMail: CHibbert
[Moderator's Note: Thanks. I will post it as a special issue. _Dennis]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 18:34:12 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <ole!rwing!peterm@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: CITY & STATE Article
[From "Under Surveillance," in the 4/6/92 CITY & STATE]:
..Iowa state Sen. Richard Varn, chairman of a National Conference of
State Legislatures task force on information policy...[says,]"Privacy
is...an issue waiting to become a crisis, depending upon
circumstances.... We should be dealing with this concern in a
systematic way before the issues turns into a crisis.... Our task
force is just beginning to look at the issues involved,...and they are
complex...."
GIS technology poses special privacy problems....
In many states,...statutory responsibilities may not be clear under
local public records acts...and only nine states have laws that
acknowledge electronic distribution of information....
Despite concerns about the privacy of individual data, most states
aren't looking at restricting public information.... But many states
are examining their policies on the packaging of information and the
recovery of costs involved in providing data to commercial users....
--
------------------------------
From: Lars Poulsen <lars@spectrum.cmc.com>
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (N
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 20:22:34 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@UCSD.EDU
In article <comp-privacy1.6.6@pica.army.mil> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes:
>You can call from anywhere in the continental US to CompuServe's mainframes
>in Columbus, Ohio for TWENTY FIVE CENTS PER HOUR. Can you make any other
>long-distance phone call for $0.25 per hour? And the government enforces
>this inequity by law.
I am fairly certain that this statement is counter-factual. As far as I
know, CIS charges several dollars per hour for such connections.
Your "libertarian" argument is bogus. A deregulated long-distance
telephone industry would not recognize an InterExchange Carrier as being
different from any other customer. There might be regulated Local Exchange
Carriers, and there might be long distance carriers that would have
regular business lines into the LECs; receive calls, and forward them.
The originating local segment would be paid by the caller; the
terminating local segment would be paid by the IEC, who is indeed the
originator of the second local call. Presumably, the IEC would roll the
cost for this segment into his rates.
The "Enhanced Service Providers" operate on exactly this basis today. I
fail to understand why you consider this unfair.
--
/ Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer
CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 18:12:04 EDT
From: Anthony Rzepela <garzepel@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
In <comp-privacy1.10.4@pica.army.mil>, when Dan Boyd spoke on cordless phones,
he inadvertently opened a new topic RE: expectations of privacy,
and use of the newest technology.
In Mr. Boyd's view, it is the medium ONLY that provides users reasonable
expectations of privacy. In our increasingly crowded world, in which we are
simulateneously losing control over delivery of so many vital services, this
model is outdated. I think of "Dances w/ wolves" when two of Costner's hosts
make love in the teepee and Costner, unaware of custom, watches. Do the
homeless lose rights to privacy because they "choose" not to live within four
brick walls?
What this gets down to is: privacy costs $ now. In the next 10 years, the COST
of privacy will skyrocket. Want a secure, cabled, phone line? Pay triple.
Don't want your grocery purchases tracked? Be willing to pay the
higher prices for people not in our "Shopping Club". In an ongoing
mini-debate going in PC MAG, Jim Seymour blasts the supposedly mindless
consumer who wants quick services (ATMs, credit card approval
over phone, etc.) but does not want the social costs. His tack is that we
can choose NOT to participate in this hi-flow info world. Supposedly, we can
choose NOT to use the proverbial cordless phones. This will not always be so.
If you don't think it has started, witness the poster who told tales of woe
re: trying to NOT be identified by his Social Security number @ school.
How many hours of potential wage-earning time did he spend trying to
keep his life to himself?
How much privacy can we afford? That is the new, evil question.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Anthony J. Rzepela rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu |
| Resource Mgr, CVI Computer Center (215) 448-7741 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Mail Stop 110 | |
| Hahnemann University | |
| Broad & Vine Sts. | |
| Philadelphia, PA 19102 | |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
"I can't stop thinking about Tony...wondering where he is, what he is
doing, who he is with, what is he thinking, is he thinking of me,
and if he'll ever return some day."
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #012
******************************