Date: Fri, 08 May 92 16:46:18 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#017
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 08 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 017
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
E-mail privacy should be independent of carrier.
Re: SSN's from AT&T
Re: TRW Reports
Re: TRW Reports
Re: FBI Interest in Mailing Lists
Re: Privacy and Law and Order
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: Bob Weiner <rsw@cs.brown.edu>
Subject: E-mail privacy should be independent of carrier.
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 06:37:57 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
In article <comp-privacy1.15.7@pica.army.mil> abc@brl.mil (Brinton Cooper) writes:
> It depends upon who owns the computer hosting your electronic mailbox.
> I believe (and others can probably cite chapter and verse) that, if your
> mailbox is hosted on your employer's machine, the employer's ownership
> gives him/her authority to have access to any files you keep on the
> machine. This is certainly true for all levels of government and for
> machines owned by private companies. It may, by inference, apply to
> universities, etc.
The ignorance that yields this kind of widespread corporate view on
information privacy comes from a biased analysis that asks only "What
can we do with this technology?" not "What should we do, given what we
know we can do?"
For example, someone could buy my time for an hour or longer just to
get me to give them my thoughts but this does not entitle them to
everything in my mind. Although it could, it does not. Because
society has generally come to understand that there is a right to
mental privacy.
No such right has been widely recognized in our electronic mediums
such as e-mail within a private network, even though it should be easy
to recognize the direct parallels to both paper mail and telephony. A
call that goes from one extension of a PBX to another of its
extensions never passes through any "common carrier" network, yet I am
fairly certain, it is protected in the same way, because we recognize
that there is more to the issue at stake than just the status of the
carrier that transfers the signals.
I often make the distinction between data (bits with no semantic
significance) and information (semantically relevant bits) to begin
discussions with people. But not a lot of people out there make such
a distinction yet, since they have not been educated to do so.
There is no need for privacy of data but there is for much information.
Whether something is information or not must be determined
contextually, just as privacy rights must be evaluated contextually.
So answers to issues of privacy that we can socially tolerate are not
to be found in asking questions such as "who's equipment was involved"
but only in "who were the conversants," "what was the conversation
on," "in what capacity was the conversation held," etc.
Although this may seem to represent impossible fuzziness which could
not be used in legal situations, the legal situation deals with
similar circumstances in deciding cases of intellectual property all
the time.
Bob
--
``During the Gulf War, President Bush announced to cheering crowds the Patriot
had "intercepted" 41 out of 42 Scuds that it was fired at. General Robert
Drolet defended Bush's statement at last week's congressional hearing, saying
that "intercepted" meant only that "a Patriot and a Scud passed each other in
the sky''. -- New Scientist 18 April 1992
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 7:09:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: SSN's from AT&T
In issue #1, Volume #15 michael.scott.baldwin@att.com writes:
>>I just got this bounce message from a machine at AT&T having responded to
>>a message someone sent to comp.compilers. It appears that their mailer
>>uses employees' SSNs as the internal acccount ID and thoughtfully blats
>>the SSN on any mail bounce message. The original message had a different
>>return address in the text at the end, so we'll see if that works better.
>
>*I* wrote that code! The Usenet access machines at AT&T do use SSN as
>a key into the corporate database to route e-mail; the database has each
>employee's current e-mail address (and phone, FAX, room, etc), so the
>Usenet machines look it up each time rather than maintain their own copy.
When AT&T does this, do they include the privacy statement detailing why
the SSN is required and to whom they will divulge that number and any
data associated with it?
Instead of using the SSN, why doesn't AT&T use an employer assigned number
that is unique to an individual.
It seems to me that AT&T could do better than using an SSN for an employee
id for e-mail purposes.
My employer specifically states that, when logging into a computer system,
no personal identification whatsoever is to be used as a method of access
any system. This includes employee id number.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 92 12:43:03 -0400
From: zimmer@gw.wmich.edu
Subject: Re: TRW Reports
A while back, I found out about TRW's free service regarding your credit
file with them. I sent for and received the report. Several items needed
to get corrected; I sent them my correction request. Some time later,
my request was returned because I hadn't included my SSN. I immediately
resubmitted my correction request, pointing out that TRW had supplied my
SSN on the forms they had sent me, copies of which were in my correction
request. This didn't sound to promising.
A few weeks later, TRW had acted on my correction request. They even supplied
addresses for the other two large credit info bureaus, stating I write them
and they would also allow be to see and correct my credit info (for free!).
While TRW appears to have some problems, it looks like they're becoming more
consumer (can't think of an appropriate word here) oriented.
They and/or the other services I am now working with in correcting my credit
info do require *lots* of information. I first hesitated, since I don't like
giving out this stuff, but upon reflection supplied it, as it does rather
uniquely identify me and it's not the kind of stuff that businesses (or others)
typically know about me.
Incidentally, I recently requested my mortgage amortization schedule from the
bank and needed to supply ONLY my mortgage account number. It wouldn't have
been to hard for someone else to get that kind of info.
Montgomery Wards, when successfully soliciting business over the phone with you,
does ask for private information you've previously supplied them to verify you
are who they think you are.
W WWW WWW MM MMM UU UUU U Roy Zimmer
W WW WW MM MM UU UUU U zimmer@gw.wmich.edu
W W W W MM M M M UU UUU U University Computing Services
W WW MM MM MM UUU UU Western Michigan University
------------------------------
Subject: Re: TRW Reports
Date: Fri, 08 May 92 10:36:50 PDT
From: "Willis H. Ware" <willis%iris@rand.org>
I send a private message to Mary Culnan about the TRW freebie. Much of
what I said to her has since been said in many messages, and she has
responded. But let's look at this one from another point of view.
First, someone should have a look at the form to be used when one requests
and pays for a so-called credit report. I haven't done this for a long
time but my recollection is that very minimal identification information
used to be requested.
Next, it is clear that this process must be fully automated. A data entry
action from the incoming request, or from an automated process that
triggers on time, initiates the action but from there on it's strictly a
computerized event. If the match is made satisfactorily, a computer
generated response is printed, may well be stuffed into a window envelope
automatically, and dumped into outgoing mail.
If the match cannot be made, it would simply to print and mail a "sorry,
cannot identify you on the basis of information submitted; would you care
to give use more information and try again?" What would be the cost of
this to TRW? We cannot guess because the completeness and accuracy of
their database is probably a closely held proprietary secret. If very few
matches would fail on the basis of simple ID information [e.g., name,
current mailing address], then the cost is trivial. If most would fail,
the intent of this seemingly public-action process would be thwarted. So
condition of the database entries is an important aspect of the
consideration.
Given the broad array of sources that Mary has cited for TRW's database,
it is clear that it has gone far, far beyond simply credit data reporting,
and is into the general information business of list selling. The
database -- one conjectures -- might not be in such good shape and what
more expedient mechanism to clean it up than offer a free goodie in
exchange for a lot of information from the respondent!
I remain suspicious of the real -- as opposed to apparent -- motivation of
TRW and as I said to Mary privately, "someone probably got a big raise for
inventing this caper."
Willis Ware
Santa Monica, CA
------------------------------
From: Tim Weaver <tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
Subject: Re: FBI Interest in Mailing Lists
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 13:17:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
>I just got some mail (obviously from a mailing list) for my father,
>who has been dead for 14 years; it was from a political party he was
>never associated with. I think we may have the FBI involved in some
>witch hunts again, if they buy stuff like this.
>
Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice. I see no reason to
assume the FBI is involved in this one. It's probably just a
political party that bought a bum mailing list.
Followups to alt.conspiracy
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Weaver (tweaver@kzoo.edu), Database Programmer/Analyst, 616-383-5656
Snail: Kalamazoo College 1200 Academy Street Kalamazoo MI 49007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson)
Subject: Re: FBI Interest in Mailing Lists
Date: Fri, 8 May 92 15:14:29 GMT
When I worked for American Express, the transaction support people would
routinely hunt people down by their use of the American Express card
for the FBI. Try it, just call and say that you work for the FBI, and
are trying to find a potential kidnapper named XX. A credit card
is a monitor of your activies.
Wayne Peterson
[Moderator's Note: Isn't it illegal to falsely represent yourself as a
law enforcement official? I would hope the FBI or any other agency would
have a warrant first. _Dennis ]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Privacy and Law and Order
Date: Fri, 8 May 92 10:04:11 PDT
From: "Robert E. Laughlin" <bel@trout.nosc.mil>
Some body finally said some things that I want to reply to.
>
>Date: Thu, 7 May 92 22:48 PDT
>From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
>Subject: Privacy and Law and Order (was: Cordless Phones)
>
[several lines deleted]
>They are those who blithely insist that no effort should be
>required on their parts to ensure success or protect anything they value,
>including privacy.
On of the rules of life that an old man learns, eventually, is that several
things in life are not free. They must be paid for. They are usually
expensive. One of these is freedom, reference in my life time WWII. Another
is privacy. This country is based on the idea. See the constitution, where
it talks about billeting troops in your house or unusual search and seizure.
[deleted many lines about things we do all the time to protect ourselves, that
I agree with.]
>> Heat-seeking technology can tell when someone is
>> in a house and pretty much the nature of their activities. Our
>> gov't has not responded to protect its citizens from the intrusion
>> of new, sophisticated information-gathering techniques. End result:
>> as technology gets smarter and more sensitive, even our body heat
>> enters the realm of what we are broadcasting "for all to see",
>
>Just what is it that you believe that "heat seeking technology" is
>going to reveal about you? What kind of activities do even eccentrics
>such as yours truly do in a house that would be so damaging if someone
>figured out what they were? If you can get off this "nothing to hide"
>attitude and look at it flatly, you could see my point. No, it is no
>one's business what I do behind closed doors, but if someone devised a
>way to "look through my walls", is that the end of the world?
>I will bet there are very few people who even care what you or I
>do behind closed doors.
I left this next section in because there are large groups of people in this
country that are attempting to use *ANYTHING* that they can find to control
what we do that can in any way be associated with sex. This is true even
when those activities that *they* associate with sex are with in your own
home. For example I once heard a person explain to a mother that she should
not allow her two year old child observe her bathing the new baby, because
the view of the babies genitals would warp the two year old. The person was
serious enough that he/she suggested that the police would be called for
child abuse. The present laws in many of our cities and states have laws just
this ridiculous on the books. These laws can only be enforced by observing
what goes on "behind closed doors".
>
>--
> John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
> john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
>
What I am trying to say, John, that I agree with most of what you say. On the
other hand privacy is important enough so that we can not drop our vigilance
and some times have to take steps to make sure that the wonders of technology
are not misused. I do not mean to rail against technological advances, only
in how some people use the results.
bel
--
Robert E. Laughlin NCCOSC RDT&E Div (NRaD) |The problem with
These opinions are mine. I do not speak for NRaD. |making software idiot-
email bel@nosc.mil From Compuserve my email address|proof is that idiots
is ">INTERNET:bel@nosc.mil". |are so clever. Joe Buck
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 92 11:37:34 PDT
From: Conrad Kimball <cek@sdc.boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy and Law and Order
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes:
> People who complain about having to exert energy to dial '*67' or
> watching when they use the cordless, or any other trivial precaution
> are much like a person who feels that it is his right to flounce down
> Mission Street at 12:30 AM carrying a wad of $100 bills in plain view.
Why should I *have* to exert energy to dial '*67'? I should be given
the option to exert less energy by signing up for line blocking. The
objection to '*67' is not so much that it takes up too much energy, but
rather that the phone companies are lobbying *very* hard to prevent my
having access to readily-available technology that makes life easier for
me (line blocking). In that case one has to question their motives.
If I was given the option of selecting my line's default to be either
blocked or unblocked, with a '*' code to temporarily reverse the
default, I'd be a happy camper. Unfortunately, that's not in the phone
companies financial interests, so they try mightily to offer only those
combinations that serve *their* interests, rather than *mine*.
Have you ever used a computer program with some horrible user interface,
and cursed the designer? Well, what we are discussing here, in the CLID
debate, is the design of the caller's and callee's user interfaces. If
the design were such that the caller could readily customize his
blocking characteristics, and the callee his block-blocking
characteristics, I believe much of the noise and heat over CLID would
evaporate. As it is, however, the phone companies are trying to impose
a user interface design that is deliberately rigged to be in their best
interests instead of the user's. In this light, given the choice
between implementing a new technology with a bad user interface versus
keeping the current technology, it's very understandable why many people
would opt for not implementing the bad design. Instead of the pro-CLID
faction railing against Luddites or whatever, they should rail against
the phone companies who are insisting on the bad design.
> Much is made of the ability of retail operations to track one's
> purchases. Why is this such a big deal? Again I ask: who has suffered
> any harm as a result of this alleged intelligence gathering? I would
> have been more annoyed to have lived in Smalltown, USA, at the turn of
> the (last) century. Anyone who wanted to know (my friends and enemies
> alike) could, in pleasant chit-chat with Mr. Smith (of Smith's General
> Store) find out a lot more about me than merely about every one of my
> purchases. Somehow, being on some reel of tape in some tape vault, with
> the data being impersonally scrutinized by some marketing types does
> not upset me much.
Agreed that Smalltown, USA, was not an environment conducive to privacy.
However, in the intervening years, many people have come to enjoy a level
of privacy that wasn't feasible in Smalltown, USA. Now along comes some
technology that, with respect to privacy, is moving us back to the
Smalltown, USA, situation. Many people don't like that. Just because
there was a time in the past when privacy was less than in our current
situation is no rebuttal against the desirability of privacy.
Must we tolerate (nay, even aid and abet!) repeats of the shoddy history
of credit bureaus such as TRW, in which the worst problem is not so much
that they have a lot of data (which some would argue is a problem in
itself), but rather that so much of the data they have is incorrect,
and use of which can seriously damage people. This problem can be attacked
either by stopping the collection of information (probably hard to do)
or by requiring the data collectors to make their actions known to the
subjects, and provide mechanisms to ensure that the information is
accurate (an approach that the Scandinavian countries seem to favor).
If the burden on the data collectors of this second approach is seen by
them as being too much, I say "too bad", and good riddance to them.
However, even if we can somehow ensure the data collectors have accurate
data, there is the problem of using it improperly (in the statistical
sense) to reach invalid conclusions. Some people have raised concerns
about lifestyle data being fed to insurance companies, which being *very*
highly motivated to reduce risk, raise rates or refuse coverage in
situations that do not in fact warrant it. And, when they raise your
rates or refuse you coverage, how are you to know the basis for their
unjust decision? To return to your Smalltown, USA, situation, yes, this
information about you may well have been available to the other residents;
what's different, however, is that you were in a (roughly) equal power
position with them, which you most decidely are *not* with an insurance
company, or other faceless, large corporation (or even the government).
As for your recurrent theme of "why be concerned until there is proof of
harm", what is wrong with some forward-thinking analysis of possible or
likely impacts of technology before we implement it? Many times a little
bit of pre-implementation thought and attendant redesign can avoid major
problems down the road. Must we always blithely embrace new technology
and worry about the consequences later?
This seems to be recurring in many areas of modern life, in which it is a
standard tactic to maintain the status quo by demanding "proof" that some
challenged practice or technology is harmful:
- The greenhouse effect. One side: "I think there is trouble brewing".
Other side: "Prove it". Serious possibility: by the time we have
"proof" acceptable to the other side, it may be too late to avoid
disastrous consequences, even when there is a real possibility that
efforts to combat the problem will be economically positive in the
moderate-to-long run.
- Smoking. One side: "It causes many deaths". Other side: "Prove it".
Result: many, many deaths before we have "proof" acceptable to the other
side, which *still* tries to obfuscate the issue of proof.
- Logging's impact on species such as the spotted owl. One side: "Logging
is causing irreparable harm to species that require old growth habitat".
Other side: "Prove it; and besides, who's more important - people or
owls?". Serious possibility: by the time we have "proof" of the damage,
the resource is lost forever, and the loggers are out of work anyway,
albeit 10 or 20 years later.
In my opinion this all boils down to an inability or unwillingness of
many (most?) individuals, and society as a whole, to think beyond the
immediate benefits of a current practice or a proposed technology.
Too bad for all of us, and especially for our children.
Conrad Kimball | Deliv. Sys. Tech Support, Boeing Computer Services
cek@sdc.boeing.com | P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35
(206) 865-6410 | Seattle, WA 98124-0346
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #017
******************************