Date: Mon, 11 May 92 09:40:15 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#018
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 11 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 018
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Cordless phones
Re: Cordless Phones
Re: Privacy and Law and Order
Re: Privacy and Law and Order
Re: Is e-mail private?
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: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Cordless phones
Date: Fri, 08 May 92 23:52:25 GMT
alaric@smurfsti.com (Phil Stracchino) writes:
> I've watched with amazement as this particular debate has gone back and
> forth, and frankly I can only say that this argument is totally fatuous.
> Merely the fact that someone is using a cordless phone and unintentionally
> broadcasting their conversation does not _compel_ anyone with the capability
> to listen in to do so.
Of course it doesn't compel. But it doesn't prohibit, either. Or are
you using the argument that "everything not mandatory is forbidden?"
> He who buys a telescope and scans the windows of the building opposite
> in the hope of observing some attractive young woman undressing, is a
> Peeping Tom.
True. But peeping-Tomism is not illegal (unless it involves trespassing).
In fact, these days, it's possible the woman undressing could be charged
with indecent exposure for standing naked in front of a window.
Peeping-Tomism is _unethical_. And listening in on someone else's cordless
phone conversation is tacky by any standard. But it is and will remain
legal, because the invasion of privacy necessary to detect and prove
listening is far worse than the invasion of privacy caused by the listening
itself. Since the EM waves caused by your conversation pass through the
inside of your neighbors' houses, and can be received without you being
able to detect it, the only way to prove that your neighbors aren't
listening in is to search their houses for receivers. A law against
listening would give us a solution worse than the crime, to the limited
extent that it's enforceable at all.
---
Tom Fitzgerald Wang Labs fitz@wang.com
1-508-967-5278 Lowell MA, USA ...!uunet!wang!fitz
------------------------------
From: "Darren E. Penner (Dokken" <dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 11:06:59 GMT
Apparently-To: uunet.uu.net!comp-society-privacy
If you have been watching the "Machine that changed (Destroyed) the world" on
PBS US (Seems to be coast to coast) they made mention of this very factor..
The benifits of our new Information world as opposed to the loss of personal
privacy. If you are truely interested in this issue try to hunt down
someone with this tape (A lot of people in the computer industry have it up
here). It had a lot of points for both sides...
As for my opinion... I do not see a time in the NEAR future that cash
will be elimated. Nor hardwired phones, nor any of the other escape paths
for the privacyphobic people in the world. If you want your purchasing habits
kept private pay cash, if you want to make truely private conversations,
talk in person, use the mail system, or talk by a wired phone, or if you are
truely a freak, a scrambled line. In fact DON"T ever use the machine tied
to this network (Root/System Managers can see all, Even "Private" mail, I
know I have administered a few such systems and first checked for loopholes,
then notified my users of such) for you will be logged.
It seems many of you are whining that I have to pay extra for my privacy, well
you SHOULD. IT COSTS MONEY to develop encryting hardware/software and if
you want it you pay for it. I don't give a care who listens in on my
cordless, and I tell you I paid MORE than enuf for it, WITHOUT scambler
technology. So quite your crying, it will be a LONG LONG time before your
sacred privacy is truely invaded.... And if you have something to hide, I am
sure you can invest in a "Lobby Group" or two before the time comes..
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren E. Penner | dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca | Opinions are my
KWM Consultants Limited (Work) | alberta!bode!dpenner | own unless stated
U of A, Edmonton, (University) | Phone No. (403)-481-8785 | otherwise.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 92 20:51 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy and Law and Order
> From: Conrad Kimball <cek@sdc.boeing.com> writes:
> 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.
Is this what it would take to satisfy you on the whole matter of CNID?
This comes under the heading of "feature implementation" and is so
trivial as be not worth mentioning, yet is would be, for you, the
salvation of CNID. Incredible.
> 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.
And that, dear sir, is exactly why you and millions like yourself can
get credit cards, debit cards, instant store accounts, bank lines of
credit, property sale closures in days instead of months, and all of
the financial conveniences that are taken for granted these days. Do
you think that all of these companies and financial institutions would
just hand you the money if they knew nothing about you? In Smalltown,
after you had lived there for about ten years, Mr. Smith might just
open a store account for you with a small limit. After another ten of
showing a good payment history (as observed and recorded by Mr. Smith)
you might get your limit raised. Of course all of this credit is only
good at one place: Mr. Smith's.
Today, your credit is portable and easily obtained at new locations.
How did YOU think that it was possible to walk into a store for the
first time in your life and open an account? Magic?
> 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.
Then it should be corrected. I have done this myself; it is not hard.
Without this extensive database, we would be forced back into a
cash and carry society. While some may approve of that, there are many
more who would not.
> 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?
Try asking. Someone, somewhere started the "truism" that "they" are
unreachable, untouchable, and have unlimited power. I have received
such things as notices of cancellation and simply called the company to
get an explanation. In some cases, after discussing the matter, the
cancellation was rescinded. I am surprised that you give people so little
credit for being able to pick up a phone or write letters of inquiry.
Of course, failing to mention those avenues of redress gives more
weight to your argument. And speaking of weight:
> - The greenhouse effect.
> - Smoking.
> - Logging
What do these things have to do with privacy? Is the implication that
the consequences are on a par with these things? Is this the only way you
can make your argument seem non-trivial? The most serious privacy
violations that could occur in modern society will not kill, mame, or
even cause much more than a minor annoyance or inconvenience. We are
not talking disasterous global climate changes here. We are not talking
500,000 deaths a year. We are not even talking about endangered
species.
Here are my argument boosters:
The Second Coming
The Big Bang Theory
Global Nuclear War
> 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.
There is someone who asserted in print that we are all going
to get cancer because of electrical transmission lines. I would guess
that you must be in favor of shutting down our electrical grid until
someone proves him wrong. Never mind that it would disrupt our whole
way of life, destroy the economy, and literally make it impossible for
people to live in our cities. But we cannot take any chances now, can
we?
So it is with privacy. A few very noisy people are running around
announcing the death of all we hold near and dear because some nasty
people can find out our little secrets. Shall we return to green visors
and ledger paper until the theorists can come to a conclusion one way
or another? Does it really matter?
> Too bad for all of us, and especially for our children.
And when all else fails, direct our attention to the poor children.
Combining global warming and "the children" in one rebuttal was more
than I could take. Folks, we are only talking about privacy and whether
or not giving up just a little is disasterous in light of the returned
benefits. If stored data is incorrect then we are talking about
accuracy of data collection, not privacy. If we are talking about the
mechanics of blocking ID on calls, then we are talking about feature
implementation, not privacy.
All I ask is that we keep it all in perspective. And can we stay on
track? Please do not equate lack of privacy, regardless of the
severity, to things such as global warming and smoking. Besides, my
Global Nuclear War beats your Global Warming. So there!
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 May 92 17:55:48 EDT
From: Anthony Rzepela <garzepel@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Privacy and Law and Order
I realize this posting may not make it to the group
due to the high level of personal exchange that might seem
to be going on, but since John Higdon
<comp-privacy1.16.6@pica.army.mil> had such fun mocking
the author of my posting <comp-privacy1.15.4@pica.army.mil>
and not the ideas in it, I ask for a final opportunity
to save face. Personal attacks are ugly, and I think its
a shame that Mr. Higdon and I seem to have gone at each other
with such ferocity, since he seems like a very reasonable,
interesting person.
He says:
>I just love it when people open mouth and insert foot like this!
about my apparent inability to detect a law-and-order mentality
when I see one, and then proceeds to demonstrate the same attitude
throughout the posting: a refusal to see how some of this surveillance
is just WRONG. I'd bet $$ that when answers do arise to his repeated
questions about demonstrable wrong, they are discounted as "anecdotal".
Unfortunately, anecdotally is just about how we all encounter the world.
Does the gentleman believe for one minute that Lee Iacocca's most personal
"habits, phobias, and financial doings" are part of public record? Please.
I don't want to hear more garbage about how tough life is "at the top."
It is about the fundamental balance of power. Malcolm Forbes can afford
outrageous eccentricites without suffering greatly. The average citizen
can not.
RE: Higdon's assessment of my mental state:
> Frankly, I think that those who are extra concerned about privacy have
> delusions of self-importance.
Delusions of self-importance? this charge from a man who mocks some
poster who dares to draw oxygen without having heard of him and his
"notable cases", a man who cites the "many people" having a laugh at
the poster's expense, and the "many in this and other forums" aware
of the nature of [Higdon's] consultations?
Further proof of Higdon's flawless logic:
>How many people other than the IRS have seen your tax
>return? How many have seen George Bush's?
Last I heard, George Herbert Walker Bush wasn't a real private kind
of guy. Invited a few million people to listen to him on his lawn
moaning about broccoli. Nope, this is not a guy that likes
to keep things to himself.
In any case, BACK TO THE TOPIC OF THIS FORUM, several literate,
beautiful replies came immediately after Higdon's posting.
One concerned the American obsession with S-E-X, and what
intrusions people think are insignificant when you're tracking down
perverts, and the companion toll in paranoia and fear. Another, from
cek@sdc.boeing.com (Conrad Kimball), provided the clear thought
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.
rebutting Mr. Higdon's endless supply of pointless analogies
of Lewis-and-Clark era cross-country travel, and Mr. Smith's General
store. If Mr. Higdon hasn't read the newsgroup's charter, this
group is about the effects of technology on privacy, not about
maintaining horse-and-buggy standards in an automobile kind of world.
I maintain that I DO have a clear view on encroaching technology, even
if I do not "really know how it all works". That is why I like the problem
presented by helicopter observation: nobody thinks of it as a "new
technology". If this were the pre-flight
era, a raving lunatic bemoaning observation from the air would
be pooh-poohed, the law-and-order types would reiterate their
admonishments to not do what isn't popular, and when the glorous
time has finally snuck up on us, we are TOTALLY unprepared:
legally, morally, etc.
>This is really brutal, but the truth is that no one really cares about you.
It's not brutal. I know this. I am glad. I am an unrepentantly
unpopular: a geek, outcast, nerd, faggot (and probably an
"eccentric", Mr. Higdon. Lock me up TODAY!). Unfortunately, in the United
States of America in 1992, any of these things can make people
very suspicious of you, and curious about what you are doing behind
closed doors. If not ME PERSONALLY, then someone
in my situation on the next block, who, to our common enemies,
is indistiguishable as a person distinct from me. If you think I'll
find protection in a court of law, take a look at Supreme Court case
Bowers v. Hardwick ('86 or '87).
In any case, the body of my posting stuck to the topics
expressed in the newsgroup's charter, and I apologize if
Mr. Higdon thought my introduction to it was an attack on him,
which would be ridiculous since I do not know him. Rather, it
was an attack on a "keep your nose clean" attitude that I detected
in the first posting of his that this my eyes were privileged enough to see.
P.S.
Lest anyone think my signoff is another sign of paranoia
and mental instability, it is just a line from a regular
sketch comedy show on HBO, a sevice I gladly fork over $120
a year for.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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."
------------------------------
From: Steve Barber <cmcl2!panix.com!sbarber@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Is e-mail private?
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 05:46:28 GMT
In <comp-privacy1.15.7@pica.army.mil> the moderator writes:
>[Example: My fiance sends me mail from XXX@compuserve.com. to drears@brl.mil.
>While I don't have any expectation of privacy does she? Sure the owner
>of the equipment owns the media but do they own the information on it? To
>add another bit to it. What if she copyrights her mail to me. _Dennis]
While I don't know enough to help with the privacy issue, I can say
with some confidence that introducing a copyright issue has no
effect on the legal analysis of this problem.
"Ownership," as you put it, is a precondition for copyrightability,
so if she holds the copyright to the work, she must have also owned
the content of message at one time. Further, the copyright statutes
provide no remedy for the divulging of the contents of a copyrighted
work, just for doing things like making copies of it.
Now back to our regularly scheduled privacy analysis . . . .
--
Steve Barber sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.
------------------------------
From: Jyrki Kuoppala <jkp@cs.hut.fi>
Subject: Re: Is e-mail private?
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 09:11:53 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uucp
In article <comp-privacy1.14.5@pica.army.mil>, vikrum@milton (Vikram Madan) writes:
>I was reading the discussion about privacy and the cordless phone and I was
>just wondering ... how private a medium is e-mail legally? Is it illegal to
>tap into someones e-mail and read it and if so what legal repercussions can
>the wrong-doer face?
It is illegal, just as it is illegal to tap into people's phones.
However, there's a small hole in the law - it's illegal only when the
email is "in transit" and nobody really knows what that means. That's
going to be changed to cover all email. The punishments are similar
to phone tapping.
There's talk about giving police a power to legally tap people's
private communications, but I hope nothing comes out of that.
Your mileage may vary, as laws differ in various geographical areas.
//Jyrki
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #018
******************************