Date: Fri, 15 May 92 15:31:38 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#027
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 15 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 027
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Change of Moderator
Re: IF you have nothing to hide
Cordless phones & monitoring...
Privacy in video rental records?
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Library Record Privacy (Was Re: Seminole ACCESS)
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
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: Fri, 15 May 92 15:19:55 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears " <drears@pica.army.mil>
cc: tcora@pica.army.mil
Subject: Change of Moderator
moderator of the Computer Privacy Digest/comp.society.privacy newsgroup.
I will be in Belize (British Honduras) during that time. Mr. Coradeschi
is currently the maintainer of the info-labview internet mailing list.
dennis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis G. Rears
MILNET: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP:
...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears
INTERNET: drears@pilot.njin.net USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Phone(home): 201.927.8757 Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN)
880.2683
USPS: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Date: Mon May 11 18:01:12 -0400 1992
Subject: Re: IF you have nothing to hide
Importance: Normal
Date: 5/11/92 5:15 PM
> Would anyone care to provide a concise explination of WHY the
> previously mentioned rational is wrong?
Certainly.
If admitting that you want privacy equals an admission that you have
"something to hide", then by definition the people who seek privacy are
admitting that they have something to hide. Compelling them to do this
as a matter of law would violate the 5th amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and is generally recognized as tacky elsewhere.
Even though you said "no examples", let me give you a few before
summarizing a general rule.
I have friends who are part of that most-persecuted group in America, the
last group it is fashionable to hate, gay men. Some of them dare to be
open anyway, despite the fact that courts have even refused to convict
muggers and would-be murderers just because the victims were gay. This
is, to my eyes, nothing less than heroic (or stupid). And may I point
out that it is legal to discriminate against them in hiring? If I were a
gay male working for Shoneys, for example, which has an explicit policy
of firing employees who are discovered to be gay, then I would certainly
want to hang on to my privacy, even though being gay may not actually be
against any law. (At least, in some jurisdictions. It is here in
Missouri.) But it'd be a moot point if hanging on to my privacy was
considered proof that I was engaged in something unsavory.
And even when it's illegal to discriminate against someone for their
private activity, such as religion, it's so easy to get away with that I
don't blame the thousands of my Wiccan co-religionists, or members of any
widely persecuted religion such as Satanism or ISKCON, who take varying
levels of precautions to keep their religious affiliation a secret. It's
illegal to fire somebody for attempting to organize a union, too, but it
happens, so companies are forbidden to inquire what employees' feelings
on the subject are except by secret ballot. But it won't help, will it,
if "everyone knows" that only people "with something to hide" seek to
keep secrets about themselves?
(To those of you who may think I'm exaggerating the risk of illegal job
discrimination: It is illegal for an employer to fire someone because of
their religion, or for being pro-union. But since US law doesn't require
the employer to state a reason for firing anyone, there is almost no way
to prove in court that this was the reason. Even if the employer told
you so; when it gets to court, it will be your word against his. And if
the court requires him to state a reason, it can be as vague as "he/she
wasn't a team player" or "he/she was insubordinate." And if they want to
make up a lie about you, what physical evidence can you bring to prove
that they lied when they said you were, for example, late for work a
hundred times? They have ample opportunity to manufacture evidence. In
my work with the Pagan Strength Web and the Alliance for Magical and
Earth Religions, I've seen employers use all of these tactics. And win.
Almost every time.)
Even if you think you have nothing to hide, you may have something to
hide. Remember that Rand study back in the late 60s or early 70s that
claimed that no matter where you are or what you're doing, the odds are
that somehow it violates some ordinance or law? As complicated as our
legal system has become, you might be a lot safer from arbitrary
persecution or prosecution the less that federal and state and local
agencies know about you. Otherwise, all Gods help you should you
irritate a neighbor who happens to work for a government.
So in summary, the attitude "if you don't have anything to hide, then you
shouldn't want privacy" isolates, stigmatizes, and endangers those who do
have legitimate needs for privacy, even though their needs are not
predicated on illegal activity. Common decency, and respect for their
rights and safety, suggests that the rest of us should campaign to make
such privacy the norm, or at least relatively common, until such time as
people can reasonably expect that if they are engaged in no crime, their
personal activities if revealed will result in no harm to them.
It will very likely be a long way from here. A long time into the
future. On another planet. And involving another species, instead of
humans.
----------
J. Brad Hicks
Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com
X.400: c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above does
not
contain official MasterCard statements or policies.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 11:54:15 GMT
From: "Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University" <NEELY_MP@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Subject: Cordless phones & monitoring...
Howdy,
I have been following the thread of late with regard to scanning cordless phone
emmissions. Those interested in the law relating to the monitoring of
emmissions from digital equiptment are invited to retrieve the file
'tempest.law' from sulaw.law.su.oz.au in the /pub/law directory.
There are also many more files relating (generally) to computers and the law.
If you have any comments or additions, please do not hesitate to mail me.
Mark N.
Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Articled Clerk + Tutor, Law School, Northern Territory Uni. Darwin NT Australia
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed above are my own and are in no way a reflection
of those of my employer nor those of the NTU. They are not to be taken (unless
otherwise indicated) as a formal legal opinion or advice given in my
professional capacity.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 11:59:38 GMT
From: "Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University" <NEELY_MP@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Subject: Privacy in video rental records?
I picked this one off a mailing list...
___
State Attorney John Tanner (Volusia Co, FL) has subpoenaed the rental
records of two video shopkeepers to identify the individuals who rented
one of four named explicit films.
Ostensibily, the customers are only wanted as potential witnesses.
Tanner states that he does not intend to prosecute any citizen whose
name might be on this list. Both store owners are resisting, citing
customers' rights to privacy. Tanner maintains people who rent material
have no expectation of privacy.
Tanner denies that the list request was intended to scare people out
of renting X-rated material. To me, it's analogous to publicly naming
prostitution customers so public ridicule will exert economic pressure
on the business.
Public libraries have traditionally protected the privacy of their
patrons' reading material. Why a profit making video library should be
denied the same privledge is beyond me.
In a state known nationally for its revolving door prisons, it is
shameful that Tanner is trying to make reelection hay out of this issue.
Hopefully he has underestimated the number of voters who occasionally
view explicit films.
Steven Gladin The most obscene thing about most obscene
49%arms.uucp@ufl.edu materials is the price requested by the vendor.
___
Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Articled Clerk + Tutor, Law School, Northern Territory Uni. Darwin NT Australia
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed above are my own and are in no way a reflection
of those of my employer nor those of the NTU. They are not to be taken (unless
otherwise indicated) as a formal legal opinion or advice given in my
professional capacity.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel E. Platt" <platt@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: 14 May 92 20:09:34 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
In article <comp-privacy1.25.3@pica.army.mil>, emba-news.uvm.edu!cavrak@kira.uvm.edu (Steve Cavrak) writes:
|> "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
|>
|> - sounds like an opening line by the KGB, CIA, FBI, Stassi, or you name
|> your favorite terrorist group,
|>
|> - sounds like an incorrect inversion of, "if you are fearful, you must
|> be hiding something" - i.e. you are the cause of your own fear.
|>
|> -
|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>
|> HEY !@
|>
|>
|> - I have the right to an unlisted phone number
|>
|> - I have the right not to have a telephone at all
|>
|> - I have the right not to carry identification
|>
|> - I have the right to travel without telling anyone where I am going
|>
|> - I have the right to carry money
|>
|> - I have the right not to carry money
|>
|> - I have the right not to be searched WITHOUT DUE CAUSE.
Not if you ride a public bus.
|>
|> HEY!
|>
|> This is America. These are the rights that make it so.
This must not be America any more (we seem to have ceded our rights
when we supported candidates who felt the police powers had suffered,
and put in supreme court justices who agreed).
|>
|> We don't need to apologize for them, we need to celebrate them, to
|> assert them.
We need to get them back.
|>
|> Geez.
|>
|> Steve
------------------------------
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <schumach@convex.com>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: 15 May 92 01:30:02 GMT
>In article <comp-privacy1.19.2@pica.army.mil> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>>One of the reasons that many people are against 'intrusive' laws is
>>because they disagree with the rational "If you have nothing to
>>hide, then you don't need to worry." However what I have failed to
>>see is a single cogent explination of WHY the rational of "If you
>>have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" is a bankrupt
>>one. Would anyone care to provide a concise explination of WHY the
>>previously mentioned rational is wrong?
(BTW: The word is "rationale".)
Because people disagree, sometimes violently, about what is worth
hiding. For example, one person might go to absurd lengths to prevent
people from learning the details of how he masturbates even though most
people would probably find it uninteresting. For another example,
many people do not want their tax returns made public even though
they might not reveal anything which is, strictly speaking, illegal.
Is the point now clear? (If you have no emotional need for privacy,
or no appreciation for the need in others, then I suppose that no
argument against the "nothing-to-hide" doctrine will have any force
for you.)
------------------------------
From: Stephen P Spackman <stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:53:53 GMT
In article <1992May14.162824.13865@cs.cornell.edu> karr@cs.cornell.edu (David Karr) writes:
|Because everyone has something to hide from someone. Even you. (Or do you
|claim there is NOTHING you ever do that you would be ashamed for me to have
|a videotape of?)
If you are ashamed of something you did, that is your OWN problem and
you should try to get over it.
Furthermore, almost by definition anyone who tries to blackmail you
has more to hide than you do yourself (that's how blackmail works!).
Privacy is a fundamental privelege in THIS society, just as work is.
It is however (like a "right to work" or "affirmative action")
antithetical to the ideals of a rational, pleasant or productive
society. [And yes, it's known that I'm a touch odd.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stephen p spackman Center for Information and Language Studies
stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu University of Chicago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Carl Ellison <cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: 15 May 92 18:41:28 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.26.5@pica.army.mil> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
> We are
>all in agreement that the statement IS wrong. Why is everyone
>(myself included) having so much trouble comming up with a short,
>direct, statement of why?
> The Jester
I suspect it's because you aren't looking for an answer but rather are
looking for the fun of starting and watching an emotional debate.
"I preserve and defend my right to privacy" is neutral to positive.
"I have something to hide" is negative, carrying implication of criminality.
------------------------------
From: Steve Barber <cmcl2!panix.com!sbarber@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Library Record Privacy (Was Re: Seminole ACCESS)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 00:08:30 GMT
In <comp-privacy1.25.7@pica.army.mil> michael.scott.baldwin@att.com writes:
>| every book they check out from the library or borrow on reserve
>Every library I know of keeps track of who checks out books. Your problem
>here is that the data is more easily accessible now? Hm, I suspect that
>it's not hard for the administration to get to that data for *any* library.
Actually, many libraries delete the "link" between borrower and book
after it is returned, according to a librarian I heard speaking at
the Computers, Freedom & Privacy 2 conference. Apparently, they
don't like the FBI subpoenaing their readers' records any more than their
readers like it. If the record is destroyed "during the normal course
of business," it's too bad for the subpoener. (Is that a word?)
Watch out for backups, though. Apparently, this policy is library-dependant.
--
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: karr@cs.cornell.edu (David Karr)
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: 14 May 92 16:28:24 GMT
References: <comp-privacy1.19.2@pica.army.mil>
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
In article <comp-privacy1.19.2@pica.army.mil> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>Would anyone care to provide a concise explination of WHY the
>previously mentioned rational is wrong?
Because everyone has something to hide from someone. Even you. (Or do you
claim there is NOTHING you ever do that you would be ashamed for me to have
a videotape of?)
>And please, though examples
>are useful for illustration of a point, they do not make one.
And, pray tell, why not? Suppose I tell you that it's a bad idea to shove
paper clips into live electrical outlets with your bare fingers. Suppose
you don't believe me. Suppose I then suggest you try it and see, and you
do, and you get a shock. Now the shock would just be an example illustrating
my point, not exactly a mathematical argument, yet I think it would make the
point pretty well, don't you?
-- David Karr
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #027
******************************