Date: Mon, 18 May 92 17:15:16 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#030
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 18 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 030
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Computer Privacy Digest V1#027
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
More on Privacy Issues & US West Gateway
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#026
Moderator please note:
More on Privacy Issues & US West Gateway[part 2, continued]
Re: Cordless Phones
Re: Census Bureau Database
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: What's to hide?
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Privacy is a right
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: Privacy in video rental records?
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: Sat, 16 May 1992 17:25:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Sean Donelan <SEAN@sdg.dra.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records?
In article <comp-privacy1.27.4@pica.army.mil>, NEELY_MP@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University) writes:
> Public libraries have traditionally protected the privacy of their
> patrons' reading material. Why a profit making video library should be
> denied the same privilege is beyond me.
First of all, not all libraries are created equal. Public (or governmental)
libraries are different from a corporate, or private institutional libraries.
Different libraries may, and do have different policies regarding their
patron's privacy. You should check with the individual library (of whatever
type) what their policy is.
Further, the laws regarding library records also vary both state to state,
and among different types of libraries within a state. In some states the
law protecting library records is actually an exemption within the state's
Freedom of Information law. Yep, the same law that allows the police to keep
their records secret (confidential informants, ongoing investigations, etc),
also protects your library records. The corresponding Privacy Laws are the
ones that require governmental libraries not to reveal patron records (except
for all the "standard" exemptions). But neither type of law have any effect
on non-government run libraries.
Finally, every law I've read protecting library patron records also contain
a provision that the library must be produce their records in response to a
lawful court order. Libraries have complied with such orders and produced
their records. So the profit making video library isn't being denied such
a privilege (because such a privilege generally doesn't exist).
Perhaps a better question is why is the profit making video library keeping
such records? Most libraries (though not all) try to avoid this situation
by having the standard operating procedure of destroying* records of patron
borrowering as soon as they aren't needed anymore. It seems to almost be a
right of passage for the head of circulation services in a library to go to
court to explain why the library can't produce the records.
*destroy :== no longer accessible through "normal" means. Libraries aren't
wealthy enough to put their disk drives through acid baths, or other types
of physical destruction every time someone returns a book.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 17:51:05 -0400
From: ctbilbo!pete@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#027
To the people who justify the invasion of personal privacy by stating
"If you have nothing to hide...." :
If you have nothing to hide, then please publically post the following
information:
- Your name
- Your address
- Your telephone number
- Your social security number
- Your age
- The names, ages and ssn of your spouse and your children
- Your place of employment
- Your occupation
- Your salary
- Other sources and amounts of income
- The value of your home and the amount of your mortgage
payments
- All magazines you read, books you read and video tapes you view
- All organizations to which you belong or to which you
contribute money
- The value of your car(s) and the amount of those payments
- All purchases over the last 10 years, including what was
purchased, the cost and where purchased.
- All telephone calls you or your family has made, and the
nature of the conversion.
- All contact you have had with law inforcement personnel
including traffic tickets, arrests and questioning.
- Your travel
- All mail you have send and received
And, since you have nothing to hide, video tape all your and your
family's activities and make the tapes available for anyone to view.
We are awaiting your response...
------------------------------
From: "Glenn R. Stone" <gs26@prism.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: 16 May 92 18:39:06 GMT
Reply-To: glenns@eas.gatech.edu
It has been suggested that a very good reason for the right to privacy is
ex post facto evidence. Let's say I do X. Somebody's database somewhere
records the fact that I do X. Five years later, X becomes illegal, and
some witch hunter somewhere begins scanning five-year-old databases for
"probable cause" evidence to obtain search warrants against me on suspicion
of X. The potential for official harrassment here is obvious and legion.
(Natcherly, he can't have me arrested for doing X five years ago, unless
you kill the ex post facto provision, too, but he CAN say that if I did
X five years ago, I could still be doing it... well enough to get a search
warrant in a paranoid environment. And, boys and girls, if you don't think
things aren't paranoid, just carry a good sum of cash into Florida and do
something to get a lawman's attention. I could digress here, but that's
another topic.)
glenns@eas.gatech.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 22:54:34 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <ole!rwing!peterm@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: More on Privacy Issues & US West Gateway
[From "Report of thge Advisory Panel on Privacy Issues Related to
Community Link Videotex Gateway Service," 4/6/92, MN PUC]:
..The Panel has reviewed the principal state and federal laws
governing interception and disclosure of electronic communications.
Based on this review, the panel has recommended a notice to
subscribers about the protections against others' reading and
disclosing their communications on Community Link....
The panel focused its attention on the existing legal restrictions
which would protect a subscriber against other subscribers, CLMA or an
ISP reading her communications and dislcosing them....
Some of the ISPs...indicated that they read subscribers' messages,
whether on a bulletin board or e-mail service....
Existing state and federal law appear to permit disclosure of
information about a subscriber's use of Community Link and of ISPs
available through Community Link.... state and federal laws...appear
to permit CLMA and the ISPs to disclose information about...accessing
of Community Link and the information services available.... There
were differences...among panel members about whether Minnesota and
federal law permit CLMA and ISPs to disclose information
about...accessing of Community Link and ISPs. Consequently, the panel
decided that it would not recommend that the Commission unilaterally
order CLMA or the ISPs to refrain from dislclosing this
information....[CONTINUED
--
------------------------------
From: Susanne Forslev <sforslev@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 01:21:28 GMT
In <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? And please, though examples
>are useful for illustration of a point, they do not make one.
> The Jester
>--
> The Jester
>"You can lead a herring to water, but you have to walk really fast,
>or he'll die."-Stolen from my Evil Mistress (TM)
> NWILSON@MIAVX1.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
Sure I'll answer, but first give me your address, income, real name,
occupation, religion, and please pee in this jar.
Sue
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 21:51:46 EDT
From: Wm Randolph Franklin <wrf@speed.ecse.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#026
Here's a different, utilitarian, reason why you might want to have
something to hide.
Information is valuable. Information about your commercial competitor,
customer, or supplier, is very valuable.
If you want to buy a house, wouldn't it be nice to know that the seller
has a bank loan coming due, or that he has aids, which his insurance
doesn't cover? If financial and medical databases are public, you could
determine this. This is just an updated form of looking for a distress
sale, but do you want to allow it to be this efficient?
You could also link databases and sell the exclusive use of the result
back to the subject, i.e., let the subject pay you not to sell his data
to anyone else. Sort of like paying the phone company not to forward
your phone number to the callee when you make a call.
Let's see now... the narcs are already checking power and water
consumption records and purchases of hydroponics equipment. Anything
the government can do, private enterprise can do better. If purchase
records are public, you could probably find some customers ready, if not
willing, to pay you a quite a lot of money (or to shoot you) so you
didn't sell the data to the narcs.
One problem with information is that, although it is theoretically
available to everyone, only the big orgs may be able to afford to use
it. I think I have the right to get a credit report on every merchant I
do business with. The reason is that I'm extending him credit since if
he goes bankrupt, there goes my warrantry and right to return the item.
However, I've never gotten a credit report because of the cost and
hassle. Nevertheless, they probably check on me. They certainly do if
I write a cheque.
Here's a real example of hassles caused by matching: The feds match
draft registration records with student records. (You didn't know
this?) Some time ago they nabbed a law student, and it made the local
papers. Seems he was a judge, who had served in Korea, and who was
taking a refresher course. They probably dropped HIS case as soon as he
called. If it had happened to me, God knows what proof they'd have
wanted. Given the difficulty my wife has had changing her name with the
SS, I'd probably have to get a notarized copy of my birth certificate or
some such. Since I was born in another country, that would involve
some expense and inconvenience.
Here's another thing you could do by linking databases: Find people who
a) left home last year on Memorial Day, and
b) who bought a home safe, but
c) who don't have a contract with a burglar alarm company.
All this is determinable from credit card charges. This could provide
you with something to do next weekend, if you're handy with a drill and
hammer.
For fear of this sort of matching, some people in my neighborhood, who
are absent for long periods of time, don't put street numbers on their
houses and names on their mailboxes. They don't even want a mailbox -
name - house link.
There're reasons that nations have always considered some data secret.
It prevents enemies from identifying, and attacking weak points. I
submit that people have weak points also, which they should also be able
to protect.
Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180
Note: It's more reliable to reply to ecse.rpi.edu, regardless of where
this message seems to come from.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 May 92 21:54:06 EDT
From: Wm Randolph Franklin <wrf@speed.ecse.rpi.edu>
Subject: Moderator please note:
If you could change the subject on the message that I just sent from
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#026
to
Subject: utilitatian reasons for privacy
I'd be grateful. Thanks. Sorry for the error.
/Randolph Franklin
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 09:22:35 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <ole!rwing!peterm@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: More on Privacy Issues & US West Gateway[part 2, continued]
Of the...types of information that may be gathered, the panel
considers information about..."usage" of an information service to be
deserving of the most stringent privacy protection....
Currently, there is no provision in the CLMA price list or contracts
with ISPs...to prevent disclosure of usage data by an ISP.... The
Commission's order...currently prohibits CLMA from "compiling
consumer profiles of individual...subscribers, for marketing purposes
or other uses." CLMA contends that a profile exists only when usage
data...is attached to the individual's name, for any purposed other
then billing and collection.... The panel accepts CLMA's definition of
"profile"....
The panel discussed the need to protect the privacy of subscribers who
do not want an ISP to know their name and address and that they
accessed a particular ISP.... The panel members have not agreed on the
appropriate form of subscriber permission required for release of name
and address to an ISP....
CLMA believes that a Commission order imposing a positive check-off
would violate the federal and state statutes specifically permitting
providers of electronic communications services to disclose
information pertaining to a subscriber.... Richard Baker[representing
an unidentified ISP]...argued, "End users are customers of the service
provider, so the service provider is the true owner of the customer
list. Giving to the service provider that which it owns is not a
disclosure.... Federal law has preempted the issue and rendered state
action powerless to regulate the service provider...."
The other panel members do not support CLMA's and USWC's intention to
release names and addresses of subscribers on a "Community Link"
mailing list. This...would give ISPs access to the names and addresses
of subscribers who have not indicated any interest in their
services....
The following statement is printed...[in] the Community Link guide:
"Note: In some cases your Calling Card number may be forwarded to the
service provider when you access their particular service".... In the
panel's view, this notice does not fully inform subscribers of the
permissible uses of information about their use of Community Link....
[END, Part 2 of 2]
--
------------------------------
From: Jake Angerman <jangerma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
Date: Sun, 17 May 1992 15:07:28 GMT
lupine!mellon@uunet.uu.net (Ted Lemon) writes:
>Privacy *is* important. While it's impossible to prevent Joe Random
>Loser from listening in on your cellular phone conversations....
How would someone go about doing this? If my neighbor and I both
have cordless phones, why is it that when I pick mine up I don't
home-in on their conversation? Do my headset and cradle communicate
in some encrypted format (like some wireless LANs)? How does the FCC
handle all these different phone companies who want to make cordless
phones? Can you run out of frequencies?
Just wonderin'.....
- - - - - - - - - -
Jake Angerman email: Angerman.1@osu.edu
THE Ohio State University phone: (614) 292-1741
College of Business Computing Services Center FAX: (614) 292-1651
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 15:12:17 -0700
From: Dean N Johnson <djohnson@nike.calpoly.edu>
Subject: Re: Census Bureau Database
bonnett@seismo.css.gov (H. David Bonnett) sez:
>To expand on this, I wish to offer a (possibly apochryphal) story:
> The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) utilizes any and
>all resources to find unregistered/"illegal" residents. The Census
>form asks for sufficient information to make these individuals
>identifiable (to the Census). INS asks for the list of people (or
>addresses, doesn't matter) which are flagged as "suspicious"; Census
>refuses based on the above law; INS then asks for list of census
>tracts (approximately a city block); this is fine: INS now has a much
>more constrained area to search. All of this is legal, whether it is
>in the public interest, I hestitate to judge.
>
>...
During the last census I came across the story that census data was
used during WW II to identify city blocks where people of Japanese
heritage lived so they could be conveniently rounded up to be interned
in camps.
I don't know that it's the truth but it really make me think.
Especially given the more current story concerning unregistered
immigrants. I find the Census Bureau's definition of confidentiality
rather disappointing.
>-dave bonnett- Center for Seismic Studies; Arlington, VA
> bonnett@seismo.css.gov : (703) 276-7900
> Pop Kid Internationale
>
--
Dean Johnson djohnson@nyx.calpoly.edu Back off man! I'm a Computer Scientist.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 22:17:23 -0500
From: David Olsen <dko@cs.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
In article <comp-privacy1.26.5@pica.army.mil>, ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
|>
|> There have been several posts regarding my quest for a definitive
|> statement regarding WHY the concept of "if you have nothing to hide
|> then you have nothing to fear" is wrong.
[...]
|> So far no one has been able to write a
|> concise explination of WHY they feel that this idea is wrong. We are
|> all in agreement that the statement IS wrong.
|> The Jester
I think the statement "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to
fear" is essentially correct. That is why people cannot seem to explain why
it is wrong. The reason many people (myself included) don't like it is
because some people use it as a justification to invade your privacy. They
argue that if you are trying to hide something, then you have done something
wrong and should be punished. What we should be discussing (and many people
in this thread have discussed it) is this arguments used by privacy-invaders.
What if I DO have something to hide? Does trying to hide something imply
wrong-doing? Does a normal law-abiding citizen ever have a valid excuse to
hide something?
When a person hides something, it is often done as a result of a difference
of opinion. The person doing the hiding thinks that what is hidden should
be legal/moral/normal. The person/group being hidden from (the hidee?)
thinks that what is hidden is illegal/immoral/wierd. I expect that many
people think it is okay to hide some things (e.g. religious beliefs, sexual
orientation) but not to hide others (e.g. child abuse, murders). If you
believe that the government is generally just, then you probably would
argue that people should not be able to hide things from the government.
If you think the government is unjust and unfair, then you will probably
want to hide from it.
Since I believe that one should not force one's opinions on another, I will
in general side with the person doing the hiding. In order to protect
oneself from a powerful person/group with a different opinion, I think one
should be allowed to hide information about oneself.
--
David Olsen University of Wisconsin - Madison
dko@cs.wisc.edu Department of Computer Sciences
------------------------------
From: The Jester <ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: 18 May 92 01:25:08 GMT
Is there any particular reason why I see the same article posted to
this group three or four times?
[Yup. And don't ask me for a detailed answer {I'm just a "temp" in the
newsgroup moderation biz}. Basically, it has to do with how some
newsreaders cope (or fail to) with the idea of a moderated newsgroup. I
suspect that Dennis will iron this out upon his return next week. The
weeding is done manually as of now. So, yes. You will see duplicates. At
least for now. Tom C.]
In further news on privacy:I have been happy to see so many
responses. I have been unhappy to see how angry many of the
responses have been. Its as if, by raising the question, I become a
target for all the pent up anger over this issue. I'm not sure what
culture the rest of your originate from but in my culture an idiot
is refered to as "one who can not even ask a question".
On to more important issues (and one of the reasons why I started
this thread in the first place):I am working with a friend of mine
to learn and understand public key encryption. We are doing this
mostly because its a really 'nifty' problem that we both want to
learn more about. At the end of our 'educational' drive we intend to
write a paper, in as plain english as possible, explaining to
everyone EXACTLY how public key works and in addition we intend on
producing a program that will provide the most secure public key
encryption possible on today's pc (it will be in ansi C with
variable strength based upon processor speed so anyone on any
machine can run it). The problem is that various 'law and order'
types have been very unhappy to hear that we are doing this. Even
a moderatly weak public key encrypted message would take years to
crack on even the most powerful computer. Which means that
individuals can talk to each other over totaly unprotected lines
(both via mail and phone if anyone cares to adapt it to such a
purpose which would be relatively simple to do) without fear of
being heard by anyone (so much for cordless phones =). ON the other
hand it means that criminals can plan and organize all their
activities, in the open, without anyone ever knowing what they are
doing. In short this program would be a double edged sword, it
protects privacy, of EVERYONE. As such some have suggested that I
not release such a program and while I have argued against them, I
am normally required to take a circuitious (sp.) route to prove my
point. I have been looking for a simple, logical answer, to explain
to them why releasing this program isn't 'wrong'.
On a final note:The program I intend to release is freeware. However
I refuse to believe the someone, somewhere, hasn't done this before!
All the information on public key is available in any good library
and the actual principals are quite simple (I could release the
program today if I didn't bother trying to understand WHY what I was
doing actually worked). Isn't there a public key encryption program
out there some place?
And a final note:I have no intent of ever using a government
sponsored public key encryption system. With laws such as the one
going through congress that requires all encryption systems to have
back doors the government can use, with laws requiring phone
companies to have equipment that the FBI can easily trace, and with
holes already found in the current proposed government (nsa?) public
key encryption standard, I don't trust the government any farther
than I can throw it.
Comments encouraged.
The Jester
--
The Jester-President of The Hacker Conference
"Never trust an oyster"-Super Chicken
"You know the job was dangerous when you took it"-Super Chicken
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing"-Sledge Hammer
------------------------------
From: Brian Oblivion <oblivion@spica.bu.edu>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: 18 May 92 17:03:46 GMT
> 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
Interesting thread, but I have noticed one very inportant point has
been missed. When stating, "If you have nothing to hide... You have
nothing to fear...", who makes what you are 'hiding' wrong or
incriminating?
That is the problem here, who is making what is right and what is
wrong, when should something not be known to the 'controlling parties'
and when can it be broadcast to all...
When is it wrong to disagree with a law? Can we disagree with a
law? Will our lives be affected buy our disagreement with the law?
Brian Oblivion
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= Cursed be thee who blackened the harvest, and built a strange place for the =
= Children to dwell. Cursed be thine soul, out of nothing begotten, nothing =
= to no thing, and nothing to all. =
=-----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
= Brian Oblivion :: oblivion@atdt.org || oblivion@spica.bu.edu || -=(0)=- =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
From: Flint Pellett <flint@gistdev.gist.com>
Subject: Re: What's to hide?
Date: 18 May 92 17:37:09 GMT
ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>>The Jester writes:
>> However what I have failed to see is a single cogent explanation of
>> WHY the rationale of "If you have nothing to hide, then you have
>> nothing to fear" is a bankrupt one.
The reason is simple: because the government is in the position to
decide what is "bad", and it's decisions do not have to be right. The
most devastating example of this in this century occurred in Nazi
Germany, when the government decided that the mere fact that you were
of Jewish descent was "bad". Jewish people who "had nothing to hide",
even if they were canidates for sainthood, suddenly did have
"something to hide", at least if they wanted to continue living.
--
Flint Pellett, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc.
100 Trade Centre Drive, Suite 301, Champaign, IL 61820 (217) 352-1165
uunet!gistdev!flint or flint@gistdev.gist.com
------------------------------
From: peterson@CS.ColoState.EDU (james peterson)
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 17:54:23 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
In article <comp-privacy1.26.5@pica.army.mil> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
> [stuff deleted]
>concise explination of WHY they feel that this idea is wrong. 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'll bite. While I *may* not have anything to hide, I don't care to
make everything about me available to anyone
who asks (especially those with power or authority) because I don't know
what they are going to do with that information, and I don't want to
lose control over information about me. Information can take wierd
turns when incomplete and in the hands of other people with their own
agendas (like the FBI, IRS, police or insurance companies, or credit bureaus)
and can be used against me at a later date in ways I might not like. I keep
information about me secret not because I have something to hide,
but because I don't want you misinterpreting it and using it against
me at some future time. To paraphrase Learned Hand, incomplete information
is an accusation waiting to happen, encouraging a time when denunciation
without specification takes the place of evidence.
I suppose there is also an argument that there is also an argument from
inconvenience, namely that the fact that I have nothing to hide does
not at the same time that I care to be stopped and searched whenever
the police think they want to do that, or enter my house at will whenever
they please just to "make sure" I'm not hiding anything.....
To my mind that is a far less important argument.
--
james lee peterson peterson@CS.ColoState.edu
dept. of computer science
colorado state university "Some ignorance is invincible."
ft. collins, colorado (voice:303/491-7137; fax:303/491-6639)
------------------------------
From: peterson@CS.ColoState.EDU (james peterson)
Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 18:01:12 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
In article <comp-privacy1.27.4@pica.army.mil> NEELY_MP@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University) writes:
>
> 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.
>
I was under the impression that there is a recent federal law prohibiting
the disclosure of video rental records. It was, I think, part of the
update of the Privacy Act, and included the prohibition of tapping cellular
phones (but not cordless ones)....
--
james lee peterson peterson@CS.ColoState.edu
dept. of computer science
colorado state university "Some ignorance is invincible."
ft. collins, colorado (voice:303/491-7137; fax:303/491-6639)
------------------------------
From: "Brian L. Kahn" <blk@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 18:43:49 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.27.10@pica.army.mil> karr@cs.cornell.edu (David Karr) writes:
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?)
This seems like a logical argument to me, but I would sure like to
hear an argument (attitude, explanation, credo?) that better explains
the assumptions behind discussions appearing in this group.
For example, consider the proposal to put electronic ID markers into
cars so that toll booths can read off who passes by and bill them at
the end of the month. The benefits are pretty obvious, participatants
could use toll roads and bridges without even slowing down for toll
booths. The privacy risks should be apparent to readers of this
group, THEY would be able to track your movements throughout the
country if such systems were widespread.
Discussion that I've read on this topic tends to be along the lines of
"this reveals information, therefore it is bad." Without discussion
of why anyone should care, either in the bureaucracy or among the
public.
How much of a risk is this? The explanation of "everyone has
something to hide from someone" doesn't seem to help much. Would
people be concerned that their spouses might find out from the highway
department where they went Friday night? Or that your boss might call
the state to see if you are really home sick like you claim? I sure
would like to see a more effective counter to the argument of "IF you
have nothing to hide...", which might help me understand the risks
people are concerned about.
--
B< Brian Kahn blk@security.mitre.org "may the farce be with you"
------------------------------
From: "Brian L. Kahn" <blk@mitre.org>
Subject: Privacy is a right
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 20:13:50 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.25.2@pica.army.mil> rsw@cs.brown.edu (Bob Weiner) writes:
The matter is simple and much like the reason we have a presumption of
innocence in the legal system. The burden should be on the accuser or
in the case of privacy, on those who want to expose something.
Basically, the view is that privacy, like presumption of innocence, is
a right. There is no need to justify one's exercise of that right but
there is need to justify infringement upon it.
Nicely stated, but I can't accept the comparison between privacy and
presumption of innocence. Privacy may be a right in some sense, and I
sure wish it were explicitly in the constitution. However, we are
obliged to surrender this right in many instances, in exchange for
privileges. Your car has ID tags, and you have to carry a license
with your name (and usually your picture) to operate on public roads.
You have to identify yourself in order to use financial services
(checks or credit), to rent items (tapes, tools, cars), to get service
from public utilities. Can you even own property in a town without
revealing your name?
Granted that you aren't forced to do these things, but most of us
will. Moreover, many of our rights cannot be surrendered even if we
sign a certified contract waiving those rights. This applies to
more than the rights enumerated in state and federal constitutions;
you may not be able to waive your right to sue for negligence, so your
local school can't host a roller skating party without insurance.
Perhaps the right we really have is a right to independence, not
privacy. If you want to be alone and do everything for yourself, you
may.
--
B< Brian Kahn blk@security.mitre.org "may the farce be with you"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 13:34:20 MST
From: Wayne Peterson <petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division
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
Why is it a privilege for the citizens, but a right of the
government. The government has the right to classify any
information it has, especially about its own activities.
Something here is backwards. The government should be responsive
to its citizens, not the other way around.
If the government has done nothing wrong, the why does it
have so much to hide.
Wayne Peterson
------------------------------
From: James Davies <jrbd@craycos.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Date: Mon, 18 May 92 20:38:48 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.27.4@pica.army.mil> NEELY_MP@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University) writes:
>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.
Isn't there a federal law explicitly making video rental list disclosure
illegal? This was enacted after the Bork confirmation catfight, when
his video rentals were disclosed in the press. Video rental records
now have greater legal protection than medical records.
Of course, courts may be able to order disclosures that couldn't be legally
made otherwise. Does anyone out there know what the real legal situation
is here?
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #030
******************************