Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 17:33:56 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#040
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 02 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 040
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
An Alternative to Call Blocking
Caller-ID and ISDN
Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN
Credit Reporting Accuracy
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: "Scott E. Preece" <preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: An Alternative to Call Blocking
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 20:28:51 GMT
Perhaps there's a technology reason why this doesn't work, but...
Why not just require each local company to assign each subscriber TWO
numbers, not related to each other algorithmically (or, at least, one
of them not derivable from the other). Instead of having call blocking
send no number, have it send the alternate number, which is uniquely
assigned to the caller but is not a number that someone can call back
to? This retains the ability to identify harrassing callers (enhances
it, since you could then eliminate real blocking and always have a
traceable number attached to any incoming call. It retains the ability
to recognize calling numbers as calls you want to grab or ignore.
And it doesn't seem like it should cost much to implement.
Since the space of numbers is limited, you might want to use simply make
the new numbers 1 digit longer and use a new prefix to identify them
(a letter, perhaps, if the standard allows that).
--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801
uucp: uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece, arpa: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 17:34 EDT
From: michael.scott.baldwin@att.com
Subject: Caller-ID and ISDN
Here in NJ, ISDN/Centrex users are fully integrated with Caller-ID:
any phone number that would show up at home on my Caller-ID box (which
is most of 201/908) also shows up on my ISDN phone at work. Likewise,
when I call a Caller-ID box from work, my office number (not a trunk
line or main number) shows up on the box.
This is even better than Caller-ID because there is no silly analog
message between the 1st and 2nd ring; the info arrives in the SETUP
message on the D-channel at the instant the phone starts to ring.
Also, when I am talking and another call arrives, I again get the
Caller-ID info on my display immediately.
Curiously, these phones do not have any memory for calling numbers.
I hook my computer to an AT&T 7506 API phone and store them that way.
Caller-ID is much more useful in this configuration, I find. When I'm
talking to person A and receive a call from person B, I can decide in
real-time whether to tell A to hold or to let B leave a message. Depending
on who A and B are, the answer changes.
And yes, I know that number->name mappings aren't unique or 100% reliable,
but after using it for years I find it to be good enough for all practical
purposes. When I see INCOMING CALL (unknown ID), that tells me something
too: it is probably *not* the president or my spouse from home.
------------------------------
From: egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf)
Subject: Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 22:59:19 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.35.6@pica.army.mil> idela!bell@uunet.uu.net (Mark Bell) writes:
California now seems to have a law that one has to submit a Social
Security number for driver's license renewal. Does anyone have any
advice on how this can be avoided?
I was dreading getting my new New Mexico drivers license this spring.
New Mexico has always (relative to me anyway) had a space for the SSN.
In years past, I have just not given it to them and there was no big
deal. A few years ago, as a part of an overhaul of the national trucking
something-or-other, congress passed a law that allowed states to
require the SSN on drivers licenses. As some of you may recall from my
post of paragraph 7 of the 1974 privacy act a few weeks ago, this gives the
state the legal right to request the SSN.
I took my social security card to the department of motor vehicles when the time
came. I DID request to see the required notice from the 1974 privacy act.
This turned out to be a good thing. First, the clerk didn't have any idea
what I was talking about and had to find a supervisor. Second, I tried to be
very polite and freindly at all times. Never piss off a bureaucrat.
The supervisor finally found some memo that just happened to mention
the federal law. I decided to let that count BECAUSE (drum role...) The
supervisor found that my main objection was having the SSN out where
everyone could see it who wanted some ID for a check to be cashed. It
turned out there was a feature of the system, unknown to the local clerk,
that allowed DIFFERENT numbers in the master data base. So... Now my
SSN is in the New Mexico DMV computer as allowed by law. However, my
new drivers license has the following in the SSN field: 000-00-0000
Maybe other states are as enlightened as New Mexico. Or was that just maybe
a bug/feature of hte New Mexico computer system that will be "fixed"
four years from now?
Skip Egdorf
hwe@lanl.gov
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 18:04:23 GMT
From: "Mark P. Neely" <NEELY_MP@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Subject: Credit Reporting Accuracy
From: John Q <slip-q@access.digex.com>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
>Hear hear. I recently obtained a copy of my credit report and found a HUGE
>number of incorrect entries. Seems that someone else is either using my
>name, or has a similar one. In any case, the attempt to get the incorrect
>stuff removed has been hellish!
The Australian Govt. recently introduced (1988) a Privacy Act (which was then
substantially amended in 1991 to make provision for credit reporting).
Originally the legislation dealt only with privacy & govt. records. The
amendments introduced strict requirements on Credit Reporting Agencies (CRA's)
and Credit Providers (CP's) (who make use of CRA reports).
Essentially it requires CP's to seek the express consent to their making
various enquiries of - and the fulfillment of them by - CRA's.
But the legislation also requires the CRA to purge its records of information
which do not fall within certain categories (specified in the Act), and that
they take every reasonable step to ensure the (a) integrity and (b) accuracy of
their records!
It also provides that CRA's must provide upon request copies of people's credit
reports to the individuals concerned (free of charge if the requests are not
more frequent than once every 6 mths). The legislation then sets out specific
steps that an individual can take in having his/her credit report amended! In
addition, a Privacy Commissioner has been appointed to "watch over" the
legislation.
Any Comments?
Mark N.
Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Articled Clerk & Tutor - Law School, NTU, Darwin NT Australia
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed herein are my own. They do not reflect the views
of my firm nor those of the University. Unless otherwise indicated, the contents
are not a formal legal opinion or advice.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #040
******************************