Date: Wed, 03 Jun 92 16:03:23 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#041
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 03 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 041
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN
Re: My view on Caller ID
Re: Call waiting and Caller ID
Privacy of Individual in the Comp. Era
Article in Tech Review
Privacy Issues & the US West "Community LInk" Gateway
Re: Isn't personal privacy a little overrated ?
Re: My view on Caller ID
Re: An Alternative to Call Blocking
Re: "An Alternative to Call Blocking" in CPD V1#040
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: Matthew Lyle <matt@dbaix.oc.com>
Subject: Re: California Drivers Lic & SSN
Date: 3 Jun 92 12:49:28 GMT
egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) writes:
>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?
[story of NM DMV deleted]
>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?
Texas requires the SSN, but it is not on the drivers license, just in their
computers in Austin. One thing I found most interesting... Texas requires
fingerprints (thumbprints, actually) on a drivers license application.
--
Matthew Lyle matt@oc.com
matt@utdallas.bitnet
OpenConnect System
Carrollton (Dallas), Texas (214) 490-4090
------------------------------
From: Bruce Klopfenstein <klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Re: My view on Caller ID
Date: 3 Jun 92 14:42:59 GMT
dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner (Dokken)) writes:
> I must say that as a subscriber to Caller ID I can see NO reason in the world
> anyone has a Right to keep their phone number a secret from me. These people
> are using a resource which I PAY to have installed in my house and as such,
> I believe that they should be forced to identify themselve to use this
> resource.
Then by all means be sure to give out YOUR telephone number to EVERYONE
you call. I'm sure you have "nothing to hide" and you won't be answering
your phone anymore anyway with your Caller ID box showing all those un-
familiar numbers you'll be getting calls from once everyone else has your
number.
I can't believe I bothered to respond to this except to point out that
no matter how fond you are of Caller ID, there are no absolutes. There
simply are times when we don't want to give up our privacy.
Bruce K.
------------------------------
From: "david.g.lewis" <deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Call waiting and Caller ID
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 15:43:45 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.37.7@pica.army.mil> rsw@cs.brown.edu (Bob Weiner) writes:
>In article <comp-privacy1.35.7@pica.army.mil> dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner (Dokken)) writes:
>>
>> Just a note to the uninformed people spreading all sorts of rumers about
>> call waiting and caller ID.
>>
>> You WILL NEVER see the number from a person if you are using the line. This
>> is becuase the callers ID is sent between the First and Second Rings.
"NEVER" is a dangerous word, as rsw@cs.brown.edu notes...
>This seems to imply that someone will never use caller-ID on an ISDN
>circuit, in which the separate D channel (data channel) is used for call
>setup and tear down control. Whether one or more B channels were in use
>would then be irrelevant as to whether one could be presented with the
>caller-ID info for another call.
Calling Line Indentification Presentation is indeed undergoing
standardization as an ISDN supplementary service, and (as
michael.scott.baldwin@att.com pointed out) is currently implemented on at
least the 5ESS(R) switch version of ISDN BRI.
In addition (as I believe Al Varney has noted), Bellcore has issued a
Technical Advisory for Caller ID on Call Waiting, TA-NWT-000575, CLASS(SM)
Feature: Calling Identity Delivery on Call Waiting FSD 01-02-1090.
David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories
david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation
------------------------------
From: STG colleague <mariou@astro.ufl.edu>
Subject: Privacy of Individual in the Comp. Era
Date: 3 Jun 92 15:00:08 GMT
I friend who can not post from the UK has asked me to post the
following for her.
Please reply directly to her if possible
since she cannot read the group.
Alternatively I will pass on to her any exchanges.
Thank you very much.
M. Gottesman
*************
I would like information on employee privacy in the workplace. Is it
fair that telephone calls are being logged into databases and that calls
are monitored. Also, what about the monitoring of keystokes for
productivity assessment?
I would be grateful for any comments, experiences, or feedback.
Thank you.
Erika Barr (Msc London School of Economics)
e-mail BARR@VAX.LSE.AC.UK
**********
------------------------------
From: "Herb Brody"@bloom-picayune.mit.edu
Subject: Article in Tech Review
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 15:19:51 GMT
I am a Senior Editor at MIT's Technology Review magazine, and I'm writing an
article on the issue(s) of computers and privacy. I'd appreciate some comments
from readers of this newsgroup. Some of the following questions may have
something of a "devil's advocate" flavor, but that's just to provoke some
impassioned responses.
*What, specifically, are the biggest threats to privacy posed by
computers/telecommunications right now?
*To what extent should "ordinary people" (as opposed to those who
"live" on networks like the Internet) be concerned with these threats?
*Why is it so imperative that e-mail be kept absolutely private
(with cryptography, e.g.), whereas paper envelopes can be steamed open by
anyone who wants, and people send millions of postcards that have no protection
whatsoever?
*What actions should be taken, and by whom, to ensure that the
inevitable spread of computers and networking will not encroach on
individual's privacy? What laws should be passed? What regulations put in
place? What customs established?
*What questions should I be asking? Who should I talk to?
Thanks for any thoughts on this topic. ALL RESPONSES ARE "ON THE RECORD"
UNLESS YOU STIPULATE OTHERWISE.
Herb Brody, Senior Editor
MIT Technology Review
HBRODY@MIT.EDU
617-253-8283
******************************************************************
Technology Review covers technology and its implications for an intellectually
sophisticated, but not necessarily technically knowledgeable, audience of
almost 100,000
******************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 09:22:50 PDT
From: peter marshall <lorbit!rocque@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Privacy Issues & the US West "Community LInk" Gateway
An unidentified company, intending to become an ISP on the US West-CLM
"Community Link" gateway in Minnesota, recently submitted the following
comments to the Minnesota PUC. These followthe 4/6/92 submisssion of an
earlier report to the PUC by an Advisory Panel on Privacy Issues.
According to the present comments submitted, "Although the panel has dealt
effectively with the issues surrounding privacy, it has avoided questions of
ownership of data generated by users of Community Link." This company's
position, therefore, focuses on what they call "the property rights of the
service provider."
Their position is that
Congressional policy mitigates[sic]toward computer literacy and private
development of an information society,...a gigantic network that is
transparent to the user. Such a redirection of focus has its rewards but
only if privacy is reinvented. Included within the pricetag of a new
tomorrow is a restructuring of the social definition of "privacy...."
Government--including the Commission--will shift focus to dissuading
misuse of...information, not its collection or use.
Unilateral state actions which inhibit the new tomorrow are an affront to
the Supremacy Clause....
End users are customers of the respective service, and the service
provider owns the data that is collected on its behalf.
A compilation of facts about transactions with customers is beyond the
reach of the Commission. Any part of it may be sold to others without
approval of the customer....
Facts from which profiles may be generated are beyond the reach of the
Commission. Profiles...may be sold to others without approval of the
customer....
Note the emphasis on purported Federal policy and on the well-known "Feist"
copyright case, which this information service provider attempts to apply
to questions of information privacy in a commercial information gateway
situation that involves multiple players and thus multiple interests. As
the fat lady has not yet sung at the Minnesota PUC on these issues, and as
US West and CLM look to another gateway in Seattle by next fall, these
Minnesota proceedings should be well worth monitoring.
--
Peter Marshall(rocque@lorbit.uucp)
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.
------------------------------
From: John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Isn't personal privacy a little overrated ?
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 92 18:21:07 GMT
jgro@netcom.com (Jeremy Grodberg) writes:
>[An important component of the current debate is the disparity of
>information, and profit from it. If everyone could freely find out
>everything about anyone, then the privacy issue would be quite
>different.
I agree, and think that's the way it should be. In Sweden, you
can go to a public records office and look up anybody's dossier. This
seems to work. I object more to the disparity of information power
than to lack of privacy.
The California Department of Motor Vehicles used to provide the
driving record and address of anyone to anyone who requested it.
After a Tylenol-scare sort of crisis (some nut got the address of some
actress he was obsessed with and killed her) the state legislature
restricted the dissemination of DMV information to individuals.
But banks, insurance companies, credit bureaus, and almost any
"institution" can still get that data quickly and without asking the
driver's permission. It's that disparity that is a bad thing, not
the disclosure.
Having an unlisted address might be supported for individuals
as it is for corporations. Corporations must provide an address at
which they receive mail, and any mail delivered to that address is
deemed to be delivered to the corporation. For many small corporations,
that address is some lawyer who represents the corporation, not the
address of an officer of the company. Individuals should be accorded
the same courtesy. In California, cops already are, and IRS agents
are just now getting similar anonymity.
John Nagle
------------------------------
From: David Ratner <ratner@ficus.cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: My view on Caller ID
Date: 3 Jun 92 18:10:07 GMT
dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner (Dokken)) writes:
>I must say that as a subscriber to Caller ID I can see NO reason in the world
>anyone has a Right to keep their phone number a secret from me. These people
>are using a resource which I PAY to have installed in my house and as such,
>I believe that they should be forced to identify themselve to use this
>resource.
What about when I want to make an anonymous phone call, like
- anonymous police suspect line
If I were to place a call to the police with a tip, info, etc,
I wouldn't necessarily want them to know who I am. That's
the whole reason the police info lines are "anonymous".
- complaints to an organization, etc.
Maybe I want to complain, but I don't want my name known.
- calling an organization/business for information
I don't want them to get my number and add it to their
list of "who to bug by tele-marketing"
Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion that just because YOU installed the
service means that no one has the right to hide from you. Why does the fact
that you paid for something revoke MY privacy? It shouldn't. My privacy
remains my right regardless of what you do or don't do.
>[ rest deleted ]
--
* * *** * * | Dave "Van Damme" Ratner
* * * * * * / \ ratner@cs.ucla.edu
* * * * *** \ /
*** *** *** * * | "Wham Bam, thank you Van Damme!"
------------------------------
From: "Life..." <gberigan@cse.unl.edu>
Subject: Re: An Alternative to Call Blocking
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 18:38:28 GMT
preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece) writes:
>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.
Typically you cannot just dial up someone at the telco, give them a
number, and expect them to give you a name. I'd expect that such
blocked calls with unique numbers would run across the same boundaries
we have on finding out who is making harassment calls now. You tell
them the time and date of the call, they go through their list, but you
would need to get a search warrant in order to find out exactly who is
making the calls. (This is what I was told over the phone with LT&T.)
They could warn the caller for me, but I wouldn't get the name or
number.
I'd expect the same thing would be set up regarding these block IDs.
>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).
Well, you can take advantage of the way the numbers are currently used.
The second digit of area codes are always a 0 or a 1. I don't think any
prefixes start with a 0 or 1 either. Put a new value in those positions
other than 0 or 1, then allocate the new number around them.
>scott preece
>uucp: uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece, arpa: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
--
/// ____ \\\ | CAUTION:
| |/ / \ \| | | Avoid eye contact. In case of contact, flush
\\_|\____/|_// | mind for 15 minutes. See a psychiatrist if
\_)\\/ | irritation persists. Not to be taken
gberigan `-' cse.unl.edu | seriously. Keep out of sight of children.
------------------------------
From: Erik Nilsson <erikn@boa.mitron.tek.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 11:51:57 PDT
Subject: Re: "An Alternative to Call Blocking" in CPD V1#040
> Why not just require each local company to assign each subscriber TWO
> numbers .... Instead of having call blocking send no number, have
> it send the alternate number ....
This is very similar to GTE's "Protected Number Service," which is apparently
implemented as a variant on their "Teen Line" service. Of course,
this service doesn't address many privacy concerns with CNID. For
example, a unique identifier is still attached to a phone, so the same
assumptions about calling behavior will be made by CNID recipients.
GTE Northwest presented PNS to the Oregon PUC in their CNID
investigation. The PUC permitted GTE-NW offer PNS, but rejected
GTE-NW's argument that PNS was in any way a substitute for strong
blocking options (free per-line and per-call, with charges allowed if
you want to turn per-line off and on frequently).
- Erik Nilsson
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #041
******************************