Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 14:17:38 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#043
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 05 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 043
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#040
Re: [J. Michael Blackford: Re: Privacy is a right]
Re: Privacy in video rental records?
computer privacy info needed
Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Re: E-Mail Privacy Policy
Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs
is personal privacy overrated ?
Re: Cordless Phones
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: Thu, 4 Jun 92 15:54:47 MDT
From: David Wade <djw@corrtex.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#040
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 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.
This is a good tactic, but Bernie, Ron, and the Brunette lady all were in the
room as I fought this out, and they were obviously "putting you on".
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
Skip, this is not a good thing. This is a response to my spending an afternoon
in the local office being shuffled upward through their "chain of command"
to the head of Department of Motor Vehicles. He finally admitted that I was
right, and that if I "just gave my SSN to them for now, they would have "the
program" fixed in six months and they would then give me another Driver's
License, free. Of course, nothing like that happened. I did finally get the
license without the SSN, but I had to pay for it. And, they now have my SSN
on their records, and you can be assured that EVERY TIME YOU REPLACE YOUR
LICENSE IT WILL BE PRINTED ON THE LICENSE UNLESS YOU REMEMBER TO OBJECT AT
THAT TIME. It also goes out with every query about YOU, to WHOMEVER MAKES
THAT QUERY. A major portion of the problem is that the Head of Motor Vehicles
resigned before the change was completed, and the new fellow, (i.e. one of the
fellows I had to bulldoze through, to get to the top,) doesn't believe that
the SSN stuff applies to his department. The exclusion due to the Privacy
Act of 1974, (That Willis Ware left in!!! 8*) ) for various Depts of Motor
Vehicles is sticking us here.
Maybe other states are as enlightened as New Mexico. Or was that just maybe
a bug/feature of the New Mexico computer system that will be "fixed"
four years from now?
Skip Egdorf
hwe@lanl.gov
Don't expect this to change unless WE do it. You, Me, Milligan, & Schmidt!
------------------------------
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I promised myself ( when I turned 21, ) that I wouldn't ever again do
anything just once. I think that solves a lot of problems;
no high speed crashes into bridge abutments, no one-night stands, etc.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 18:16 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Subject: Re: [J. Michael Blackford: Re: Privacy is a right]
Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.com> writes:
> This reminds me of the signs many places that sell alcohol display: "If
> you're under 25, you must show ID" If you're asked for ID, is it a valid
> response just to inform them that you're over 25, and thus don't have to
> show any according to the sign? :-)
Most of the ones I see these days say, "If you look under thirty, be
prepared to show your ID."
Ah, those were the days. The last time I recall being "carded" was when
I was thirty-five. What a compliment! I almost thanked the bouncer.
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 18:12 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.com> writes:
In re:
> >> s 2710. Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records
>BTW, I believe this law was passed in response to the Judge Bork nomination to
>the Supreme Court. Some reporter trying to dig up some dirt purchased a
>complete list of all the movies that Judge Bork had rented, and published
>parts of it in the paper. They were apparently looking for some titles that
>people would find offensive.
Is it not fascinating that many "privacy" laws come about as the result
of some embarassment or inconvenience of public officials? As I recall,
some Federal legislator was supremely embarassed when a cellular
telephone conversation to which he was a party was made public. The
result was the silly act which proscribes the monitoring of the
cellular band.
And is it not amusing that the California DMV database is secure from
absolutely no one except "the people"? Any collection agency, bank,
governmental agency from the Toonerville PD on up, or marketing firm
can look at your DMV file with more ease than you can. Indeed,
many credit and check verifying companies have direct connections to
the DMV computer. Some privacy!
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
------------------------------
From: Joe Zobkiw <zobkiw@world.std.com>
Subject: computer privacy info needed
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 02:12:33 GMT
I am interested in finding some information on computer privacy as it
relates to workers rights when companies install software that allows
managers to "oversee" the documents, applications, etc. that are being
run on the workers machines.
If anyone knows where I can gather some info on these things (theses,
papers, etc.) please email. Thanks in advance.
--
-- joe zobkiw Internet: zobkiw@world.std.com
-- AOL: AFL Zobkiw
-- mac.synthesis.MIDI.THINK C.OOP.asm CI$: 70712,515
-- communications.networks.cool tunes...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 00:18:15 -0700
From: Robert Lenoil <lenoil@apple.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records?
In article <comp-privacy1.32.7@pica.army.mil> bc335@cleveland.freenet.edu (Michael H. Riddle, Esq.) writes:
>> (2) A video tape service provider may disclose personally
>> identifiable information concerning any consumer-
>> ...
>> (D) to any person if the disclosure is solely of the names and
>> addresses of consumers and if-
>> ...
>> (i) the video tape service provider has provided the
>> consumer with the opportunity, in a clear and conspicuous manner,
>> to prohibit such disclosure; and
>>
>> (ii) the disclosure does not identify the title,
>> description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio
>> visual material; however, the subject matter of such materials may
>> be disclosed if the disclosure is for the exclusive use of
>> marketing goods and services directly to the consumer;
Last year I went to rent a tape at a Blockbuster Video near me. To
rent a tape, you must be a "member." Reading the membership application, I saw
(in pretty small print) that I would be signing a waiver allowing Blockbuster
to use my name and address for marketing purposes. I refused to sign with that
provision in the contract, they refused to accept my membership, and I now
refuse to do business with them. I believe that the Wherehouse (a California
record chain) has a similar waiver on its rental receipts. So be careful of
the fine print when you sign a rental slip at a video store - you might be
giving them permission to sell data about what you rent. As to whether this
lives up to the letter of the law - providing a "clear and conspicuous"
opportunity to prohibit disclosure - I have my doubts.
-Robert
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 7:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: E-Mail Privacy Policy
In Volume 1 : Issue: 042 "Allan H. Levy" <a-levy@uiuc.edu> writes:
>Also, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act,
>electronic files are treated in the same way as paper files.
>The documents in the files of employees of the State of
>Illinois are considered to be public documents, and may be
>subject to inspection through FOIA. In such cases, the campus
>Freedom of Information Officer must inspect files to
>determine which portions may be exempt from disclosure.
How does this policy affect students, visiting professors, etc?
They aren't employees of the State of Illinois. Other areas are
research collaborations, federal grants (which might have a security
classification attached).
I feel that a little tighter description of just whose files are
available under the FOIA and whose aren't is in order.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
------------------------------
From: Dean S Banfield <dean@world.std.com>
Subject: Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 14:42:08 GMT
The current topic seems to be that SSNs can now be required on drivers
licenses but in the good old days (10 years ago). I tried, quite
unsuccessfully, to keep my picture off my CT driver's license when CT
adopted a picture license law. My arguments were that the DMV had no
particular need or use for a photo on a license, and that the imposition
of such a stipulation was strictly for alternate law enforcement purposes
and other commercial uses. Raising the drinking age was a HOT topic at
the time and local grocery stores certainly didn't mind going along for
the ride.
Obviously, an SSN provides a much more powerful computer based invasion of
privacy, but where do DMV departments around the country get off being the
gatekeepers for IDing everyone in the country?
Have there ever been any successful arguments made against photo ID
licensing which apply generally to the citizenry. I know successful
exemptions are made from time to time if you can prove that you own no
photographs, are a religous zealot, etc, etc.
It seems to me that the 'need to collect' argument which now swirls around
SSNs on licenses has already been lost on the photo ID front. How can that
original loss be undone.
--
Dean S. Banfield Voice: (203) 656-1500
Real Decisions Corporation FAX : (203) 656-1659
22 Thorndal Circle email: dean@world.std.com
Darien, CT 06820
------------------------------
From: John Artz <jartz@bassoon.mitre.org>
Subject: is personal privacy overrated ?
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 14:08:17 GMT
Consider the following scenario: If I were a minor noble in a medieval
feudal system and someone proposed the preposterous notion that everyone
should should have a say in government and that each person should have
the right to vote, I could think of many reasons why this wouldn't work.
Officials would be elected based on popularity rather than competence.
Demagogues would be elected. Those seeking election would appeal to the
baser instrincts of the electorate. Better looking people would have a
better chance of getting elected. People may even elect an actor being
unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
Of course all these things are true, but we feel that the benefits of
having full participation in government via the one person one vote system
far outweighs the drawbacks. (I realize that the system is not perfect, nor
does it work out in practice as well as it does in theory but don't miss
the point here).
Now consider another scenario: If I were a citizen in the later twentieth
century and somebody proposed the preposterous notion that there
should be no restriction on the dissemination of personal information, I
could think of many reasons why this would be a disaster. I might be denied
medical insurance or employment. I might get calls during diner from
lawn services. My mailbox might be filled with junk mail advertizing various
consumer product. I might even be targeted by the Postal Service or the
FBI because I ordered a tacky magazine.
Of course all these things are true. But they have to be balanced against
the benefits of unrestricted information flows. As a society we place a
pretty high premium on freedom of information. We strongly support public
education and librarys. We refuse to allow the government to keep
secret information except in the most extream circumstances. People
are willing to go to jail to protect the freedom of the press, or to
prevent censorship. However, when it comes to personal privacy
all this high minded social responsibility comes to a screetching halt.
I suggested that there should be no restrictions on the dissemination
of personal information and that unrestricted flow of information, personal
or otherwise should be a tenet of our social philosophy in the same way
the individual voting rights are a tenet. This does not mean that it should
happend tomarrow. (Voting rights have taken centuries to evolve and still
need lots of work). But it should be a goal that we are heading for rather
than the current trend of placing more and more restrictions on personal
information.
John M. Artz, Ph.D.
jartz@mitre.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A crisis is just the end of an illusion. -- Gerald Weinberg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
From: Greg Earl Webb <Webbge@che19.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 14:55:13 GMT
/I would recommend that you head to your nearest Panasonic dealer and
/trade in your 2-channel set for one of their 10-channel sets. Then,
/even if there were 10 other cordless phones in your area, the odds
/of you being able to find at least one clear channel at any time would
/be extremely good.
The nice thing about a 10-channel phone is that there is a GOOD chance
that someone in the neighborhood will have the same channel. These means
you can wal around the neighborhood until you find someone with the same
channel and bingo.... Free phone calls.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #043
******************************