Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 11:56:22 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#047
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 11 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 047
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: SSN's and blood
Re: Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs
Re: Call waiting and Caller ID
Re: is personal privacy overrated ?
Re: Photo-Credit Cards
Re: Photo-Credit Cards
Re: Privacy and blood
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: Cheryl Chang-Yit <cheryl@iti.gov.sg>
Subject: Re: SSN's and blood
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 10:10:33 GMT
tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
[some stuff deleted from last post]
>>In California, there is a statewide database of people who should be
>>excluded from donating blood for any reason. It is of course useful these
>>days for donors with AIDS, but the database predates the AIDS epidemic.
>Seems pretty silly to me. Not only is it a misuse of the SSN, but suppose
>AIDS Mary, who got infected and is now bitter and wants revenge on the
>world, decides to give blood in the hope of infecting others. She
>gives blood once, they test it, find out it has AIDS. Her SSN is added
>to the list. She gives blood again, only this time they refuse since her
>SSN is on the list. She catches on quickly, and gives a fake SSN the
>next time. They accept her blood. I sure hope they test each and every
>donation, since she has easily circumvented the system. And since they have
>to test each and every donated pint *anyway*, what's the point in keeping
>the stupid database?
No, I don't think they have to test every pint. For example, if the place
has a discreet method by which you tell them not to use your blood, they
can simply dispose of the blood. No testing, no cost of testing. The
issue would be saving money. Every place in the U.S. at which I've donated
had some sort of discreet notification method, usually a bar-coded yes or
no sticker. This is because some people feel the need to be seen giving
blood though they know it shouldn't be used.
I haven't verified this (and can't just now because I'm working
outside the U.S.) but perhaps the "point" mentioned in the above story
of AIDS Mary and the database is likewise one of cost. If the blood bank
"KNOWS" the blood is bad because the donor's SSN is in the database, it may
dispose of the blood without unnecessary testing. If they don't find
the SSN in the database or haven't another reason to think the blood is
bad, then they MUST test. Hopefully the testing is what's keeping AIDS Mary
from hurting unsuspecting blood recipients because I agree that the
database is ineffective against those like her.
Back to the issue of requesting SSNs for blood donors. If cost and
perhaps a mild attempt at screening are the prime motivations for keeping
the SSN database of "bad" donors, are these sufficient reasons for
requesting the SSNs?
-- Cheryl
------------------------------
From: robert@unlv.edu (Robert Cray)
Subject: Re: Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 21:50:34 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.43.7@pica.army.mil> dean@world.std.com (Dean S Banfield) writes:
>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
Is this true? In Nevada the drivers license is a 12 digit number which
is not your SSN, but someone recently mailed me the algorithm for converting
it to your SSN: ((1st-10-digits - 2,600,000,001)/2). Pretty sleazy. I
called DMV and they acknowledged the algorithm and said "yes, you must give
us your SSN to get a license." Do any other states use this goofy algorithm?
--robert
--
robert@cs.unlv.edu
------------------------------
From: robert@unlv.edu (Robert Cray)
Subject: Re: Call waiting and Caller ID
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 21:59:02 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.35.7@pica.army.mil> dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner (Dokken)) writes:
>
> 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.
True, but I can dial *69 and at least get the last number that called me
(even if they called while I was on the line).
--robert
------------------------------
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: is personal privacy overrated ?
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 22:22:16 GMT
I can give you a good, current example of where privacy is necessary.
A friend of mine publishes an alternative-religion magazine. There
is nothing objectionable about it -- it contains nothing but history,
herbal lessons, and essay or two and an occasional potshot at
Fundamentalist Christians. (I hesitate to even call them potshots,
considering the rabid condemnation they return).
He has received numerous 'hate' letters and even death threats.
He knows of people in his religion fired from their jobs (even
government jobs) on the basis of their religion.
He can take some (expensive) actions on his own: he won't sell his
subscription list. He won't file for 'non-profitable organization'
status (the magazine is clearly religious in nature, and could easily
be named the official 'organ' of the local group). He won't file
for second class mailing privileges. (Both of the two latter items
require granting the government permission to read subscriber lists --
and people have lost their jobs due to association with his religion).
But it goes even further than that.... (Remember those death threats).
He has a P.O. Box through a private company since the Post Office
provides the home address of users of their Post Office Boxes. He
can't register to vote (so far) because the state requires a 'public-
record' home address.
In short, it's a real pain. But he can't do anything else -- what
can the police do with an anonymous letter from out-of-state?
If everyone acted like reasonable adults, companies sharing information
wouldn't be a problem. But many people _don't_ act like reasonable
adults. My friend receives death threats for publishing a pagan
magazine. A group in Colorado is trying to pass an initiative that
will strip explicit civil rights from a major group (it prohibits
inclusion of gays as a 'protected minority' in local civil rights
laws... meaning the local fundie coach can fire the towel boy exclusively
because he is gay, despite the fact it is a _state_ job (actual story)).
Another group in Oregon is trying to pass an initiative prohibiting
the state from 'condoning' (defined as 'ignoring') heineous criminals
such as gays, S&M freaks, etc. George Bush says that he believes
'belief in God' is a requirement for citizenship and isn't sure
atheists should be allowed to vote....
You'll notice my examples are primarily political. Remember that --
the commericial aspects of invaded privacy (junk mail, cold calls)
are trivial compared to the political aspects. We already have
fundies photographing cars outside 'objectionable' establishments
and sending hate mail to the drivers through DMV records... do we
need the same for people who subscribe to the 'wrong' magazines
or buy the 'wrong' products?
Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
------------------------------
From: Lee Ridgway <ridgway@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Photo-Credit Cards
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 17:41:14 GMT
Cambridge Trust Company (Massachusetts) has been using photos on its Mastercards
for years. When you renew your card, you go to a branch office and get a new
photo taken. I don't know their procedure if you are not in the area. This is a
local bank (in the old-fashioned sense), with about 6 offices in or near
Cambridge. The bank also supplies its own photo IDs to its customers, for check
cashing purposes. THe photo cards are no extra charge (the MC card fee itself is
reasonable). Their cards are good for two years. One aspect of this is that you have to go to a bank office to pick up, and sign
for, your new card, and turn in the old one, which the bank official cuts up
while you watch.
When I travel and use my card, merchants look at the photo and then at me, and
invariably comment on what a great idea. I presume other small banks have photo
credit cards, but Citibank seems to be the first megabank to do so.
------------------------------
From: "Wm. L. Ranck" <ranck@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Photo-Credit Cards
Date: 10 Jun 92 17:56:14 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.45.3@pica.army.mil> rms@miles.miles.com (Rob Schultz) writes:
>From a blurb at the bottom of my last Citibank Visa statement:
> For added security, you can now put your photo
> on your Citibank Visa card. This new feature is
> available to you at no extra cost. You will be
> receiving a special postage-paid mailer soon.
<stuff deleted>
>Has anyone heard of this before? Why are they giving this service to
>cardmembers for free? Are they (can they?) using the photos for dubious
>purposes? What would these be?
Well, they probably figure that it will cut down on card fraud. People
who deal in stolen cards won't be able to get as much out of a card with
the owner's picture on it. Of course this sort of depends on how hard
it will be to remove/replace the picture on the card.
The cost to them is probably very small. They have to issue new cards
every few years anyway so it's really just the incremental cost of adding
the picture.
Will they keep the picture in electronic form? Who knows. Will they
ask for a new picture when your card expires?
At the outset I would guess they are just trying to do something that
seems like a good idea to them. You know the old saying: "Never ascribe
to malice that which can be explained by basic stupidity."
*************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck __ O DoD #0496 RANCK@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU *
* // \ *
* // Lean it like you mean it! *
*************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 02:26:36 PDT
From: Linc Madison <linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Privacy and blood
In article <comp-privacy1.45.5@pica.army.mil>
Robert L. McMillin (rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com) writes:
>
>Normally I don't agree with much Dannemeyer has to say, but I frequently
>find that the propaganda put out by some of the more obnoxious elements
>of the homosexual community to be downright dangerous for themselves, if
>to no one else. Just last year, I read a so-called 'saf-er sex guide'
>published via sci.med.aids that suggested that sex with multiple
>partners, fistf-cking, and prostitution, were all acceptable practices
>that "can be done with minimal risk of AIDS," and that warnings against
>these practices "are based on moralism not medicine." Oh really?
Yes, really. Having sex with multiple partners does not significantly
increase the risk of HIV transmission, provided that reasonable safer
sex precautions are used EVERY time. Fisting per se does not pose any
risk of HIV transmission at all. It does present other risks, and it
increases the likelihood of HIV transmission in unsafe sex following the
fisting. The exchange of money for sex or for any other reason does not
present any risk of HIV transmission whatsoever, unless the money is
covered with infected blood and you have large open sores on your hands.
Visiting a prostitute may be a danger to your soul, and to your privacy
depending on where you live, but it need not be a danger to your health.
-- Lincoln Madison == Linc@Tongue1.Berkeley.EDU
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #047
******************************