Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 17:58:24 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#048
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 11 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 048
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Concerns About New Phone Service
Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Re: Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs
Re: Privacy and blood
Ta-Ta for now...
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, 11 Jun 1992 13:38:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov>
Subject: Concerns About New Phone Service
In today's {Newsday} there's an article about a concern from the head of the
State Consumer Protection Board regarding Call Return. The intro goes into
a scenario where the phone is ringing while the homeowner is bringing in a
bag or bags of groceries and misses the call (the radio ad is even better
with the sound of breaking glass).
This scenario was provided by a psychologist who described another scene
that affected him where he called a "highly disturbed individual, a convicted
felon" calling him back via *69 after the psychologist had called him.
I quote here: "To my astonishment, this individual was on the line ... He
was able to access my private unlisted phone in my home by pressing a code
furnished by ... the telephone company."
This has raised a concern with the CPB and it's head, Richard Kessell, a
consumer activist who is not in favor of these provisions of CLASS service
(I don't think he's in favor of any of them). According to him it's the
case of technology meeting privacy head on and changes should be made by
the NY Legislature.
He wants to determine what is needed to insure that New Yorkers retain
a standard of privacy that they've come to expect (I don't but that with
telemarketers, junk mailers, etc. innundating me).
"This service is meant to be a convenience for the customer," said Maureen
Flanagan, a spokesperson for New York Telephone. "The experience in other
areas where we have introduced it (Poughkeepsie and Rockland County) has
been very productive."
There are just two known problems with this service according to another
NYTel person, and they surfaced recently from Long Islanders.
The article goes on and Caller-ID is discussed with the emphasis put on
privacy.
It is my feeling that because the system is new, there are bugs that have
to be worked out and the subscribers to these services made aware of the
up and down sides to each individual issue and what is best for them.
As for me, I plan to take CID with a per call block, Call Return (I've used
it and like it), and Call Trace with a price tag of $1.50 per pop.
One other item has surfaced -- Repeat Dialing. It's interesting but I
don't see the need for it when I have a Redial button on my phone already.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 11:46:10 -0600
From: "j.a. fielden" <fielden@spot.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records?
In article <comp-privacy1.43.5@pica.army.mil> you write:
>
>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
Hmmm,
I had a membership with a Giant video store that became a Blockbuster
video store not too long ago. When I rented a tape they didn't have
me fill out any kind of membership form saying the original membership
from Giant transferred. I never filled out an application form
for Giant since my parents just listed me along with them. I wonder
how their policy would apply to me since I never signed anything
in writing agreeing with it. Do they also list this provision on
their rental slip?
------------------------------
From: "j.a. fielden" <fielden@spot.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: Drivers Licenses w/photos and SSNs
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 11:56:07 MDT
In article <comp-privacy1.43.7@pica.army.mil> you write:
< deleted >
>
>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.
>
Actually it was lost before that. Why does a licensce certifying me
to operate a motor vehicle have to have my residence on it and anytime
I move I'm supposed to report it within 30 days.
Same for ID cards. The last one I got they ran down all the addresses
they had and asked me if I'd lived at any other address they didn't
know about. I found that _very_ disturbing.
My passport only has my place of birth on it.
------------------------------
From: The Wolfe of the Den <wolves!news@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Subject: Re: Privacy and blood
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 17:39:17 GMT
In <comp-privacy1.45.5@pica.army.mil>
rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:
>Khan <tmkk@uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>> >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.
>
>Irony of ironies: William Dannemeyer, (R-Anaheim, CA), arch-
>conservative and nationally famous homophobe had the temerity to suggest
>in 1985 that a database of all HIV-positive people should be kept in
>order to prevent these same from donating blood......
>
>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. Note, it says *minimal* risk, not NO risk.
As for being "acceptable", you are in no position to make the judgement
of what someone else feels is acceptable. No one is suggesting that
*you* HAVE to go out and perform any of these actions.
Additionally, I do not recall that the guide you referred to
prostitution with any particular admiration. It pointed out that sex
with a prostitute is generally less safe than sex with someone of less
frequent intercourse, but through propers safeguards and protection, the
risk could be minimized.
The risk to privacy here is that those who have opinions and lifestyles
that are less tolerated than others are perceived as having less of a
right to privacy than others.
Are we supposed to tolerate less privacy for some minority simply
because other minorities feel they are less worthy of protection?
I urge the moderator to quash the negative comments and keep the
conversation from devolving into something I can see on any other number
of newsgroups.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news "We don't need no
There is a real person who watches this account. stinking disclaimers"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 17:57:22 EDT
From: Computer Privacy List Moderator <comp-privacy@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Ta-Ta for now...
This will be the last Digest distributed this week, as I will be off
tomorrow. Dennis Rears, your regularly scheduled moderator, will be back
in the office on Monday, and will take over Digest/Usenet editing, list
subscription/deletion matters, and all the rest. So long!
tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #048
******************************