Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 18:11:22 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#050
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 15 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 050
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Privacy and blood
Privacy and Technology
Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Re: SSN's and blood
Re: SSN's and blood
Re: Concerns About New Phone Service
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: Fri, 12 Jun 92 03:58:18 -0700
From: "Robert L. McMillin" <rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com>
Subject: Privacy and blood
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes:
> "Robert L. McMillin" <rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com> writes:
>
> > 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. At the time, this
> > caused quite a stir among homosexuals (or at least, the more vocal
> > ones).
>
> [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> I suspect that Dannemeyer's intention with respect to such a database
> had less to do with the control of AIDS than it did to do with having a
> convenient means of identifying those dreaded homosexuals. If you
> understood current blood-donating practices, you would see why such a
> database is excess baggage.
>
> People in "high risk" categories are simply asked to not donate blood.
> This means that even though I may be HIV-, as a member of a "high risk"
> subset of the population, my donation would be discarded without even
> testing it. Furthermore, ALL collected blood is tested. Our blood
> supply today is exceedingly safe; having a computerized database of gay
> people would not make it safer, but could certainly be injurious to the
> lives of the people on the list.
>
> There is a tendancy to dismiss out of hand rantings by "obnoxious" and
> "vocal" groups, but where there is smoke there is fire. Try to take
> each thing for what it is and not let your prejudices get the better of
> you.
Ordinarily I would agree with you: what people do in their own bedrooms
is their own business, and, as you noted later, the obvious intentions
of Dannemeyer's little list would likely be to control such behavior,
possibly using the now largely unenforced anti-sodomy laws that remain
on the books in many states. However, when it came to public safety
many of the various homosexual groups were notoriously tardy in learning
that AIDS needed to be treated as a public health issue as well as a
political one.
Also, the issue comes up of timing: the American Red Cross, beneficiary
of the multi-million dollar business of blood banking, was *extremely*
slow to get on the ball when it came to testing the blood supply for
AIDS, for two reasons: first, it didn't want even the hint of a tainted
supply to get out. The costs for testing alone could have reached
multi-million dollar levels quite easily, cutting into profits from
sales of blood related products. The Red Cross shunned even the
Hepatitis B test, a test that would have picked out that blood likeliest
to have AIDS prior to the development of an AIDS-specific test. Second,
in certain parts of San Francisco (the Castro district, specifically),
homosexuals were prime donors whom the Red Cross could scarce afford to
turn down. Knowing Dannemeyer, the question comes to mind, "Did he make
this proposal before or after general testing of the blood supply for
AIDS?" If it's after, then you can serve me a crow pie. If before, I
tend to think the concern for the blood supply (and only that) was
warranted.
> > 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?
>
> Mentioning this is typical of the tactics of those who want to have the
> edge of emotionalism to bolster an inherently weak argument. We need
> much less emotionalism and rhetoric and much more science and
> practicality guiding our actions as members of a society.
True, but what I frequently see from various quarters in the homosexual
community qualifies in my mind as wishful thinking. This 'guide' reads
to me like an invitation to death. And since the issue at hand was
whether the blood supply would have been safe from HIV (IF at that time
the Red Cross was not doing HIV testing, mind you), given the strenuous
efforts many gay political bodies exerted to either ignore AIDS or have
it labeled as strictly a political issue leads one to wonder about just
how much "science and practicality" they really wanted, and to some
degree, still want.
> You may view homosexuals as mindless animals, but most of us (not
> some, most) consider our actions very carefully as do most
> heterosexuals.
I don't believe homosexuals to be any more (or less) mindless than the
rest of us, Dannemeyer excepted. :-)
> I, for one, cannot believe that you would not consider (even for a
> moment) that someone such as Dannemeyer, confirmed homophobe, just
> might have another purpose in mind from that stated when he proposes to
> keep a little list. Throughout his career as of late he has attempted
> one dirty trick after another to rid society of the homosexual menace.
> What could be better than a major list in just the right hands to
> ensure that members of the gay community would be denied jobs, housing,
> or any of the necessities of life? He has publically stated this as
> one of his goals.
All of which I consider reprehensible in light of recent research into
the subject, which tends to point to biological causes for
homosexuality. You can't fault a person for his genes! Dannemeyer is
so conservative that local wags have dubbed him part of California's
"Caveman Caucus". Need I say more?
---
Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574
Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 23:29:54 EDT
From: Brinton Cooper <abc@brl.mil>
Subject: Privacy and Technology
The charter of this forum says something about issues of technology and
privacy. Most of the discussion has been about electronics technology
and privacy, e.g. computers, telephones, radio, etc.
But a far more invasive technology is about to burst upon the privacy
scene. As most of you probably know, the U.S. Military are about to
collect DNA samples (blood and saliva specimens) from every member of
our armed forces. The advertised reason for this is to provide for the
unequivocal identification of the remains of military folks killed in
combat or in accidents.
However, once the data are collected, who's to tell to what use they may
be put? Here is a partial shopping list of issues:
1. As the "Human Genome" project advances, technicians will be
able to tell more and more about someone from a sample of their DNA.
Genetic predisposition to physical and mental disorders will be
predictable. Indeed, many diseases can already identified before they
occur, including Huntingdon's (sp?) disease that affected the Guthrie
family. Anyon with a sample of your blood will be able to determine
your risks and pass that information on to prospective employers, the
cops, and life and health insurance companies.
2. Although the U.S. military are collecting this on just about
3 Million people in uniform, it's easy to see how the target population
expands to include civil servants and contractors just for starters,
then to anyone who has any business with Government whatever, either as
client or as server.
3. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that the U.S. military has
significant contractor assistance in preparing the techniques and
procedures to collect and classify the DNA-derived data. With this
technology in the hands of contractors, it doesn't take too much
imagination to see how data collection brokers can get ahold of it and
collect data from hospitals, clinics, HMOs, etc, then sell it to anyone
who wants it. Sample junk mail: "Dear Mr. Rears: You have been
referred to us as someone sitting on a virtual time bomb. At this
moment, your very genetic basis may be setting you up for a violent and
painful bout with cancer. However, we at BIO-MED HEALTHY HACKERS, INC
can help you avoid this dreadful situation. Just call us at
1-900-555-2678 to learn how you can have a better life than the
programmer of your poor old genes ever thought possible..."
I don't know about you folks, but I'm a whole lot more concerned about
this than about whether Radio Shack gets my phone number and sends me a
flyer, merely because I called about some AAA batteries.
_Brint
[Moderator's Note: Thanks for bringing this up. As readers may or may
not know, I am a US Army Reserve Officer. As such I have lost a lot of
my privacy. I am not sure if I am willing to lose much more. My dental
records are on permament file in California, medical records in St.
Louis, fingerprints with the FBI, and personal/social life history with
the folks over at DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency - the price of a
clearance with SBI). Unfortunately, I don't know if there anything that
can be done. That is one reason I started this forum. _Dennis ]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 15:26-0400
From: Christopher Stacy <CStacy@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records?
I picked up an application and a sample member's rental receipt at
a local Blockbuster Video (near Boston, MA) the other day, and I
couldn't find any of the small print people have been referring to.
Perhaps they have been convinced to discontinue the practice
(or at least the notification), or maybe only some stores do it.
Oddly, although you rent on the basis of a major credit card,
they still seemed to require the information for a typical short
credit application including employment and salary information,
and even several personal references!
The last place I rented videos from was a privately owned shop,
and all they wanted was either a credit card, or a small cash
deposit to become a member.
------------------------------
From: Skipper Smith <skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Re: SSN's and blood
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 15:16:26 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.46.3@pica.army.mil> jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) writes:
>The database (at least around here) is checked by people in the lab
>during the course of processing the blood, which happens long after
>the donor is gone. If they get a hit in the database, the blood is
>discarded, but the donor has no way of knowing this. No Red Cross
>employee likely to be in contact with the donor even knows that the blood
>was discarded, and they will cheerfully accept another donation from her
>the next time she comes in (only to have people in the lab discard it
>again). There is no information available to the donor which would enable
>her to "quickly catch on."
>
In New Orleans, when I gave blood, we didn't have to give our SS#, but we did
give our name and address. About four weeks after having given blood each
time, I would receive a closed postcard (a big one folded over and stapled)
that notified me of whether or not my blood had been accepted, listed several
reasons (with a place for a checkmark) if it had not been (which I never saw
used, fortunately for me. AIDS was one of the possibilities), and my blood
type. It also requested that if your blood needed to be discarded that you
voluntarily refrain from providing blood in the future. I don't remember being
issued any form of "blood donor ID" nor do I know if they maintained a data
base of people of that had their blood discarded. I do believe that the people
doing the testing only had a reference number to use for the blood, though,
and had no access (or, rather, I hope no access) to the original donor cards
that the reference number was pulled from.
--
Skipper Smith | skipper@wmtowdc.sps.mot.com
Motorola Technical Training | 8945 Guilford Rd Ste 145
All opinions are my own, not my employers | Columbia, MD 21046
------------------------------
From: Khan <tmkk@uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: SSN's and blood
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 16:00:51 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.46.7@pica.army.mil> kaufman@xenon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:
>
>Yes, every pint is tested, but testing is not 100% foolproof, and trying
>to weed out bad blood before even taking it is useful. There are reasons
>for refusing to accept blood that involve conditions that won't show up
>on a test, such as a history of malaria or sickle cell anemia. If you don't
>like SSNs as an ID, perhaps we should develop automated genotyping, and
>record the genetic pattern of anyone who should not give blood. Then we
>could refuse blood from your relatives, too.
Ha ha, very funny. Smartalec! ;-)
If the Red Cross wants so terribly badly to develop a database of blood
donors, let them assign their own ID numbers.
------------------------------
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Subject: Re: Concerns About New Phone Service
Date: 12 Jun 92 22:37:26 GMT
References: <comp-privacy1.48.1@pica.army.mil>
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
In article <comp-privacy1.48.1@pica.army.mil> NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:
>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."
I don't understand the psychologist's concern. He wanted to talk to th
disturbed individual, and succeeded. Why is he now bothered that "this
individual was on the line"?
It's not the case that the disturbed individual now knows the doctor's home
phone number (that's a concern with Caller ID, which is why people are
calling for the ability to prevent your number from being delivered) and
can call him night and day. He can only call the doctor right after the
failed call. (Does the Call Return information ever time out? Perhaps it
should.)
[Moderator's Note: I have used call return several times. On my bill is
just a charge with the notation "Call Return". _Dennis]
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #050
******************************