Date: Mon, 22 Jun 92 16:28:49 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#053
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 22 Jun 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 053
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Social Security Numbers and Social Insurance Numbers
Re: SSNs and Social Insurance Numbers
the Royal Family and Technology
Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Govt & Corp Sysops Monitoring Users & Email
Re: Can I lose the rights to my name and address?
privacy dilemma
Re: What can be done about ADVO mailings?
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: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Social Security Numbers and Social Insurance Numbers
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 05:32:05 GMT
No, that information is false. A T-C work permit requires proof of
Canadian citizenship, and a Canadian driver's licence does not qualify.
You need a passport, or birth certificate. I have a T-C, I know.
In addition, if you work in the USA you must have an SSN. Or if you
borrow money to buy a house. I have lived in the USA for short periods
before I got an SSN. In this case I was paid from Canada and here on
a B-1 visa. I was able to get bank accounts etc. without the SSN at that
time, but you can't keep that up for very long.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 9:22:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: SSNs and Social Insurance Numbers
In Privacy Digest Vol #1, Issue #51 Susanna Elaine Johnson
<sej3e@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu> writes:
>(1) SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS
>
>There is a coding system involved in the SSN structure. These
>details are from memory and should be verified before being
>relied upon. Consider the structure ABC-DE-FGHI.
>
>The group DE is a control group (I forget what the exact
>nomenclature is). If this group is ODD, then (generally) C is
>EVEN. If this group is EVEN, then (generally) C is ODD. There
>are validity ranges in the group DE, and these validity ranges
>depend upon where the SSN is issued and when (i.e., at what point
>in the last 60 odd years). The group ABC is an area group, and
>denotes where in the US the SSN was obtained. The group FGHI isa
>assigned sequentially and conveys no information other than
>serial number.
Not quite accurate if the DE group is even then C is odd. For my SSN,
ABC is even and DE is also even. I agree that ABC is probably an
area code of sorts and that FGHI is just a number issued sequentially.
My wife's SSN on the other hand, has ABC as odd and DE as even. I'm
not sure about the kids, though.
Maybe someone from the SSA could weigh in and give a good explanation
of SSNs as related to issuance, control, etc.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 12:19:08 -0800
From: Marsha-W <marsha-w@uiuc.edu>
Subject: the Royal Family and Technology
In the interests of science and expansion of technological communication
knowledge, I bought an issue of the National Enquirer (June 23, 1992,
"Largest Circulation of Any Paper in America")...The following accounts of
the Royal Family using technology for communication come from pages 24-27.
By the way, the front page has these subheads:
*Why Di tried to kill herself six times,
*Bulimiea--the disease that keeps her thin,
*Charles & Di's secret romances.
Technology moment number one:
Di exploded with rage when she overheard Charles talking on his portable
phone in the tub--saying to a woman she's conviced was Camilla
(Parker-Bowles, his long-time flame)--"Whatever happens, I will always love
you."
Moment number two:
Every time Di pressed the "last number redial" button on Charles' phone,
she was connected to Camilla's home.
Moment number three:
Terrified that Buckingham Palace snoops are spying on her; Di has fitted a
scrambler on her phone. She aslo had her rooms checked for electronic
"bugs," and shreds her personal mail.
--Marsha Woodbury / marsha-w@uiuc.edu / Urbana, IL USA
"You say potato, I say POTATOE!"
"You say tomato, and I say TOMATOE!"
"Potato, potatoe!"
"Tomato, tomatoe!"
"Let's call the whole thing off!"---Bill Walden
------------------------------
From: Dan Prener <prener@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy in video rental records?
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1992 04:57:15 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, New York
In article <comp-privacy1.51.4@pica.army.mil> carlp@frigg.isc-br.com (Carl Paukstis) writes:
>In article <comp-privacy1.50.3@pica.army.mil> CStacy@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com (Christopher Stacy) writes:
>>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.
>Are you referring to requiring SSN? I have avoided Blockbuster for
>this reason, and usually rent from Hastings (a national music store
>chain which has also gone big into video in the last couple of years).
>This weekend, I went to rent from them, and was told that they were
>now required to "update my card", and wanted my SSN. I told them they
>couldn't have it, argued with them, argued with the manager, and was
>turned away. "It's company policy (tm). You're free to rent
>elsewhere". Now that I've calmed down, I'll have to go back and ask
>for the true story - chain-wide policy, or local? Really, REALLY want
>SSN? Procedure for contacting the home office with a complaint, etc.
>This really sucks. I like to rent there because they have great
>selection, and also music and books and magazines, etc. Very nice
>stores and helpful clerks. I'm bummed. Boycott Hastings?!?
Why didn't you just make up a number and give it to them? I doubt that
it is a violation of any law to give an incorrect SSN to a video rental
store.
--
Dan Prener (prener @ watson.ibm.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 92 17:46:26 PDT
From: Jim Warren <jwarren@autodesk.com>
Subject: Govt & Corp Sysops Monitoring Users & Email
Last month, I gave a morning talk to an all-day meeting of an organization
of systems administrators of mini-class, mostly-shared systems -- most of
them employed by Fortune 500 companies and government agencies.
Initially titled, "Dodging Pitfalls in the Electronic Frontier," by mutual
agreement with the organizers, we re-titled it, "Government Impacts on
Privacy and Security." However, it was the same talk. :-) It was based on
information and perspectives aired during recent California Senate Judiciary
privacy hearings, and those presented at the 1991 and 1992 conferences on
Computers, Freedom & Privacy. (I organized and chaired the first CFP and
co-authored its transcripts, available from the IEEE Computer Society Press,
714-821-8380, Order #2565.)
The talk was long; the audience attentive; the questions and discussion
extensive. The attendees were clearly and actively interested in the issues.
At one point, I asked "How many have *NOT* been asked by their management or
superiors to monitor their users and/or examine or monitor users' email."
Only about 20% held up their hands -- even though I emphasized that I was
phrasing the question in a way that those who would be proud to hold up
their hands, could to do so.
--jim
Jim Warren, jwarren@well.sf.ca.us -or- jwarren@autodesk.com
MicroTimes "futures" columnist; Autodesk, Inc., Board of Directors' member
InfoWorld founder; PBS' "Computer Chronicles" founding host, blah blah blah
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Can I lose the rights to my name and address?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 22 Jun 92 01:37:40 EDT (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us>
In article <comp-privacy1.51.10@pica.army.mil> you write:
>In NYS, Walter Taylor, owner of Bully Hill wines, and a relative of the
>Taylor who founded Taylor wines, was forbidden by a judge from using his
>name on his wine. This was at the request of Coca Cola, owner of Taylor
>wines.
>
>Then he was forbidden from stating that he was forbidden to state his name.
>
>All he could do was to include a statement on the label saying to write
>the winery if you wanted to know who the owner was.
This is a result of a rather stupid set of circumstances having little to
do with personal privacy. Walter Taylor, who is quite a character, has
never liked Coca Cola's management of the Taylor Wine Company, contending
that they make large amounts of lousy wine, which in fact they do. He
thinks they're besmirching the Taylor name, so he started Bully Hill mostly
out of spite, and was putting his name in rather large letters on his
labels, giving the impression that his was the "real" Taylor wine company.
Coke contended that they owned the Taylor name, having paid Walter's family
a lot of money for it. So the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
told Walter to take his name off the label, at which point he blacked it
out with magic marker, and put on the line about not being allowed to use
his name.
The BATF, which gets to approve every alcoholic beverage label in the U.S.,
is very political and has no sense of humor, so they have put more and more
restrictions on what goes on Walter's label, because now they're mad at him.
It is my impression that Coke would have had no objection to a line on the
back label reading "Bully Hill Winery, Walter Taylor, Proprietor" so long as
it wasn't likely to be confused with Taylor-brand wines, but now that BATF
is riled up, he's lucky that they let him put anything on the label at all.
His wine's still pretty good, though. If you're ever passing through
Hammondsport NY, drop by and pay him a call.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
------------------------------
Return-Path: <news@linus.mitre.org>
From: John Artz <jartz@bassoon.mitre.org>
Subject: privacy dilemma
Reply-To: jartz@mitre.org
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 12:27:09 GMT
Suppose you work for an organization that has just decided to make
salaries public information. Clearly, some employees will feel that
salary information is private and should not be made public.
Other employees may feel that they would like to know where
they stand with respect to other employees so they can determine
if they are being paid fairly for the work they are doing. My question
is - Does the individual have any "right" to know where he or she
stands in relation to other individuals even though that knowledge
may result in an invasion of privacy for other individuals ?
Please don't give me the statistical arguement, because I think
it just avoids the issue.
[Moderator's Note: I work for a company (U.S. Army) where my salary
information is public. I could go with a Freedom of Information Act and
get everyone pay grade and do my own studies with it. Does it bother me?
A little bit, but I can't complain I knew my salary was public knowledge
before I joined. _Dennis ]
John M. Artz, Ph.D.
jartz@mitre.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A crisis is just the end of an illusion. -- Gerald Weinberg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
From: hibbert@xanadu.com (Chris Hibbert)
Subject: Re: What can be done about ADVO mailings?
Organization: Xanadu Operating Company
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 92 19:10:06 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.51.5@pica.army.mil> pciszek@isis.cs.du.edu
(Paul Ciszek) writes:
>ADVO, as some of you may know already, is a charming organization that
>sends people a half-pound of newsprint once a week. The newsprint is
>delivered with a postcard, which somehow makes it "mail".
>
>The post office says that these folks cannot be delt with in the same
>fashion as other direct marketers, as my name is not on any list; they
>just send a bundle to every possible address, inhabited or not.
>SO, what can be done about ADVO?
>
>Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu
The post office is confused. What you need to do is to call Advo and
ask them to take you off their list. It takes a while for them to do
the processing, and it may take you several requests, but asking them
by phone is the way I got them to stop mailing to me.
Once they're removed you from their list, you get to start hassling
the post office. The postal regulations require them to have a cover
card in order to deliver the pile of junk. The carriers will usually
do you the "favor" of delivering the pile without the cover card until
they find out that you told Advo to exclude you. So, when you start
getting the pile without the card, call your local post office, ask
for the post master, and tell him. He'll remind the carrier. It may
take a few repititions, and occasional reminders.
The phone number for Advo in Northern California is (415) 489-6577. I
don't know whether they're in the phone book. I found out about this
methodology from someone on the net who included this local phone
number.
Chris
--
hibbert@xanadu.com AMIX: CHibbert
uunet!xanadu!hibbert MCIMail: CHibbert
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #053
******************************