Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 17:00:58 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#080
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 22 Sep 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 080
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Join F.E.A.R And Fight Civil Forfeiture!!!
Re: Address required on checks
Re: Address required on checks
Fraud Can Lead to a Term in the Penitentiary, Guys
Re: Teletrac
Re: Misconceptions About Rights of Privacy
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#079
_Privacy for sale_ by Jeffrey Rothfeder
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: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Join F.E.A.R And Fight Civil Forfeiture!!!
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 00:16:51 GMT
[Moderator's Note: This was crossposted to several USENET Newgroups. I
realize that this doesn't exactly fit into our charter but feel it is
worthwhile. _dennis ]
Here is the text of a brochure that I received from an organization
called F.E.A.R. that is dedicated to the elimination of civil
forfeiture. This looks to me like an organization worth supporting.
=== Transcribed F.E.A.R. Pamphlet (all typos mine) ===
What is Asset Forfeiture And Why Do We F.E.A.R. It?
Asset forteiture is a process which allows the government to take
property from citizens, without paying just compensation. Originally
intended to divest criminals of their ill-gotten gains, these statutes
have been expanded far beyond their original intent. Forfeiture now
widely abuses innocent owners, third parties and lienholders.
These laws can affect you! Anyone can lose property to forfeiture
since you do not have to be even charged with a crime, much less
convicted, to have forfeiture proceedings institutd against your
property. You can lose property under these laws because of a crime
committed by someone else. Often the criminal defendant gets off
easier than the hapless property owner.
We fear these laws because they give far too much power and
discretion to law enforcement. With law enforcement getting to keep
all the proceeds from forfeiture of property they seize, there is a
strong incentive to abuse their power.
Police can seize and detain property until trial on a suspicion,
without having to obtain a arrant.
Often the police rely on information from informants with extensive
criminal records, and even promise the informant up to 25% of the
value of the property forfeited as a result of his or her testimony.
The procedures in forfeiture cases stack all the cards in favor of the
government. At trial (sometimes without the right to a jury on the
state level) the government only has to show probable cause, then the
burden of proof shifts to the property owner.
These procedures are unfair. They allow the government to use
questionable evidence overpower the owner or trick him/her into giveng
up, without ever having to prove its case.
Often people even the government would admit are innocent are
victimized by these laws.
Lienholders, landlords, business owners and owners of commercial
establishments such as bars and restaurants, and all manner of other
honest businessmen have lost valuable property rights because of
something their customer (or tenant or mortagor) did.
It seems the police have not been able to win this War on Drugs, so
they are trying to palm off their responsiblities on the rest of us.
That way they can blame us, and take our property, when they fail to
decrease the drug epidemic.
Despite its already overwhelming pwer, the government is constantly
asking Congress for expansion of its powers -- and getting them. Right
now there are bills pending in Congress (sponsored by the Justice
Department) which would vastly broaden the range of criminal acts
which are grounds for forfeiture.
There is also more trouble brewing in the courts. Two forfeiture cases
are pending in the U.S. Supreme Court right now. In one of them, if
the Justice Department has its way, the "relation back" doctrine will
be expanded to take away all defenses of innocent owners of property,
even those who purchased their property in good faith, for value, and
with no knowledge of any illegal act having occcurred involving the
property. Because the statue of limitations is five years, no one
could buy property with reasonable assurance that it had not been
tainted in the five previous years.
How did these horrible laws go so far to erode our Due Process and
property rights?
Until recently forfeiture victims had no voice, no lobby defending
their interests in Congress and state legislatures.
Now, FEAR is here to provide that voice. We are small and we need your
support now.
Forfeiture is a huge money maker for the government. $2.4 billion
worth of assets have been forfeited since 1985, $644 million in 1991
alone. It is going to be extremely difficult to separate our
money-hungry government from its lucrative meal ticket. We need all
the help and support we can get.
Please join FEAR and volunteer on one of our many projects.
=== FEAR Programs and Services ===
* Newsletter and other publications
* Victim telephone support network
* education on how to protect yourself (as best you can) against
forfeitures.
* Legal test cases, as funding permits
* National Forfeiture Lawyer Directory
* Advice for pro se victims and forfeiture lawyers
* Computer bulletin board and file library
* Legislation tracking
==================================
Annual F.E.A.R. Membership Dues:
$20 individual, $30 family, $40 institutional
Donations are gladly accepted, and very much needed! To join send your
name, address, telephone number and membership fee to:
F.E.A.R.
P.O. Box 513
Franklin, NJ 07416-0513
201-827-2177
F.E.A.R. is a nonprofit Due Process and Protperty Rights Organization
--
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
RE Drug Warriors who enjoy making a "good" bust: I'm sure the Salem
Witch Hunters enjoyed their law enforcement achievements too.
------------------------------
From: "Thomas C. Allard" <fed!m1tca00@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Address required on checks
Date: 21 Sep 92 20:37:04 GMT
Organization: Federal Reserve Board, Wash, DC
In article <comp-privacy1.78.1@pica.army.mil>, claris!qm!James_Zuchelli@decwrl.dec.com (James Zuchelli) writes:
>
> Last year when I bought some books at a local community college they insisted
> that I put my street address on the check. (I have my P.O. Box printed on the
> checks.) I don't like giving out my address yet they refused to take the
> check unless it had an address.
>
> At one point they said they needed so "when your check bounces we can come
> find you."
Duh! Like you couldn't lie.
>
> How much right do you have to not give out your phyusical address, how much
> right do the school bookstores have to refuse your check if you street address
> isn't on it.
>
> (I finally gave them my work address.)
I don't really know the status of your "legal" right to have others
accept your check w/out your address. This is subject to the whim of
the legislatures. Personally, I feel that both parties should set the
terms for any contract without outside intervention (ie a law that says
a PO Box is good enough). If they want your street address, you either
give it to them or (better still) don't trade with them (that'll teach
'em more than giving in).
Sometimes not trading isn't very easy. In those cases (and really, in
all cases where you are not mailing them the money) use cash.
----
"Oh Life's a Cabaret
Like Berlin, 1930,
All I crave is my escape" --Dead Kennedys, "Saturday Night Holocaust"
rgds-- TA (uucp: uunet!fed!m1tca00 | internet: m1tca00@fed.frb.gov)
[implied disclaimer]
------------------------------
From: Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.com>
Subject: Re: Address required on checks
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 14:27:11 GMT
>[Moderator's Note: A couple of folks have mentioned giving out false
>addresses, SSNs, and telephone numbers. While this is one way to avoid
>giving out "private" information, what does this say about the integrity
>of the person who is doing this? It is easy to avoid giving out home
>addresses and phone numbers (Give work address or PO Boxes). Privacy is
>important but is it more important than ones' integrity? ._dennis]
Another consideration is that if false information is given in order to
obtain credit, it is illegal. In this case, no actual loss by the credit
grantor has to occur for there to be a prosecution or fine imposed.
Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
------------------------------
From: "Patrick A. Townson" <ptownson@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
Subject: Fraud Can Lead to a Term in the Penitentiary, Guys
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 1:35:57 CDT
jeffo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens) gives this very
dangerous advice:
> You can also give them a fake address and let the bank deal with you
> and let the college deal with you through the bank. I don't know
> about the legality of this, but it can easily be done.
The 'legality' is that there isn't any legality. And yes, fraud is
quite easy to commit at times. Here jeffo suggests postal fraud and
bank fraud. If the check bounces the bank will quite logically look
for you at the address in their records and noting the address written
in on the check will think something is very suspicious. With a little
luck they'll close your account and tell you to practice your
dead-beating through some other financial institution. Catch someone
in authority at the bank in a bad mood that day and it might be
referred to the United States Attorney instead. READ CAREFULLY: *any*
false information deliberatly written on a negotiable instrument is a
federal offense. So is the use of 'white-out' or the making of copies
of endorsements, and fudging the copy so it is blurred or illegible,
etc.
> For bounced checks, you'll probably get charged a fee (all banks I
> know of do this) and you can deal with the amount of the bounced check
> later (again through your bank).
He would have to deal with the merchant (in this case the college
bookstore) regards the amount of the bad check -- not the bank! The
bank is out nothing; they returned the check unpaid. But if this is a
regular occurrence (NSF checks) the bank is going to be looking for
him also.
> [Moderator's Note: A couple of folks have mentioned giving out false
> addresses, SSNs, and telephone numbers. While this is one way to avoid
> giving out "private" information, what does this say about the integrity
> of the person who is doing this?
Dennis, it speaks very poorly about the integrity and honesty of the
person doing it ... but you know how it is with so many Usenet privacy
freaks: they are oh-so-special, and oh-so-different.
> Privacy is important but is it more important than ones' integrity?
> ._dennis]
You and I both know they are not mutually exclusive.
Then Khan <tmkk@uiuc.edu> rejoins with:
> Sounds like it's time to get a mail drop (with a "real looking" address)
> and have that printed on your checks. ;-) Either that or pay cash (as I
> usually do when confronted with this sort of hardheader sales droid).
Mail drops are not in and of themselves illegal, although Lord only
knows most are full of deadbeats and con-artists as clients. Naturally
one could say that it is more convenient to receive mail that way, so
I can't say that's the only kind of clients they have.
Your comment about 'hardheader(?) sales droids' makes me wonder why
you think you are so different and exceptional? The 'droid' is smart
enough to know that people who write checks have been known to bounce
them and be difficult to locate later on.
Glenn R. Stone <gs26@prism.gatech.edu> adds his two cents worth:
>> At one point they said they needed so "when your check bounces we can come
>> find you."
> Gimme a break. This is the Marshal's problem.
Most of the time the courts will not undertake the role of a
collection agency. The recipient of a bad check is expected to first
make reasonable efforts to collect it.
> Pay with a credit card billed to the PO box. That way if the bookstore gets
> kitchy when you want to return something, you can have the bank can the
> charge and make'm eat it.
Only if the charge was made more than a certain number of miles from
your home and only if the bookstore accepts the chargeback. If the
bookstore complied with all the rules of the credit card contract (had
the actual card presented, got an okay from sales authorization; sold
you the merchandise on an 'all sales final' basis) then the bank may
attempt to help you but in the end will bill you and you will pay.
David Lesher <wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu> discusses how he thinks
he can avoid legal service and/or inquiries about him by creditors:
> I solve this with one of several techniques:
>
> a) Work address
> It did not hurt that said address was a gov't building
> inside a compound guarded by guys with guns. If you showed
> up and asked about anyone, they'd shrug and point you back
> out again....
And if it came to the point you were going to be sued by the creditor
then the process server WOULD be admitted to the premises. More than
likely a phone call would first be made to your supervisor or
department manager or the personnel director or the facilities
manager, etc advising them that a sheriff had to hand you legal service.
They'd then be admitted (possibly meeting you at the front door) and
you'd get the benefit of having your co-workers snicker behind your
back when they saw you get notice to come to court and account for
your activities.
John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> in his wisdom urges committing fraud:
> Now you're getting close. The way to handle it is to simply give
> them bogus information.
I love it.
> No problem unless you actually do bounce a check.
Oh yes there is!
> Then you might have a fraud issue to deal with.
You have a fraud issue to deal with as soon as you tender any
negotiable instrument with deliberate misrepresentations on it. Of
course based on the volume of business banks do, it is unlikely it
would be caught ...
But if they do catch you at it John, and a friendly judge somewhere
decides to place you in the custody of the Attorney General or his
authorized representative for six months or so -- let's say six months
in a work release (stay in prison overnight and weekends) program
followed by a year of Federal Probation -- well, don't say you were
not warned.
> Look at it as added incentive to never bounce a check.
Indeed.
Wm. L. Ranck <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu> says something sensible:
> I once had a store refuse to sell me something for cash unless I
> gave them my name and address. I refused, and I have never been back
> to that store. Oh, I'm talking about $40 here not something like $10K
> where they would have to report it to the government.
You made a wise choice. Stores operating like that are run by stupid
people. They have to report large cash transactions, but certainly not
the forty dollar ones. On the way out the door you should have asked
them when the government passed the law requiring people to shop at
that particular store. When they respond that there is no such law
then tell them you are amazed to hear that.
What really amazes me though is seeing messages which promote out and
out fraud against merchants through supplying false information in the
process of payment. All I can say is I hope you people who suggest
that kind of approach in your business affairs someday have it the
other way around and some deadbeat sticks *you* for a change. Then
let's hear your laments about privacy violations. I certainly hope you
do not wind up in front of a judge who observes the Uniform Commercial
Code and federal banking regulations (these also cover credit cards)
to the letter. If he does, he'll put you away for awhile or at the
very least you will have a federal probation officer bugging you for
pee-tests and the front page of your income tax return for a year or
two to say nothing of additional IRS audits for a couple years.
Please think about it carefully.
--
Patrick A. Townson ===> T h e C h e e r f u l I c o n o c l a s t <===
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu ptownson@eris.berkeley.edu ptownson@cs.bu.edu
------------------------------
From: Mike Morris <morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Teletrac
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 07:29:36 GMT
pjswan@engin.umich.edu (Peter Swanson) writes:
>I would expect that mandatory AVI will be part of the license plate.
>A thin passive microwave transceiver could be inserted between the
>paint and metal, and you wouldn't even notice it. This would probably
>happen first in states with large cities, in order to improve traffic
>management. In some places this is already done using cellular phones:
>the cellular ID request message can be used to deduce traffic density
>and speed if the proportion of cellular/non-cellular drivers is known.
>(I know this was done in Detroit as an experiment)
>If you can timestamp a series of locations, you can also determine speed
>between those locations. Of course, we don't have to worry about that
>because none of us break the speed limit, right?
Years ago my father did the local photography for Popular Mechanics
magazine (the west coast editor was a family friend), and a freebie
copy came to our house every month plus my grandfathers xmas gift to
me every year was a Popular Electronics subscription (best way I know
to get a young boy interested in engineering - get him reading about
building stuff - and doing it - when he's 7 or 8).
I forget which magazine, but I distinctly remember reading an article
about some university researcher who came up with a working model of a
resonant microwave antenna producing enough DC to power a microwave
receiver which triggered a data burst from a microwave transmitter on
a harmonic frequency (so the same antenna could be used).
The transmitted data burst contained the license plate and _could_
contain in addition a compass bearing and the speed. All it
would take would be the appropriate sensors. All power was produced by
the received microwave energy - and the entire device (less the
direction and speed sensors) was built inside an overly thick license
plate - maybe 2" thick epoxy with cast-in mounting holes in the right
places.
My memory is hazy but I think the article was in the late 60s or early
70s. I remember talking to my fathers friend the editor about that topic
and him explaining how antennas could be used on design frequencies and
harmonics at the same time. I also remember the use of the name of the
MOS family of transistors and a remark about his having to interview a
US Navy captain a few days later and my father kidding him about
mossy transistors being ideal for the US Navy. (old joke, but mentioned
to expalin why I remember it 20 years later...)
--
Mike Morris WA6ILQ | This space intentionally left blank.
PO Box 1130 |
Arcadia, CA. 91077 | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays
818-447-7052 evenings | me enough to be their mouthpiece...
------------------------------
From: Paul Olson <olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Misconceptions About Rights of Privacy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
Date: 22 Sep 1992 10:41 EST
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
In article <comp-privacy1.79.1@pica.army.mil>, ptownson@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes...
>[stuff deleted]
>And finally, Peter J. Swanson commented:
>
>> If you can timestamp a series of locations, you can also determine speed
>> between those locations. Of course, we don't have to worry about that
>> because none of us break the speed limit, right?
>
>The Indiana Toll Road Authority charges by the number of miles driven
>on their road, and they time stamp the ticket when you enter the road
>and when you leave it. Best not get from South Bend, Indiana to the
>west end (where it connects with the Chicago Skyway) in less time than
>driving the speed limit for 80 plus miles would take! They compare the
>times and you'll get a speeding ticket right there at the cashier's
>window. At least a couple times we've had to sit it out at the little
>restaurant nearby for several minutes until we knew enough time had
>elapsed to make a 'decent' arrival time.
This is interesting, as I drive the Indiana Tollroad quite often (>6
times a year) on trips back to Wisconsin from Maryland. I usually do
Indiana in under two hours (averages out to about 78mph), and have
never gotten even a warning. That doesn't mean that I'll never get
one, just that I had "nice" tollbooth operators, I guess.
But I was wondering during my last trip whether it would be
advantageous to claim that I lost the ticket. If they charge the
highest rate for the class of vehicle, and I'm driving the entire
length of the tollroad anyway, why risk getting caught by the magnetic
stripe? Does Indiana, Ohio, or Pennsylvania have photo backup systems
that they can use to check your plate?
>Patrick A. Townson ===> T h e C h e e r f u l I c o n o c l a s t <===
>ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu ptownson@eris.berkeley.edu ptownson@cs.bu.edu
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| __| Paul J. Olson - VAX Systems Manager & Resident Amiga Addict |
| C= ///| Voice - 301/286-4246, 301725-5501 |
|__ /// | DECnet- DSTL86::OLSON |
|\\\/// | Internet - olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov |
| \XX/ | Disclaimer: Statements in my messages are wholely my own. |
| AMIGA | "[the universe originated] as a quantum fluctuation |
| RULES! | of absolutely nothing." - Guth & Steinhardt |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 09:35:43 PDT
From: Mark Bell <idela!bell@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#079
Responses to a couple of posts about the check writer and PO box address:
>[Moderator's Note: A couple of folks have mentioned giving out false
>addresses, SSNs, and telephone numbers. While this is one way to avoid
>giving out "private" information, what does this say about the integrity
>of the person who is doing this? It is easy to avoid giving out home
>addresses and phone numbers (Give work address or PO Boxes). Privacy is
>important but is it more important than ones' integrity? ._dennis]
There's a bit more bad news about false addresses or SSN's. In the case
of SSN's, in California it is a *felony* to give a knowingly false SSN
to credit grantors or other financial institutions. That is whether or
not you are trying to defraud the bank.
>>At one point they said they needed so "when your check bounces we can come
>>find you."
>Gimme a break. This is the Marshal's problem.
Well, yes and no. The Marshall winds up being pretty much an "employee"
of the person seeking restitution. That is, the Marshall goes where the
plaintiff says he can find the person to be served (or whose assets are
to be seized), once you have a judgement in your hand. The actual finding
is done by the plaintiff; the Marshall just follows directions at that point.
I used the Marshall a while back to collect a small claims court judgement.
The Marshall is then the coolest force in the universe IF you know where
the person's assets are. That falls into the domain of "practical law"
where you might have to do some checking around before you send the
Marshall. Every Marshall trip, fruitful or not, costs you. Still, the
entertainment value of having the Marshall go to someone's bank and just
sort of grab what you need is considerable. But, if you don't know where
their bank is, you are hosed. The Marshall does NOT find assets; he
seizes them after YOU have found them
I help run a charity Bingo game which accepts checks (a rarity in Los Angeles).
We make sure we either know the writer of the check or we have a pretty
good idea where to find 'em. And, when we have to go after them, we don't
use the Marshall at first. Instead, we have a bad check service. If we
have to go through a couple levels of indirection like PO boxes, it just
costs us more. The bad check person pays for this extra cost IF we find
'em. But, it's just another hurdle we don't want, so we won't do it.
A final note on the charity bingo game: We do accept checks for somewhat
more than the amount of purchase (they'll often spend the loose cash later
in the evening). Since we are a temple, they'll sometimes make the check look
like a donation by making it a round number and putting the Temple's name
on it. Well, if they're out to cheat the IRS that way (of course, most
of them aren't as far as I know), just imagine if they get audited!
We put a big old "Temple Bingo Bank Account" stamp on the back of each and
every check...
Mark Bell
Applications Engineer,
Interactive Development Environments
------------------------------
From: "Carl M. Kadie" <kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: _Privacy for sale_ by Jeffrey Rothfeder
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 19:54:21 GMT
The author of this book is being interviewed today (9/22) on National
Public Radio's "Fresh Air" show.
[Moderator's Note: I hope this gets out to people on time. Carl, would
be kind enough to give us a summary of the interview? ._dennis]
Rothfeder, Jeffrey.
Privacy for sale : how computerization has made everyone's private
life an open secret / Jeffrey Rothfeder. New York : Simon & Schuster,
c1992.
224 p. ; 25 cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. :211:-217) and index.
ISBN 067173492X : $$22.00
1. Banks and banking--United States--Records and correspondence--
Access control. 2. Confidential communications--United States--Third
parties. 3. Credit bureaus--United States--Records and correspondence--
Access control. 4. Computer security--United States. 5. Privacy,
Right of--United States. I. Title.
ocm25-550197
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #080
******************************