Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 17:12:30 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#082
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 23 Sep 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 082
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: SSN and Airline Antitrust Settlement
Re: SSN and Airline Antitrust Settlement
Re: Address required on checks
Re: Misconceptions About Rights of Privacy
Re: Teletrac
cellnet privacy?
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: rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva)
Subject: Re: SSN and Airline Antitrust Settlement
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 17:28:27 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.79.10@pica.army.mil> lenoil@catalogic.com (Robert
Lenoil) writes:
>>The claim forms for the Airline Antitrust Settlement ask for `Social
>>Security Number or Tax I.D.'. I really don't want to supply my SSN, and I
>>don't see why I legally have to...Why should I supply my SSN to certify my
>>claim?
>
>My guess is that any payment you receive under the settlement is considered
>taxable income by the IRS, in which case you'd need to supply your SSN.
>
>[Moderator's Note: Brint Cooper (abc@brl.mil) also mentioned this. I think
>Pat Townson has the best answer; It is required by the court. ._dennis]
Two issues, both only distantly related to this newsgroup:
(1) If a store over-charges me, surely I wouldn't pay income tax on the refund
they give me when I complain? Although I know little about US tax laws,
private email told me that I've to pay tax only the profit, if any, that I
make. Hence the settlement payments should (*) be free of income tax unless:
(a) You deducted the cost of airline tickets from taxable income
or (b) The settlement is greater than the cost of tickets you bought
(2) I've had several requests for information about making a claim on the
Settlement. All will be revealed if you write to:
Airline Antitrust Litigation,
P. O. Box 209,
Philadelphia,
PA 19107-9711.
asking for a Claim Form and Instructions for the Airline Anti-Trust
Settlement. No need to send an SAE.
Rujith de Silva.
(*) This is only my opinion, and I decline legal responsibility for it.
# I'm studying at Carnegie-Mellon, but that has nothing to do with this post.
------------------------------
From: Paul Wallich <pw@panix.com>
Subject: Re: SSN and Airline Antitrust Settlement
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 15:32:46 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.79.10@pica.army.mil> lenoil@catalogic.com (Robert Lenoil) writes:
>>The claim forms for the Airline Antitrust Settlement ask for `Social Security
>>Number or Tax I.D.'. I've read the SSN guidelines posted here regularly, but
>>this case seems different. I really don't want to supply my SSN, and I don't
>>see why I legally have to...Why should I supply my SSN to certify my claim?
>
>My guess is that any payment you receive under the settlement is considered
>taxable income by the IRS, in which case you'd need to supply your SSN.
>
>[Moderator's Note: Brint Cooper (abc@brl.mil) also mentioned this. I
>think Pat Townson has the best answer; It is required by the court. ._dennis]
Although the taxable-income theory may hold, then again the antitrust
settlement is for a claim for actual damages, which, if my memory
serves me, may not be taxable because, after all, you suffered a real
monetary loss at some point in the past (punitive damages, on the
other hand, are apparently taxable). And IMO the "court requirement"
argument is completely specious. If you put yourself under the jurisdiction
of a court and they ask for a pint of blood or your firstborn child,
certainly you have no obligation to comply. The whole point at issue
here is whether the court is legally authorized to ask for your SSN,
just as any other organization may or may not be legally authorized
to ask.
If they're not authorized to ask and nonetheless refuse to do business
with you when you don't give it to them, they may be in civil or criminal
trouble. (e.g. people have in the past been jailed for refusing to
accept U.S. currency in payment of a debt)
paul
[Moderator's Note: I do not know the reason the SSN is required. The
court can require it as an identifer for someone to collect the voucher.
Here in NJ I have to give my SSN to the court while performing Jury Duty
even if I decline the overly generous $5 a day. ._dennis ]
------------------------------
Return-Path: <letni!rwsys!sneaky!gordon>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 23:16 CDT
From: Gordon Burditt <gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org>
Subject: Re: Address required on checks
>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.
Fortunately, I don't think the legislatures have done anything
on this topic. You don't have a legal right to have others accept
your check, PERIOD. You probably don't always even have the right
to ASK them to accept your check, especially if they don't want
to listen. You don't have to give your address, but they don't
have to accept your check. What follows is just bargaining.
Personal information for trust.
Now, for those who say that giving false information is fraud:
what happens if the information is blatantly and obviously false
to anyone who looks at it? Is that giving false information, or
just withholding it?
Example: on a credit application form, filling in SSN: JUS-TS-AYNO
Example: on a credit card slip, filling in "your phone number"
(literally) on the line marked "phone number".
Example: when an address is asked for on a check, filling in
"Go swim in a toilet".
Another question: You have a physical address where you *CANNOT*
receive mail. You have a post office box where you can receive mail
(the ONLY place where you can receive mail - mail at work is
disallowed by employer policies of "no personal mail").
On a credit application, you put the post office box down as your
address. The potential lender demands a physical address. Since you
cannot receive mail there, do you commit fraud if you give it to them
without further comment?
Gordon L. Burditt
sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
------------------------------
From: Brad Miller <miller@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re: Misconceptions About Rights of Privacy
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: 23 Sep 92 12:03:48
From: "Patrick A. Townson" <ptownson@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
No merchant (or any other person to whom you are indebted or propose
indebtedness) is required to accept *ANYTHING* as payment for the debt
except the currency of the United States, which it is noted, is legal
tender for all debts, public and private and generally cannot be
refused.
Slight correction; this is true if the debt already exists, (in
fact, to refuse legal tender for such a debt cancels it); however,
in a contract (verbal or otherwise) the debt need not be denoted
in dollars, nor need the debt be payable in dollars. This has been
held up in court. Thus if you offer someone 10 grams of gold for
some item (or he requires payment in gold and you agree), he need
not take a (what you deem equivalent) FRN (federal reserve note)
value in place of the gold. You contracted to deliver gold,
therefore, that is what you must deliver.
----
Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept.
miller@cs.rochester.edu {...allegra!rochester!miller}
------------------------------
From: pjswan@engin.umich.edu (Peter Swanson)
Subject: Re: Teletrac
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 13:35:25 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
In article <comp-privacy1.80.5@pica.army.mil> Mike Morris <morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> writes:
>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)
>
>Years ago...
[stuff deleted]
>
>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.
The security system in some record stores uses this principle, on a 1" square
sticker that is paper thin. No special modulation is needed, as their alarm
only needs to detect the resonant frequency. The electronic components are
made out of metallic foil.
I have a keycard that also uses this principle. It is about as thick as two
credit cards, and sends an identification code to the detector. About 2" away
is close enough; I don't have to take take the card out of my wallet or take
my wallet out of my pocket: just move by butt close to the detector! It could
probably be thinner, but then I might break it when I sit on it. :-)
As engineer, I don't think it is reasonable to add external sensors, because
they cause maintenance problems and invite tampering. A lot of people don't
even bother to change their oil, how could you realistically expect them to
make sure that their sensors are working properly? Unless, that is, you
legislated inspections of some kind. I think that "they" could deduce
your speed and heading a posteriori using the detector logs anyway.
------------------------------
From: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
Subject: cellnet privacy?
Date: 23 Sep 92 21:19:29 GMT
Organization: ALMAC BBS Ltd
LE> Are you sitting down? Here in the US, rather than deal with this
LE> by adding encrypted transmission options, the cellular phone industry
LE> got together and convinced Congress to make monitoring cellular
LE> calls *illegal*. Even if you *don't* tell anyone.
Wow! The ability of any given legislature to go out of its
way to demonstrate that the law is in fact an ass, never
ceases to amaze me! How can it _possibly_ be illegal to
_receive_ the transmissions?! As you say, the only sensible
course would have been to incorporate some form of on-the-fly
scrambling or encryption.
I must make the effort to find out how the law stands on this
over here...
---
~ PQ 2.15 194 ~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Keith Willis
**** email: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
**** bangpath: ...mcsun!uknet!almac!keith.willis
--
ALMAC BBS Ltd. 0324-665371
Dos based USENET access, call for details!
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #082
******************************