Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 16:06:56 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#090
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 09 Oct 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 090
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
What is privacy?
[Mike Brokowski: Re: Address required on checks]
Re: Computer access to SSN and bank accounts: 48hrs episode
Check or PO only - No cash accepted.
Re: Blockbuster & video rental records
Re: SSN in login ids / posting grades
Re: Comments on SYMC or FRAM
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: Wed, 07 Oct 92 17:28:19 EST
Subject: What is privacy?
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 17:53:32 PDT
From: Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG%UCSFVM.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu>
I would like to post the following:
What is privacy?
If we are to discuss the interactions of technology and privacy, it seems
to me we must start with a definition of privacy. This is of concern to
me not only as a consumer, and one would would like to keep private things
private, but also as a creditor, who would like to know a lot about folks
I am lending money to, and even more after they stop paying.
It seems to me that SOME privacy issues are potentially anti-business. Now
that does not mean that we should take up one side or the other as a knee-
jerk reaction, but it does mean that we need to be concerned about all the
ramifications of any proposed policy before we take it too seriously.
So please be kind enough to post your definition of privacy as it applies to
this list. Thanks. Dave
Dave Gomberg GOMBERG@UCSFVM Internet node UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU (415)731-7793
Seven Gateview Court, San Francisco CA 94116-1941
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 23:17:57 EDT
From: Brinton Cooper <abc@brl.mil>
Subject: [Mike Brokowski: Re: Address required on checks]
Organization: The US Army Research Laboratory
Mike Brokowski <brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes, in part
>>3. You must give id when spending over $10K with one merchant in, I
>>believe, one year, or the merchant can get in serious trouble.
.
.
>>--
>>Wm. Randolph Franklin, wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077; Fax: -6261
>>ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA
>>
>
>I am curious about 3) and the money orders. Does anyone know the rules
>for requiring id depending on the amount of yearly purchase? It seems
I believe this is a misstatement. IRS has a rule regarding the handling
of large sums of money at a bank. If you withdraw a sufficiently large
sum ($10K?), they must file something like a 1099 with IRS. This is to
enable "cash flow analysis" by the IRS in order to detect tax evasion
and is the means, and only means, by which Al Capone was ever convicted
of anything.
_Brint
------------------------------
From: Eric Smith <erc@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Computer access to SSN and bank accounts: 48hrs episode
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:25:58 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@ames.arc.nasa.gov
In article <comp-privacy1.88.11@pica.army.mil> Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.com> writes:
>Several people wrote to say how easy it is to get a dialup account with a
>credit bureau to get people's credit profiles. But, isn't each inquiry logged
>in the computer? I, from time to time, will get a copy of my credit profile
>in order to check its accuracy. It also lists each inquiry that has been
>made within the last year (2 years?). If there were an inquiry from an
>organization that I did not recognize or authorize, I would definately look
>into it.
>
>Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
>
There is something I don't understand about this. If you see an
unauthorized inquiry on your credit file, can't you use it as evidence
to sue the deep pocket credit bureau for invasion of privacy? But if
you can, why haven't millions of disgusted consumers already done so?
Surely the deep pockets of the credit bureaus and/or their client
corporations such as banks etc. are enough money to motivate consumers
to sue, especially considering that this is already a litigation prone
society. But in that case the credit bureaus would have gone broke
from all the judgements already. So I guess I'm confused, there must
be some factor I'm not considering that resolves this contradiction.
I also have a question about resolving mistakes in a credit file. If
you see an account that isn't yours, put in the wrong file by mistake,
you can tell the credit bureau it isn't yours, and they have to contact
the creditor for verification. But wouldn't most creditors just verify
the account automatically regardless of who it belongs to? Does the
creditor have to send some kind of proof to the credit bureau and/or
the consumer? Or do they just have to say yes or no, it is or isn't
a valid account? And what if it's hard for them to tell whether it
belongs to the consumer who complained? For example, what if someone
used fraud to open an account using someone else's name and credit
information, such that the creditor thinks the consumer who complained
is really the person who opened the account? In that case does the
consumer have any recourse at all?
------------------------------
From: Hap Haas <hh2@prism.gatech.edu>
Subject: Check or PO only - No cash accepted.
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:05:58 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Following up on the check-cash-address thread, here's an interesting thing
that happened to me:
I ordered something overnight, COD from Federal Express. When it arrived,
the delivery person would not accept my cash payment. She said they
required a check or PO number. I asked what the heck she thought COD
stands for . . and she was quite insistent that THEY define COD as Charge
On Delivery. It caused a big problem for me - I wasted about 30 minutes to
an hour resolving the payment problem.
She claims they reason is that not all their drivers are bonded, which
makes sense. Nontheless, when I order "COD", I use the commonly accepted
definition of Cash On Delivery and expect to pay with Legal USA Tender:
CASH! Oh well . .
hh
--
Harry Haas GTRI/RIDL/SB | Georgia Tech Research Institute
Research Engineer II | 225 North Ave.
hh2@prism.gatech.edu | Atlanta Georgia, 30332
"I know engineers . . . . they *love* to change things" - Bones
------------------------------
From: hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Subject: Re: Blockbuster & video rental records
Organization: Information Services, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:54:37 GMT
mccoy@ils.nwu.edu writes:
> _Privacy for Sale_ (by Jeffrey Rothfeder, a must read for people who are
> interested in this stuff...).
Type of Material: Book
LC Call Number: HG3751.7 .R68 1992
Author: Rothfeder, Jeffrey.
Title: Privacy for sale : how computerization has made everyone's
private life an open secret / Jeffrey Rothfeder.
Publication Info: New York : Simon & Schuster, c1992.
Phys. Description: 224 p. ; 25 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index.
Subjects: Credit bureaus--United States--Records and
correspondence--Access control.
Subjects: Banks and banking--United States--Records and
correspondence--Access control.
Subjects: Confidential communications--United States--Third parties.
Subjects: Privacy, Right of--United States.
Subjects: Computer security--United States.
LC Card Number: 92000364
ISBN: 0-671-73492-X : $22.00
--
hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai) : : : : : :: ::: :::: :::::
Unix Geek for Swarthmore College : : : : : :: ::: :::: :::::
Information Services, Swarthmore, PA, US.
I don't speak for Swarthmore College.
------------------------------
From: Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at AED.PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Re: SSN in login ids / posting grades
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 18:25:31 EDT
The University of Toronto uses a student number system which has nothing
to do with the Social Insurance Number (SIN), the Canadian equivalent of the
U.S. Social Security Number. For most students who originally registered as
full-time undergraduates in arts and science, the student number is the
nine-digit number that appeared on the pre-numbered application form that
they used to apply to the university in the first place. The first two
digits are the last two digits of the year the student first registered.
I have also seen student numbers beginning with a leading zero and then two
digits corresponding to the initial year of registration.
Faculty and staff are identified on their library and identification cards
by a six-digit payroll number. This number, not the Social Insurance Number,
is used when dealing with the university's dental and prescription drug
plans. (For government medical insurance, individuals are identified by
an Ontario Health Card number, which is not connected to the
Social Insurance Number. The Ontario Health Card is relatively new;
previously health insurance worked on a one-number-per-family basis,
rather than the present one-number-per-person basis.) Other provinces
once used the Social Insurance Number as the basis of their medical
insurance plans, but I believe all have now abandoned the SIN.
You normally have to give a bank your SIN when you open an account so that
interest earnings can be reported to the tax department. However, no
Canadian university is likely to use the SIN as a log-in ID.
In short, Canada is a utopia, and you should all move up north. :-)
------------------------------
From: Jinfu Chen <chen@digital.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on SYMC or FRAM
Keywords: Symantec, Frame Technology
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:15:48 GMT
Followup-To: misc.invest
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola, LICD, SPS, Mesa, AZ
In article <1992Oct8.214004.25766@cbnewse.cb.att.com> LOGIN@cbnewse.cb.att.com writes:
>Symantec, SYMC, which went down from high of $51 to about $6.
>What does the company do? How strong is the company in Software area.
>One reason, why the stock took so big dive may be due to institutions
>holding 20 million out of 22 million shares outstanding. It is almost
>too scary to own any technology stock now unless already beaten down.
>Another example Borland went down today as low as 25 1/2.
The Oct. 8th issue of Wall Street Journal has a cover article about Symantec
and not surprising, Borland International. It's about arest of a formal
Borland senior executive Eugene Wang defecting to Borland with alleged trade
secret of Borland. Local police arested Wang and searched Wang's house as
well as the house of CEO of Symantec and Symantec's headquarter. Borland
filed a suit against Symantec shortly after the arest.
Briefly, the story is about Wang quited from Borland and several managers in
Borland were suspicous about his departure to Symantec. Although this is not
first time Borland employee defecting to its rival but Wang's behavior a few
days(weeks?) before the departure caused some managers to suspect he might be
doing something to damage the company. Since Borland (and Symantec?) is
using MCI for email and MCI keeps outgoing mail in back up up to five days,
Borland was able to retrieve Wang's outgoing mail after he left and several
of his messages were sent to Symantec's CEO whose name escaped my mind.
Wang's secretary also defected with him and when she went back to Borland to
claim her personal belonging, she copies files from her PC to two disks as
watched by a Borland personnel person and erased files she copied from the
PC. Ironically once she left, the erased files were recovered by using
Symantec's own best selling program (N?? Utilities) and the files are related
to Borland's three year product plans and other confidential documentations.
The story is very interesting from the hi-tech spy point of view and probably
boring from the financial side. And it rases issues of (email) privacy and
hi-tech trade secret, which are already hotly debated these days. I probably
leave out many details so go get the paper and read yourself.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #090
******************************