Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 13:28:21 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#101
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 17 Nov 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 101
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Privacy map
Re: Technical addiction
Re: Cellular Misinformation
RE: Re: Blockbuster announces plan to use data from video rentals
Re: magnetic strips on driver's licenses
Re: magnetic strips on driver's licenses
Fictional Photos (was Mag Stripes on Driv Lic)
Mag Stripe Drivers License
Alleged Rights
Re: Risks of Cellular Speech
Private Investigators and Your Privacy
Recording Phone Conversation
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: Carl Oppedahl <oppedahl@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy map
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 00:01:13 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
In <comp-privacy1.99.7@pica.army.mil> Chris Nelson <nelsonc@cobb.cs.rpi.edu> writes:
>From time to time, Playboy publishes a color-coded map which shows
>which states are most likey to try to invade the privacy of your
>bedroom and want to arrest you for doing something "unnatural" to or
>with a consenting partner.
>Various messages here on c.s.p have made references to "California has
>a law...", etc. and it prompts me to wonder if anyone has put together
>a privacy map. E.g., in which states are you expected or requiered to
>give you SSN to be allowed to operate an automobile on public
>highways. Presumably, some states are facist and some are considerate
>of your privacy. I'd be insterested in knowing which is which.
> Chris
>[Moderator's Note: Has anyone out there know of a source? WOuld anyone
>be willing to compile one? ._dennis ]
Well, reading this makes me wonder if the writer is familiar with the many
important privacy compilations published by Privacy Journal in
Providence, Rhode Island.
One of them is a state-by-state compilation of privacy laws.
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578 fax 212-765-2519
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 18:26 PST
From: Michael Gersten <michael@stb.info.com>
Subject: Re: Technical addiction
Is this a strawman, or what? This is an extreme view, with many logical
fallocies.
Lets look at the "danger signs" presented, and see just how much sense they
make. I claim that they are as relavent as the "Your co-worker may be an
extraterestrial" warnings we've all come to love
Now honestly look at your human relationships with the planet, your
environment your family and your inner self:
do you know what phase the Moon is in right now?
No, I don't. Nor do I see what this has to do with anything; the moon
is out there, affecting the tides, and where it is in relation to the
sun has little or no effect on us.
do you know which way the seasonal clouds are moving and their
shapes?
Which direction? Sure. In over the ocean. Shape? Get real -- all shapes.
can you comfortably walk alone in the woods at night without a flashlight?
There are no woods out here. I can walk comfortably alone in the jungle
(asphalt variety) without any problems. If I lived near a woods, I could. Can
you walk out in a Nothern Canada snow storm at night? How about an
Equatorial Rain Forest night? These are about as relavent as asking me if I
can walk in the woods -- if I lived near the woods, I could. I don't.
do you know the type of earth around your house?
Sure -- Sand and Asphalt. Again, same thing. I learn what is around me. Move
me elsewhere, and I'll learn that.
do you tell your children stories, or do you let them watch TV so they leave
you alone?
I have no children, but I do tell stories (RPG's)
are you aware of environmental stress through your personal
sensitivity to the behavior of local animals and plants?
Now, Hold On One Moment. Here you claim that the behavior of local
animals and plants is indicative of environmental stress. Prove it.
Do you choose to spend time on your computer or watching TV or
talking on the telephone or tinkering with your car or with other
technology rather than being with your mate or children?
I have no mate, or children. (I know, get a life. Where are they sold?)
In another section, a quick test is given to determine if you are a
techie: Turn off your electricity for a week. Alas, this test also
falls flat on its face. Why?
Dependence vs. Addiciton: I am dependent on technical things, and
electricity. I use a Refrigerator rather than go shopping every day for
perishables. If I were to turn off my electricity, it would be a major
inconvinience, as it would cost me about an extra hour a day in
shopping, plus I would be throwing out stuff, like milk, that I could
not drink in one day. Plus I would be paying much more for the stuff I
did use because of the waste. On the other hand, I have gone a month
without TV, computers, etc., living out of a backpack in Austrailia.
Great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Try turning off your water for a week, and tell me if you are addicted
to water.
Next, he says that use of the electric light is a sign that someone is
out of touch. I'm sorry, but without a lightbulb I only have about 10
hours a day of effective sunlight. I'm active for 24 - 8 = 16 hours.
That means that for 6 hours a day I'm up, wanting to do things, and
have no environment conductive to my doing anything. Well, I suppose I
could start a fire to get some light, except that that would burn down
the building that I live in. So that also falls flat. (Although I could
use candles, if I could find someone who sold non-drip candles that
were safe in a highly papered environment, and even then the lack of
sufficient light would lead to much more eyestrain, which has its own
problems.)
Finally, he claims that we must stay away from all technology for long
periods of time. What is technology?
Is modern farming techniques that let us feed about 3.5 -4.5 billion people a
day technology?
Is paper technology?
Is any form of communication other than shouting technology?
Is any form of building, other than a lean-to, technology?
Is anything that can support more than about 100 people in ALL of Los
Angeles technology? (That, if I remember correctly, is the anthropologist
estimate of the number of indians who lived in the area before "modern man"
came by).
Where do you draw the line? If I understand you correctly, you are
advocating a technology level that cannot support more than a few hundred
thousand people, which means that about 1 in a million will survive, and the
other (million - 1) people will die. Thats extreme. But yes, it will solve all the
overpopulation produced problems.
--
Michael Gersten michael@stb.info.com
HELLO! I'm a signature virus! Join in the fun and copy me into yours!
ex:.-1,. w $HOME/.signature
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 7:49:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Cellular Misinformation
In Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 14 Nov 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 099
Monty Solomon <monty@proponent.com> writes:
>Excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 14.03
>Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:58:48 EST
>From: "Barry C. Nelson" <bnelson@ccb.bbn.com>
>What I found more interesting was a discussion about the Coast Guard preparing
>to adopt *CG as a maritime cellular distress number. A local official was
>quoted as saying that the existing broadcast channels will remain in operation
>because anyone nearby will hear you and the CG operates Direction Finding
>stations to pinpoint your location. Okay...
>
>But then he went on to say that cellular calls "only give you a point to point
>channel", leading one to the wrong belief that they couldn't DF a cellular
>user, and that nobody else could listen if they wanted to.
I'm not a boater but I do know many people who own them and have worked
part-time as a mate of a commercial fishing boat and my feeling is that I'd
much rather rely on a radio in an emergency situation than cellular.
Boaters are *supposed* to stay tuned to the emergency channel at all times
unless actively engaged in a conversation with other boaters. The purpose
is that if a boater is in trouble, those nearest to him/her can assist,
probably faster than the Coast Guard.
Cellular phones wouldn't work in many areas where there is the ability
to do off-shore fishing (East and West Coasts and the Gulf of Mexico)
and some boats are out over 100 miles from shore.
They might work in the inland waters, but then again, I'd rather go with
something more reliable in maritime communications.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
------------------------------
Subject: RE: Re: Blockbuster announces plan to use data from video rentals
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy@cybrspc.uucp>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 03:36:42 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
Richard Thomsen <rgt@beta.lanl.gov> writes:
> mellon@ncd.com writes:
> >Needless to say, Blockbuster does not get my business. If you don't like
> >their business practices, whether they have to do with privacy issues or
> >censorship issues, I suggest that you vote with your pocketbook. :'>
>
> This is an interesting comment. Because a company does not rent out movies
> that you want to see, this is "censorship?" I thought this was a newsgroup
> about privacy. What about the privacy of the company, and its right to
> rent what it wants? Why does it have to rent what you want?
An earlier note in this thread mentioned a video store that had been
taken over by Blockbuster. In that case, certain types of movies
disappeared from the rental stock. That forms the basis of the
association between Blockbuster Video and censorship.
Your message does bring up an interesting point, though. While we are
all understandably concerned about our privacy, the very organizations
we decry for violating our privacy must have some reasonable expectation
of privacy, as well. Since the two imperatives obviously conflict, how
should this conflict be resolved?
I ask this because I see the predominate tone of privacy arguments as
leaning toward the individual. Personally, I tend to agree, but I'm
interested in how the situation is dealt with from the other side.
--
Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | "press to test"
roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu | main(){ | <click>
cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu | float x=1; | "release
| printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} | to detonate"
------------------------------
Return-Path: <Joseph_Anthony_Truitt@cup.portal.com>
From: Joseph_Anthony_Truitt@cup.portal.com
Subject: Re: magnetic strips on driver's licenses
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 10:47:11 PST
In message <comp-privacy1.100.5@pica.army.mil>,
Tom Wicklund <wicklund@opus.intellistor.com> writes:
>In <comp-privacy1.97.8@pica.army.mil> Jim Budler <jimb@silvlis.com> writes:
>>Of course, since my drivers license now has a mag stripe on the back,
>>how long is it before the grocery store starts swiping it through the
>>cash register to validate a check?
>
>This seems rather dangerous. The store clerks will quickly get into
>the habit of swiping the license through the register without looking
>at the picture or signature. It's one step further to being able to
>steal a checkbook and wallet and use them in relative safety without
>worrying about an ID.
A "Lucky" grocery store in San Jose, CA, is already swiping the new drivers
licenses for check validation. I didn't notice my checker looking closely
at the picture or me. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but I had
not considered until that time that anyone but the DMV or law enforcement
would read the mag stripe. Duh.
Does anyone have a comprehensive listing of the information encoded in the
stripe? I guess I don't mind too much, if there is no more info than is
already visible on the card, but I have to wonder about "bonus" info.
------------------------------
From: John G Dobnick <jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: magnetic strips on driver's licenses
Date: 17 Nov 1992 02:14:20 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
> In <comp-privacy1.97.4@pica.army.mil> Doctor Math <root@sanger.chem.nd.edu> wri\tes:
>
>>The state of California is now issuing laminated plastic drivers licenses
>>with a magnetic strip on the back. [...]
>
>>Of course, since my drivers license now has a mag stripe on the back,
>>how long is it before the grocery store starts swiping it through the
>>cash register to validate a check?
So, what if one happens to "accidentally" rub a magnet across the mag stripe?
Or store the license in an eelskin wallet? :-)
--
John G Dobnick ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd
------------------------------
cc: wicklund@opus.intellistor.com
Reply-to: TDARCOS@mcimail.com
From: Paul Robinson <FZC@cu.nih.gov>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:26:23 EST
Subject: Fictional Photos (was Mag Stripes on Driv Lic)
In Computer Privacy Digest 1-100 of Sat, 14 Nov 92 in a message
By Tom Wicklund <wicklund@opus.intellistor.com> written
On Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:34:13 MST spoke
Re: magnetic strips on driver's licenses
>Of course this type of problem also exists even when people are
>supposed to look at pictures. I knew somebody at IBM who spent a
>full day wearing a badge with a picture of a teddy bear on it.
In Arthur Hailey's "The Evening News" an FBI agent shows how
lax the security staff at most offices are by the agent
showing his ID around. So he asks one of the newsroom staff
to examine the ID closely and tell him who is on the picture:
"Err, it's Colonel Quadaffi."
The point being that most people don't examine the stuff that
is shown; the work is usually routine and people are sloppy.
While this can work for criminals this can help people who
prefer to (legally) keep their own affairs private.
------------------------------
cc: root@sanger.chem.nd.edu
Reply-to: TDARCOS@mcimail.com
From: Paul Robinson <FZC@cu.nih.gov>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:30:46 EST
Subject: Mag Stripe Drivers License
In a message from Doctor Math <root@sanger.chem.nd.edu>
on Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:34:19 GMT who said:
[Use of Mag Striped Drivers Licenses]
>as check validation) in the newspaper.. I imagine it will find its
>way into liquor stores to be used for age verification, since the
>magstripe would be "harder" to forge..
Like fun.
To forge magnetic mag stripes requires a magstripe encoder, which
costs about $1000 or so (it is programmed from a personal computer,
so you tell it what you want to do; I used to work for one company
that made them) and requires a supply of blank mag stripe cards,
which can be purchased commercially for about 20c each, and
you can have them embossed any way you want from a printer, or
if you want something a printer won't do, buy silk screening
equipment yourself (about $20). Silk Screening equipment is
often used for short runs of personalized T-Shirts, and is
really low level technology.
Why do you think credit cards embed holograms on them?
---
Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These opinions are mine alone
------------------------------
cc: flint@gistdev.gist.com, ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu
Reply-to: TDARCOS@mcimail.com
From: Paul Robinson <FZC@cu.nih.gov>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:34:11 EST
Subject: Alleged Rights
In a message by Flint Pellett <flint@gistdev.gist.com>
Re: Clinton Endorses Right to Information Privacy
On: 13 Nov 92 17:51:51 GMT
>ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck) writes:
>>
>>: 1. The Right to Safety - To be protected against the
>>: marketing of goods which are hazardous to health or
>>: life.
>>
>>While the other stuff on the list doesn't bother me this one sure
>>does. Basically it says that the government knows what is good
>>for me and will not let me decide. How long till this results in
>>making alcohol and tobacco illegal? How long till it makes
>>"dangerous" recreational activity illegal? "Sorry, skis and ski
>>poles are dangerous, you can't buy them anymore."
>
>The thought that the government might outlaw skis is pretty
>ridiculous. You might try re-reading that sentence and try to
>figure out how you possibly could have inferred that it was
>implying anything of the sort.
When the income tax was first proposed, opponents wanted a
limit on it because the government might try to collect too
much. The proponents argued that it was unnecessary to set a
limit since the people in general would have ('Los Angeles'
class) riots before it could go anywhere near 4%.
One of the original Civil Rights laws was not supposed to
support quotas on hiring. Senator Humphrey stated that if
anyone could find one word mandating quotas in his bill he
would withdraw it and eat every page of the bill. Today that
same law is being used to require quotas.
The original requirements of the Medicare/Medicaid laws stated
explicitly that the government was not to set the pricing and
quality of care. Today, DRGs set the maximum pricing and care
that providers will be able to issue under these laws.
Do not claim that the government won't do something; if there
is aggrandizement for someone or a means to satisfy some
interest group, the government will try anything.
Would someone have believed 50 years ago that the government
would confiscate property from people who had not committed
a crime or been arrested or accused of any crime, yet when the
property was siezed, the person whose property was confiscated
would have to prove - and have to pay the costs of the trial
out of their own pocket - that the government both was incorrect
about the siezure of the property as well as intentionally
negligent in siezing it or the government kept whatever
property was siezed?
---
Paul Robinson --- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These opinions are mine alone
------------------------------
From: "Wm. L. Ranck" <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Risks of Cellular Speech
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:47:57 GMT
: wrote:
:
: >2. Why, instead of fixing the technical deficiencies in
: >their product do they go sniveling to Congress to make it
: >illegal to listen...
:
: >3. Why in the world did our government accept the
: >sniveling and pass the Electronic Communications
: >Privacy act...most agencies of the government understand
: >the problem...many of them have implemented digital
: >scrambling.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Well, a US Senator's aide somehow came into posession of a tape of the
Governor of Senator's state talking to someone and basically bad mouthing
the Senator. This tape, or a least parts of it got into the papers and
caused quite a political stir. That tape was of a cellular phone conversation
that the Gov. was having in his car. Legislation was introduced to make
listening to cellular frequencies illegal a short time later. . .
Anybody think there might be a connection?
--
*******************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Kip J. Guinn" <kguinn@diana.cair.du.edu>
Subject: Private Investigators and Your Privacy
Organization: University of Denver, Telephone Services
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 00:13:44 GMT
I saw somewhere that women are being encouraged to run financial checks
on prospective mates (the line I read in the article was "She is currently
having Dun & Bradstreet run a check on his finances"), and this got me
to wondering: just how easy is it for someone, or some agency, to collect
personal information on you?
Yes, I know the basics. But I'm curious as to how they would go about it,
i.e. what databases they would query, etc. I've had this idea for awhile:
go to a PI or investigation firm and have them investigate you. Yep,
run a check on yourself.
I think it would prove very enlightening. For example, what if you wanted
to work for the government in a position that requires a security
clearance? You could have them investigate you with the goal in mind
being finding information relevant to clearance. I'm concerned, also,
with the apparent ease that "financial" checks can be run. What does
Dun & Bradstreet know about my earnings and investments? Don't they
need permission to find out those things? I thought even credit agencies
were limited to only giving information relevant to a loan or other
extension of credit. Can D & B just call up and say "Download what
you have on K. Guinn"?
Wouldn't the woman in question need to know things like SSN, account numbers,
etc. in order for them to even start?
I would like to hear views on just how an investigation like this would
take place. I'm curious as to how PI's do it, and to how open my
financial records are to others.
Thanks,
Kip
P.S. And no, I'm not going out with anyone right now, so I'm safe (?) :-)
------------------------------
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 01:22:41 EST
From: ELTQC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at eddie.mit.edu
Subject: Recording Phone Conversation
Can anybody tell me if it's legal to record phone conversation in Tri-state
(NY, NJ, CT) area if only one party of that conversation knows it?
Thanks
Thomas
[Moderator's Note: In New Jersey, you need permission of all parties,
notification to all parties, *OR* a beep tone deive be used. ._dennis ]
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #101
******************************